Friday, September 30, 2011

Oh hai Anwar!

This is good - and BZ to all involved.
Anwar al-Aulaqi, a radical U.S.-born Muslim cleric and one of the most influential al-Qaeda operatives wanted by the United States, was killed Friday in an airstrike in northern Yemen, authorities said, eliminating a prominent recruiter who inspired attacks on U.S. soil.

In Washington, a senior Obama administration official confirmed that Aulaqi is dead.

A U.S. counterterrorism official said intelligence indicates that the 40-year-old cleric, a dual national of the United States and Yemen, perished in an attack on his convoy by a U.S. drone and jet, the Associated Press reported.
Nice to see everyone getting to a mature understanding that some people just need to be killed and are not worth the effort to capture and take to court.

This bit of FOD was on the short list. Rinse, repeat.

... but, everyone needs to be reminded of this.
Anwar al-Awlaki - the radical spiritual leader linked to several 9/11 attackers, the Fort Hood shooting, and the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airliner - was a guest at the Pentagon in the months after 9/11, a Pentagon official confirmed to CBS News.

Awlaki was invited as "...part of an informal outreach program" in which officials sought contact "...with leading members of the Muslim community," the official said. At that time, Awlaki was widely viewed as a "moderate" imam at a mosque in Northern Virginia.

At the same time, the FBI was also interviewing Awlaki about his contacts with three of the 9/11 attackers - Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al Midhar and Hani Hanjour - who were all part of the crew of five that hijacked the American Airlines jet that hit the Pentagon.
...
Still, it's not clear what kind of vetting or background check was done by the Defense Department before Awlaki was allowed into the building.
I can tell you - no one wanted to know. That was then, this is now.

So .... next!

135 comments:

DeltaBravo said...

Sometimes the learning curve on distinguishing wolves in sheeps' clothing is steep.  But in this case I think it's been documented to be rather quick and definitive in the outcome.

I hope it's a lesson we don't soon forget.

e ringer said...

i like our new outreach program for these guys. 

Vigilis said...

<span> Speaking of outreach, will the Park51 (aka: Cordoba House) mosque reciprocate the goodwill of its host government, or avail its shortsightness by mermorializing </span> al-Aulaqi <span>and his ilk? </span>

Their vile names will be enshrined in private areas reserved for the devout, and books recounting their "heroic" jihads will be sold iat kiosks by the reception area.  How do we know this?  Because those behind the <span>Ground Zero </span>mosque are liars who have already denied it.


<span>  
</span>

<span>  
</span>

DeltaBravo said...

Addendum:  After listening to news reports of comments from people coming out of the mosque miles from DC in Virginia... well, let's just say we still employ too many Muslims who aren't quite angry enough about the Aulaqis in their midst.

One thing we seem to learn from history is that we don't seem to learn from history...

Byron said...

Gotta love the chlorine in the gene pool...

LT B said...

Note to the ACLU:

We (including the president) took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC.  So the fact that he was a US citizen means nothing.  Stop your whining.  That goat licker declared war on the USA.  HE GOT IT!

Cap'n Bill said...

 I am disturbed by the number of practicing Muslims who are employed in all levels of US, sTATE AND LOCAL  government.  Not sure how to proceed but I see a need for a probationary period during which excellent civic behavior and proven adherance to the Constitution  is required before final employment is approved. Threre are just too many  suspicious":problem people" to do otherwise.  There seems to bes a hazy line dividing their transition from their traditional  religious role and the acceptance of US Citizenship.
We all should note that the White House should have a big role in vetting such folk  through the  President's announced Outreach to Muslims  progam.

FamousLastWords said...

Hey, Samir, do you hear a sort of hissing-whistling sound?

FamousLastWords said...

My favorite last words joke is still the old Far Side cartoon of Custer and his men taking their last We're-Number-1 group photo.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Reapply as required.

sid said...

Who's next/

Hopefully this goat fornicating, otherwise no good, bag of malodorous protoplasm gets recycled....

DeltaBravo said...

Wait.  No.  This isn't good.  Apparently we don't have the right to go around "assassinating" American citizens without due process or trial. 

Shame on us.

How dare we.  Who do we think we are?

Sigh. 

It didn't take long for that to start.  We really should have arrested him and had a court and an open trial and jury of his peers.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

How do you say "Venona" in Arabic?

Boat School Grad said...

<span>Gotta be real and admit I was happy to see this bad guy is now at room temperature.  But, the assassination of Americans without trial or tribunal is a slippery slope.  You could just as easily argue that bringing al-Awlaki, an American citizen, to trial in the US would have been the BEST way to "support and defend the Constitution".  Timothy McVeigh was not summarily executed/assassinated once he was located.  He killed a bunch of innocent Americans.  Is the difference simply that McVeigh was not a Muslim or is the difference the fact that McVeigh was here in the US and not overseas?  Help me out here.  I'm just looking for a consistent policy.  It's the hypocrisy that chaps my ass. </span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

The Executive has a point in that Al-Waliki was outside the US, operating with and controlling a non-state entity openly hostile to the US, and not subject to arrest. 

