Anwar al-Awlaki Killed In Yemen Air Strike

[dutchwrangler]

I'm trying to figure out what the dilemma is. If the man renounced his U.S citizenship, then why should he be considered a citizen and afforded the rights given to U.S. citizens? Should he not have the liberty to decide whether or not he is a citizen? It seems to me that as a human being, he had the inherent right to choose whether or not he was a citizen. Should our nation force citizenship down the throats of those who don't want it? Seems to me he would have wanted to go this way. He picked a side and faced the consequences. He wasn't a stupid person and I believe that he fully understood the risk he assumed with his actions and was prepared to pay the price.

This is the age old dilema. Who owns you? Are we self sovereign or are we subjects of the crown (government)? If he (and you and me for that matter) are owners of our own bodies and permitted to decide our citizenship, then by what moral authority does the government of the US have in depriving a sovereign entity of his right to Life, Liberty & Property without due process as extolled in the Declaration of Independence? By what moral authority then does government have depriving any of us of anything? To tax us and transfer what was our property (money) to others? To use physical force (batons, bullets and bombs) to coerce us to behave in the manner government wants?

If we don't own ourselves, then the answer to the entire question is obvious. As I stated a few days ago, I will no longer waste time defending the Constitution. It's a worthless piece of paper. It's a Utopian view that, like Communism, will never work because we aren't a nation of angels. Americans are no longer a moral and virtuous nation. Absent this sense of morality the precepts of the Constitution are failing and will never be achieved. We exist in a state of violence supported by the elites who control the military forces, the financial instutitions and the media for their gain while the average citizen is enslaved. Like plantation slaves, the citizen provides the muscle and has the constant threat of force hovering in the background to ensure that they comply... or else.

I find it ironic that many on this forum who normally oppose the Marxist known as Obama... fully support the Marxist known as Obama in his decision to murder a US citizen without due process. Enjoy the slopes...

 

[soonerwings]

If your argument that we own ourselves is valid, then he wasn't a US citizen. He renounced his citizenship and I'm surprised you'd deny him his sovereign right to do so. If you believe that he had the right to choose whether or not he was a citizen, then you simply cannot believe that a US citizen was murdered. To believe this, you'd have to believe that he is "owned by the crown" and that he's a citizen whether he likes it or not until he's told otherwise. With freedom comes responsibility and consequences for action. Ron Paul said it best in the debate when he said that being able to make our own decisions and being willing to accept the risks of those decisions is what freedom is all about. The deceased made the decision to renounce his citizenship and become an armed combatant. He suffered the consequences of an action...thus he lived and died free.

 

[Glocktogo]

This is the age old dilema. Who owns you? Are we self sovereign or are we subjects of the crown (government)? If he (and you and me for that matter) are owners of our own bodies and permitted to decide our citizenship, then by what moral authority does the government of the US have in depriving a sovereign entity of his right to Life, Liberty & Property without due process as extolled in the Declaration of Independence? By what moral authority then does government have depriving any of us of anything? To tax us and transfer what was our property (money) to others? To use physical force (batons, bullets and bombs) to coerce us to behave in the manner government wants?

If we don't own ourselves, then the answer to the entire question is obvious. As I stated a few days ago, I will no longer waste time defending the Constitution. It's a worthless piece of paper. It's a Utopian view that, like Communism, will never work because we aren't a nation of angels. Americans are no longer a moral and virtuous nation. Absent this sense of morality the precepts of the Constitution are failing and will never be achieved. We exist in a state of violence supported by the elites who control the military forces, the financial instutitions and the media for their gain while the average citizen is enslaved. Like plantation slaves, the citizen provides the muscle and has the constant threat of force hovering in the background to ensure that they comply... or else.

I find it ironic that many on this forum who normally oppose the Marxist known as Obama... fully support the Marxist known as Obama in his decision to murder a US citizen without due process. Enjoy the slopes...

I think you're overstating the governmental abuse here and understating the perfidy of Awlaki. We all know we're on a slippery slope in this country. However, this is less an abuse by the government than many of the abuses perpetrated in the early years of the GWOT. Rendition, torture and intelligence gathering techniques performed under the auspices of the Patriot Act are far greater abuses than the death of an avowed enemy of the United States, who was actively aiding an organization officially listed as an enemy of the United States in a time of war.

The question also arises as to which country Awlaki really owed his allegiance. he was a dual citizen of the US and Yemen. He spent only 18 of his 40 years in the United States and the evidence is pretty compelling that he spent most of his adult years in the United States committing fraud, funding terrorism and actively plotting to commit terrorist acts upon the United States. He himself fraudulently listed his birthplace as Yemen in order to defraud the government for scholarship money. He also fraudulently listed Yemen as his birthplace on his Social Security card application. Do we really have any question as to which country his allegiance was sworn?

