I have allegiance to my country, not the government. IMO, the government owes it's allegiance to the citizenry. It's an important distinction in my book.
I have allegiance to my country, not the government. IMO, the government owes it's allegiance to the citizenry. It's an important distinction in my book.
country would be a better word for sure but I just inserted it into my post the way the dictionary had it. Either way the guy didnt give a damn.
I'm screwed... no allegiance to any government or country. Think I saw a drone flying over me as I made my run to Dallass last night. 
According to what I could find on the web Awlaki renounced his citizenship, and called on other American muslims to wage war against America. So no longer a citizen and trying to get others to attack the US, good night scumbag.
On a side note, Foxnews and most conservatives have been praising Obama for this and other terrorist kills. Only the wackos have not.
On a side note, Foxnews and most conservatives have been praising Obama for this and other terrorist kills. Only the wackos have not.
Voting to revoke someone's right to due process and actually having the authority to remove someone's due process are two very different things in our system, are they not? I still don't see how the government can legally do that under our constitution.
It always amazes me how so many people here refuse to believe the government on so many issues and yet get all excited when something like this happens. If the feds label some right-wing militia in Michigan 'terrorists' does that give the government the right to drop a missile on them? How many people would have serious doubts about our government being 'authorized' to take out any target it deemed to be terrorists if the accused terrorist was their neighbor (like the guy they just arrested in MA)?
Just because someone refuses to turn themselves in doesn't mean anything. Avoiding due process is something that state (nation) must due to remain legitimate and to follow the rule of law. It can't (or shouldn't) be allowed to just waive that right for some individuals.
I personally have no issue with this guy being gone. I do, however, think it's amazing that are so trusting of our government to let it start assassinating US citizens simply because those in power labeled that person a terrorist. If the standard for being an enemy of the state is now having someone in the government point to things someone has said and deemed that person a terrorist then yeah, no reason to worry about abuse of power there.
I've struggled with this one, and for me it's come down to this.
We are in the midst of an armed conflict with Al Qaeda. Congress authorized force against groups like Al Qaeda (Ron Paul voted for it, IIRC). Alwaki was part of that group. Alwaki renounced his citizenship. Alwaki took up arms against the United States of America on a foreign battlefield (Yemen has been part of the battlefield for a long time, even before 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq). Yemen is not a permissive environment, attempting a capture would have presented too much risk. He was killed on that foreign battlefield. You have no right to due process on the battlefield.
How does that translate to a hypothetical militia compound in Michigan full of people who did or planned the same stuff Alwaki did (not just suspected of doing it, but admitted it)? Michigan is a permissive environment, as such we would be able to position law enforcement personnel to attempt a capture and give them due process. If during the course of that, they resisted...then any and all force as authorized by U.S. law would be appropriate.
We are in the midst of an armed conflict with Al Qaeda. Congress authorized force against groups like Al Qaeda (Ron Paul voted for it, IIRC). Alwaki was part of that group. Alwaki renounced his citizenship. Alwaki took up arms against the United States of America on a foreign battlefield (Yemen has been part of the battlefield for a long time, even before 9/11 and the invasion of Iraq). Yemen is not a permissive environment, attempting a capture would have presented too much risk. He was killed on that foreign battlefield. You have no right to due process on the battlefield.
How does that translate to a hypothetical militia compound in Michigan full of people who did or planned the same stuff Alwaki did (not just suspected of doing it, but admitted it)? Michigan is a permissive environment, as such we would be able to position law enforcement personnel to attempt a capture and give them due process. If during the course of that, they resisted...then any and all force as authorized by U.S. law would be appropriate.
But he didn't, so we shot him without trial instead.
Saying that if you want due process, you have to turn yourself in is a dangerous road, friend.
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=16288
http://www.thenation.com/blog/163724/assassinating-awlaki-obama-can-kill-anyone-he-wants
Who's next? Non-Marxists? Christians?
http://www.thenation.com/blog/163724/assassinating-awlaki-obama-can-kill-anyone-he-wants
Who's next? Non-Marxists? Christians?
I wonder if Awlaki had been filing 1040's to the IRS? If his renouncement of his US citizenship was meaningless as any "debt" owed would have to be squared with them before renouncement can be granted by the US?
The way I see it, the Constitution is now worthless. Definitely won't stop bullets or bombs. No point in my defending it anymore...
How's that "land of the free" mantra working for you folks now? Suckers!
The way I see it, the Constitution is now worthless. Definitely won't stop bullets or bombs. No point in my defending it anymore...
How's that "land of the free" mantra working for you folks now? Suckers!
Similar threads
- Poll