Had he been, the ACLU would be in the right. 

You are correct, however.  Such is a slippery slope indeed, and bears watching.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

So why is it the Executive can order the death of an American citizen belonging to an organization hostile to the US, while pushing for civilian trials for non-American citizens captured while fighting as illegal combatants?

James said...

The man was a traitor self admited and proud of it. He effectively gave up anyrights. ANYONE who does that becomes a enemy of the people and should die.

But what am i saying i think we should hang all traitors rapist and maybe lawyers so....

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Don't get me wrong, I am happy that this turd is a smoking pile of meat.  However, perhaps we should be executing those captured on foreign battlefields as illegal combatants.  In perfect keeping with the Geneva Convention.

So were Al-Waliki and Rezwan Ferauz white American males who were disgruntled veterans who believed in limiting government, the Second Amendment, and the Bible?

Just askin'....

Benjamin Walthrop said...

We are in agreement here.  Weird. =-O

AFMike said...

Yeah, due process and that pesky Constitution is so pre-9/11.

AFMike said...

"<span>Nice to see everyone getting to a mature understanding that some people just need to be killed and are not worth the effort to capture and take to court."</span>

Who determines who needs to be killed?  A unilateral classified declaration from the Executive without any sort of due process isn't good enough, doubly so when we're dealing with a U.S. citizen.  His father filed suit to simply get the government to tell him why it deemed it necessary to kill his son; he got told to pound sand.  That's not something a Constitutional Republic should be in the business of doing.

AFMike said...

Yeah, those damn lawyers, always fighting for people's rights and civil liberties and junk.

Sounds like you'd be happier in a country that doesn't have to deal with lawyers or courts or any of that pesky stuff.

And I chuckled a bit at the "enemy of the people" line...you do know what country in modern history popularized that phrase, right?  (Hint #1: it's not one I'd want to see the U.S. emulating any time soon.  Hint #2: We fought a 45+ year Cold War against them.)

Therapist1 said...

I think the difference was clear.  Anwar decided to take up arms and leave the country to wage war and was killed on the batltefield.  Had he been here, a police officer would have kicked in his door and he would have had a choice; be arrested or die by police fire.  Hopefully, he would have chosen his articulated path of martyrdom.  Either way, he is dead.

AFMike said...

In order for a police officer to kick in his door, he would've had to at least been indicted for something and a warrant issued for his arrest.  That's not the case.

AOD said...

Slippery Slope.  Good riddens and what not, but woah momma...you CANNOT summarily execute an AMCIT.  SORRY!  Illegal.  5th ammendment type stuff, folks.  I hate to say this, but Ron Paul has it correct.  Trials for the conspirators of 9/11 in NYC but missile strike for an AMCIT?  And don't give me this $hit about him being a naturalized citizen.  So is my fiancee.  So what. The constitution only says they can't run for President.  There is no second class citizenship.  Additionally, the Obama administration has run the entire war like it was Vietnam redux.  Missile strikes for everyone.  You don't win a war by body count, especially a counter-terrorism war.  I wish that you could.  Then we could just send a few nukes over and the whole thing would be over.  The intelligence well is running dry.  We aren't enhanced interrogating anymore.  Just hitting them with hellfires.  So congrats.  You wax a few bad guys.  Meanwhile we're getting kicked out of Pakistan, sentiment with the A-Rabs is at an all time low, and we're losing all the partners we had in the Bush administration.  Body count from Reapers is not progress, people.  PLAY CHESS, NOT CHECKERS.

AOD said...

Here's one for you guys:  Homeland Security considers the Tea Party to be infiltrated by "extremists," another word by democrats for what we normal people call "terrorists."  If we're cool zapping one man's american citizen "extremist," what makes you so sure that a predator / reaper can't / won't ever be used against one of you tea partiers?

Yeah yeah, I hear you all now:  AOD has gone "All Ron Paul" crazy, dial up the conspiracy channel, put on your tinfoil hats.  Whatever.  I am a staunch libertarian.  I like my liberties and my personal responsibilities.  I will not shirk my responsibilities, so you damn well better believe that I will not give up my liberties just because some other jackasses aren't willing to man up to theirs.

AOD said...

No federal indictment ever proved that he was in on actual operational planning.  This man may have been a spiritual head, advocating violence.  So what?  Go to London, go to the suburbs of Paris, go to Detroit!

Shit, go to Chicago and talk to Pfelger, Wright and Farrakan!

UltimaRatioRegis said...

AOD,

You have very valid points there.  I won't argue that.  Precedent. 