Being born in this country automatically grants citizenship by law. However, that doesn't mean you're truly a citizen of the United States. Awlaki was a citizen of Yemen and there's little doubt of that. In the case of Awlaki, the two are mutually exclusive. We killed an enemy combatant in Yemen who was a citizen of Yemen. That he had "dual citizenship" in the eyes of the law is immaterial. Awlaki lived his life outside the law and he died beyond the reach of the law. His undoing was not living outside the reach of a Hellfire missile.

Anyone who likens his killing to a slippery slope that will result in Hellfire missiles falling on US citizens inside the United States or other countries where the law is routinely followed and enforced is grasping at some very wispy straws.

 

[dutchwrangler]

If your argument that we own ourselves is valid, then he wasn't a US citizen. He renounced his citizenship and I'm surprised you'd deny him his sovereign right to do so. If you believe that he had the right to choose whether or not he was a citizen, then you simply cannot believe that a US citizen was murdered. To believe this, you'd have to believe that he is "owned by the crown" and that he's a citizen whether he likes it or not until he's told otherwise. With freedom comes responsibility and consequences for action. Ron Paul said it best in the debate when he said that being able to make our own decisions and being willing to accept the risks of those decisions is what freedom is all about. The deceased made the decision to renounce his citizenship and become an armed combatant. He suffered the consequences of an action...thus he lived and died free.

If we own ourselves, then no... he wasn't a citizen. So... do we own ourselves? Yes or no? If you say yes then every damn thing the government does infringes upon our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and Property. Whether he was a citizen or not does not give the US government the right to murder a person who is sovereign, regardless of citizenship without due process. If we don't own ourselves... then we're slaves and the government can do whatever it wants to any of us. This means that the entire Constitution with the Bill of Rights is a worthless piece of paper.

For years I've been watching conservatives paint themselves into a corner as they supported these farce wars of Terror, Drugs, etc. You've supported the government through it all. You've empowered and permitted the government to violate right after right. You've wrapped yourselves so damn tight in the flag that you've constricted yourselves and now are unable to breathe freely.

Folks, you can't have it both ways. Either you support government to the end which means you yield all your freedom to them... or you say enough is enough and resist their never ending encroachment into your lives. The very law that was supposed to protect you (the worthless Constitution) has been perverted to be used against you. Bastiat was right because he understood the nature of man.

There is absolutely no responsibility with freedom. That is a farce. Freedom comes from the Creator. All I own to the Creator is acknowledgement that he created me. It behooves me to commune with him but that's a choice for each individual to make of their own free will.

What's next on the Marxist Obama's agenda... martial law? Enjoy the slopes OSA... suckers.

 

[soonerwings]

So... do we own ourselves? Yes or no? If you say yes then every damn thing the government does infringes upon our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and Property.

Yes we do own ourselves but your statement is untrue. Sovereign people may cede any portion of their liberty that they see fit in order to live in a society with rules. My main problem with extreme libertarians is that they're all about "individual liberty" as long as it's their own. The moment that a group of people bands together to establish a government where EVERYBODY has the SAME rights, they piss and moan about how THEIR rights are violated without considering the rights of others. Our government only abridges liberty to the extent that the voting populace lets them get away with it. Rather than railing about oppressive government, perhaps you should focus more on railing on stupid people or on the people that take the asinine position that "my vote doesn't count" and have little pity parties when courses of action get approved that they disagree with.

I contend that YOU can't have it both ways. If you believe that people are sovereign, then your are forced to believe that they can limit their own freedoms for the betterment of people around them. The government isn't some faceless entity, it's composed of sovereign people who vote for/against other sovereign people or their ideas. The idea that government is by nature a slave-master is absurd. It all comes down to what freedoms people are willing to give up in order to live in an orderly society.

There is absolutely no responsibility with freedom. That is a farce. Freedom comes from the Creator.

If you don't believe that there are consequences to how you exercise the free will that you've been given, I'd suggest that you hit the bible some more. Its authors would beg to differ. To make the argument that freedom has no responsibility is to say that everyone is free from the consequences of their decisions. You and I both know that this is simply not true.

 

[dutchwrangler]

Yes we do own ourselves but your statement is untrue. Sovereign people may cede any portion of their liberty that they see fit in order to live in a society with rules. My main problem with extreme libertarians is that they're all about "individual liberty" as long as it's their own. The moment that a group of people bands together to establish a government where EVERYBODY has the SAME rights, they piss and moan about how THEIR rights are violated without considering the rights of others. Our government only abridges liberty to the extent that the voting populace lets them get away with it. Rather than railing about oppressive government, perhaps you should focus more on railing on stupid people or on the people that take the asinine position that "my vote doesn't count" and have little pity parties when courses of action get approved that they disagree with.

