87GT Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 In case you fell asleep in history class here is a refresher of Amendment V of the bill or rights No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. See http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html Main article This morning, news broke in the US that a drone strike killed "radical cleric" Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen living in Yemen. This is disturbing for multiple reasons, namely that the executive branch now has successfully subverted the 5th Amendment in a way that likely would have made George W. Bush and Dick Cheney's legal counsel blush. This Presidential assassination now establishes the executive branch as judge, jury, and executioner of any American they deem a "threat" to national security. Glenn Greenwald writes that in January 2010, when it first became public knowledge a US citizen was put on an "assassination list" the New York Times wrote: "it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing." What's most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What's most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President's ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki... Judging by the twitter feeds of some prominently hawkish politicians (Senator Roy Blunt, Representative Pete King), Greenwald's prediction that Americans will celebrate the death of their fellow American is exactly right. Listening to the justifications from warmongers on the right and left, so willing to sacrifice Due Process to seek vengeance, is reminiscent of George Bush saying "We had to abandon free-market principles to save the free market." In the end, we're not winning a "war on terror," we're surrendering the Constitution and sacrificing the principles that made this country great in the name of "national security." Anyone who now feels safer after knowing Due Process can be tossed aside so quickly by so many who are sworn to uphold it, needs to have their head examined. UPDATE: We now learn through Fox News that a second American, Samir Khan was also killed with Awlaki. Kelley Vlahos writing at The American Conservative says: Scarier still, is that by public accounts, Awlaki was targeted for what he said, not what he did. He was an extremist and a propagandist in a war that has been just as much about moving hearts and minds as it has about tearing into flesh and imprisoning the enemy. Crazy people might have listened to him and acted on their own impulses — much like Anders Behring Breivik liked to listen to American Islamophobe propagandists Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller before he went out and killed 76 people in Norway — but we have yet to hear any evidence that he picked up a gun or planted an IED or even plotted a successful attack against the United States. Judge, jury and executioner — it doesn’t matter much to Awlaki now, but we deserve to hear the proof. http://www.campaignforliberty.org/profile/7786/blog/2011/09/30/surrendering-constitution INB4 why does that writer love terrorists? :dumb: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowflake Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Killing terrorists is ok with me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewhop Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 This shit makes my head hurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AWW$HEEET Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 tldr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 "The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently." -Nietzsche That's all I'll say about this impending shitstorm. EDIT: Nevermind, gotta have one last bit. Since you're so obsessed with the absolute letter of the Constitution, please do us a favor and rid yourself of any firearms you may be in possession of. In case YOU missed history class, Amendment II reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of our free State. We have a standing professional army. Therefore, your right to bear arms, by the letter of the Constitution, is no longer necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dover Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 wah wah wah you bleeding heart bitch. I have no problem with having terrorists killed regardless of there nationality. What needed to be done was done. You have a problem with that go start a protest or move to Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 wah wah wah you bleeding heart bitch. I have no problem with having terrorists killed regardless of there nationality. What needed to be done was done. You have a problem with that go start a protest or move to Canada. He was a F-ING US citizen. This is the death blow to the Constitution. If our government can order anyone of us dead without due process the whole thing is worthless. The fact that an African American President, the first, would be the first president to assassinate a US citizen w/o any charges being brought or any due process what so ever is saddening at best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dover Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 He was a F-ING US citizen. This is the death blow to the Constitution. If our government can order anyone of us dead without due process the whole thing is worthless. The fact that an African American President, the first, would be the first president to assassinate a US citizen w/o any charges being brought or any due process what so ever is saddening at best. If you think he was the first American to be assassinated by it's own kind you are more ignorant than I thought. But you know I am sure the MEDIA knows all the facts you gullible idiot. A terrorist is a terrorist in my book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 If you think he was the first American to be assassinated by it's own kind you are more ignorant than I thought. But you know I am sure the MEDIA knows all the facts you gullible idiot. A terrorist is a terrorist in my book. One I never said he was the first American nor does that change the fact that this is okay to do. And two why don't you go find some "proof" of his terrorist threat to the United States. Last time I checked freedom of speech still applies to United States citizens. Prove me wrong I really don't want to be right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffro Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 at first i thought you were trolling trowa, but now i see your serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ODoyle Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 An american isn't named alwaki or samir. Those names are reserved for terrorists. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowflake Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 He was a F-ING US citizen. This is the death blow to the Constitution. If our government can order anyone of us dead without due process the whole thing is worthless. The fact that an African American President, the first, would be the first president to assassinate a US citizen w/o any charges being brought or any due process what so ever is saddening at best. WTF are even talking about here? You sound fucking retarded beyond retarted. ]If you think he was the first American to be [/b]assassinated by it's own kind you are more ignorant than I thought. But you know I am sure the MEDIA knows all the facts you gullible idiot. A terrorist is a terrorist in my book. One I never said he was the first American nor does that change the fact that this is okay to do. And two why don't you go find some "proof" of his terrorist threat to the United States. Last time I checked freedom of speech still applies to United States citizens. Prove me wrong I really don't want to be right. I need help figuring this out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Karacho1647545492 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 As an American you are free to say what you want. You are not free to threaten those whom you deem a threat to your way of life. Big difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forrest Gump 9 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 As an American you are free to say what you want. You are not free to threaten those whom you deem a threat to your way of life. Big difference. I dare you to walk thru the airport and yell "bomb, bomb, bomb". Free speech my ass. Keep voting without thinking about long term consequences and we'll be worst off than North Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 As an American you are free to say what you want. You are not free to threaten those whom you deem a threat to your way of life. Big difference. Very true I agree with you. Threats like that end in a court case and charges being filed. Remember when Saddam Hussein was on trial? :gabe: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SLOWLX Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 An american isn't named alwaki or samir. Those names are reserved for terrorists.[/QUO Agreed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 at first i thought you were trolling trowa, but now i see your serious. An american isn't named alwaki or samir. Those names are reserved for terrorists. I just laughed so loud people at work looked at me funny :lolguy: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRed05 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 What about this little tid bit? "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger" - 5th amendment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 What about this little tid bit? "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger" - 5th amendment They see me trollin They hatin They Jelly Why don't you stop postin durty Edit: Actually in case you were not trolling I will further explain. That part means, that if you are attacking the US as part of a foreign enemy the military can kill you dead in a combat action. I'd say it qualifies as a time of war and he's a public danger. Are we at war right now? Yep War on Terror and Drugs. Those are not justified because Bush started them under false pretenses. /scarcasm And Obama is perpetuating it because he was born in Kenya and not the real Commander in Chief :gabe: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty2Hotty Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 He had dual citizenship. Technically, he is an American, but in the same token, when you're DIRECTLY involved in these terrorist plots and the organization, you'll meet the same fate. There's another American out there from Georgia or some shit, playing terrorist in some middle eastern shit hole. He'll probably receive the same brand of justice via hellfire. And the Military took an oath to protect against ALL ENEMIES, foreign and DOMESTIC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 An american isn't named alwaki or samir. Those names are reserved for terrorists. Holy shit. /thread. EDIT: Nevermind, gotta have one last bit. Since you're so obsessed with the absolute letter of the Constitution, please do us a favor and rid yourself of any firearms you may be in possession of. In case YOU missed history class, Amendment II reads "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." A well regulated militia is not necessary to the security of our free State. We have a standing professional army. Therefore, your right to bear arms, by the letter of the Constitution, is no longer necessary. Off topic but I completely disagree. While the first line of the 2nd unfortunately leaves some interpretation open as to it's exact intent, the second all but nullifies any confusion. The right of the people, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The people, not militia, not army. Doesn't really get any clearer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
87GT Posted September 30, 2011 Author Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 Off topic but I completely disagree. While the first line of the 2nd unfortunately leaves some interpretation open as to it's exact intent, the second all but nullifies any confusion. The right of the people, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The people, not militia, not army. Doesn't really get any clearer. I love you can I take you out to dinner and a movie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 I love you can I take you out to dinner and a movie? Yes, and I like steak dinners, and girl on girl porn. Or dude on girl. High-fiving bros on girl(s). Though no furries, no homo(high fives don't count), no bronies. On topic I must admit I'm not sure exactly how one interprets military action in regards to the 5th, doubly off of US soil. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Littleguy Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 It's amazing that Obama can kill Bin Laden and this guy and people will still criticize him for it. He could kill the devil and he would be criticized for that too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drewhop Posted September 30, 2011 Report Share Posted September 30, 2011 It's amazing that Obama can kill Bin Laden and this guy and people will still criticize him for it. He could kill the devil and he would be criticized for that too. I dont think I have seen Obama shoot a gun yet. :gabe: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.