I contend that YOU can't have it both ways. If you believe that people are sovereign, then your are forced to believe that they can limit their own freedoms for the betterment of people around them. The government isn't some faceless entity, it's composed of sovereign people who vote for/against other sovereign people or their ideas. The idea that government is by nature a slave-master is absurd. It all comes down to what freedoms people are willing to give up in order to live in an orderly society.



If you don't believe that there are consequences to how you exercise the free will that you've been given, I'd suggest that you hit the bible some more. Its authors would beg to differ. To make the argument that freedom has no responsibility is to say that everyone is free from the consequences of their decisions. You and I both know that this is simply not true.

My statement is not untrue. I own myself. I never ceded anything to the government. By the threat of force that the government, on your behalf, brings against me I have my property (money) taken from me each payday involuntarily. Many others have Liberty squashed by the war on drugs. Or they are murdered in a war on terror without due process thus depriving them of the ultimate gift of the Creator... life.

If you want to give up your sovereignty, go for it. Your choice. But why demand and force those of us who don't into your camp? And use the government to do this? Use the threat of bodily harm and imprisonment to make me comply? Have you not read Bastiat's "The Law"?

Stupid can't be cured. I don't care about the sheep. Let them suffer their fate. The ability to educate themselves is available if they want to learn.

As for these consequences... what are they? Enlighten me. As an aside to your last sentence... please stop assuming what I know or don't know.

As for the Bible... it's a history book. Some good ideas pertaining to morality but other than that meaningless.

 

[dutchwrangler]

The Day America Died by Paul Craig Roberts

http://lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts328.html

 

[soonerwings]

If you want to give up your sovereignty, go for it. Your choice. But why demand and force those of us who don't into your camp?

People have every right to limit their own freedom for the benefit of everyone. I choose not to murder, cheat, or steal. These are freedoms that I don't mind giving up in order to coexist peacefully with others. If you don't like the particular freedoms that a given society has chosen to limit, then exercise your sovereignty to live somewhere more agreeable.

Stupid can't be cured. I don't care about the sheep. Let them suffer their fate. The ability to educate themselves is available if they want to learn.

Quite the statement coming from such a "moralist". Typical libertarian "screw everyone but me" garbage. You can have your self serving morality. As for me, I'll continue to choose to grant everyone around me the same rights that I have.

As for these consequences... what are they? Enlighten me.

In keeping with this thread, there's the freedom to declare yourself the enemy of any nation you so choose and take up arms against it. The consequence for this individual was death. He knew the possibility existed that his actions would lead to his death and he committed them anyway. He may be a deranged terrorist, but kudos for him for knowing the potential consequences of his actions and standing up for his belief. He lived and died free.

To reference your hero Ron Paul, you can choose to not have health insurance. If you do this, the consequence could be that something bad happens that you can't pay for and you suffer/die as a result.

As an aside to your last sentence... please stop assuming what I know or don't know.

Granted. I will never again assume that you are intelligent enough to understand that actions have consequences.

As for the Bible... it's a history book. Some good ideas pertaining to morality but other than that meaningless.

Totally your call if that's what you want to believe.

 

[vvvvvvv]

the asinine position that "my vote doesn't count"

It's not asinine... it's completely rational.

Power of your vote for President (via popular vote): 0.000000008
Power of your vote for President (via Electoral College): 0.00000001 (approximately 30% increase over popular vote for Oklahoma)

Power of your vote for Governor, other statewide offices, and US Senator: 0.000001
Power of your vote for US House: 0.000005
Power of your vote for State Senate: 0.000048001
Power of your vote for State House: 0.00010101

 

[soonerwings]

It's not asinine... it's completely rational.

Power of your vote for President (via popular vote): 0.000000008
Power of your vote for President (via Electoral College): 0.00000001 (approximately 30% increase over popular vote for Oklahoma)

Power of your vote for Governor, other statewide offices, and US Senator: 0.000001
Power of your vote for US House: 0.000005
Power of your vote for State Senate: 0.000048001
Power of your vote for State House: 0.00010101

It's not completely rational. If votes didn't count, they wouldn't be counted. Seems to me that when an election is held, votes are counted before results are given. No one ever said that your vote counted any more than any of the other thousands/millions.

If votes didn't count, politicians wouldn't pander for them. The war for your mind is being fought in order to get your vote.