I see that danger when DHS insisted that "violent extremists" were the enemy, and not "Islamic extremists".  Some may believe that is about not offending Muslims, but others can reasonably argue that the words broaded just whom can be considered an enemy. 

"Violent" and "extremist" are subjective terms, whereas "Islamic extremist" is infinitely less so.

AFMike said...

If it was "resolved" years ago and haven't been made open source, it hasn't been resolved legally.  Writing a classified memo okaying a given government action and then refusing to allow anyone access to it or any sort of legal challenge isn't how Constitutional republics are supposed to work.

Not to mention that the government saying "no no, it's cool, this is totally legal don't worry about it" doesn't exactly inspire confidence given behavior over the last, oh, say about 75 years, give or take.

AOD said...

<span>The questions about whether or not it is legal was probably resolved years ago and just hasn't been made open source</span>

Wait a second, SouthernAP.  I know we see eye to eye on a lot.  Look at what you just wrote.  An opinion from Justice Department to the President?  Or a Supreme Court decision?  Alwaki's father is pressing suit, so we may get that Supremes ruling.  But right now, if Justice made a finding, that's not good enough.  We live in a country of laws, public laws, not classified laws.  The United States Code is NOT classified.  The Constitution is not classified.  If it is legal to kill american citizens, what are the limits?  We the People damn well deserve to know.  If our government is going to start killing us, we have the right to rise up.  I'm not going into the streets over this bag of dung for sure, but you better believe if they picked you off in a missile strike I'd be out there.  It is my duty to support and defend the Constitution.  I swore an oath to that.  And folks, if you want to use that line, actually KNOW what is in the constitution and the bill of rights, ok?

AOD said...

Bingo to you as well.  So much for our Constitutional Scholar president.  But then again, after Justice refused to prosecute the Black Panthers who were brandishing weapons in polling places in Philadelphia, I kinda gave up on these clowns.

AOD said...

Since I'm stirring the pot of hate and discontent, here's another slippery slope for you:  Attorney General Holder cancelled the 9/11 conspirators military tribunals because he determined that they had rights to civilian trials, and slated them for NYC.  A judge, a grand jury, defense council and prosecutors were selected.  Then, after pushback, the Attorney General reversed course and reverted the case back down to Military Tribunals.

The good AG giveth and the good AG taketh away?  Not really.  We hold these truths to be self evident, folks.  If you have the rights, they CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU WITHOUT DUE PROCESS (5th ammendment).  While I wish those smiling piles of dog dung were electrocuted to death in some far away Kazak torture chamber, the fact is that they were determined to have rights, and then Holder gave himself the authority to TAKE THOSE RIGHTS AWAY.  What prevents Holder from doing that to you or me?  So while many of us congratulated each other on our "victory," our founders shook their heads at us FOR ONCE AGAIN PLAYING CHECKERS WHEN WE SHOULD BE PLAYING CHESS.

SouthernAP said...

AOD,

I am full with you with regards to it supporting and defending the US Constitution and that it along with the US Code isn't classified. I also know what is in the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I also know that the only high crime specifically defined in the US Constitution is treason, that being in Art 3, section 3. That being said, there might very well be an opinion piece from the Justice Department or a legal eagle with in the CIA, DoD, or even counsel to the president may have fully written something as part of the brief on how to execute the war on terror and this legal brief could very well be part the larger brief. If so then again it might not be open source, IE not published anyplace but might required a FOIA to get. Just like how deck logs, NJP and excluding certain criminal cases where national security trumps the court proceedings from being released, a legal brief with regards to giving aid to the enemy maybe in some cardboard file box in some warehouse someplace as part of a larger file.

I am not trying to wear the tin foil hat brigade, nor am I anti-war on terror. Nor do I believe that we should actively be targeting American citizens for assisination without some going through the court systems. I just wonder how much we are actively being told and how much is being being denied to the general American public with regards to how to fight the war because we can't handle the truth.

James said...

You need to get a sense of humor. Have you NEVER heard a lawyer joke? And considering most of the people in washington ar lawyers....

"we the People" thats repeated alot. The Communist never gave a shit about 'the people". It was a BS line they used to get power. Communism like Socialism has been in every single form a oiligarchy. China for instance. Pretty much all the power and money is in the hands of around a hundred families. Infact Most governments are oligarchies,

If we arent fighting for the people then your fighting for what? The state which itself is nothing without the people? The people of our nations cannot be secure without the state the states sole perpose is to protect the people and inhance the country.

Considering lawyers have made it so most people have litteraly little to no respect for the law in this country? Yep.

He was a former US citizen actively trying to kill innocent americans he doesnt have human rights as far as im conserned. And arguing with me is mute.

Im for killing anything that threatens my people. And taking any measure.

SouthernAP said...

AOD,

I would suggest you take a look at what Woodrow Wilson did during WW1. He denied the rights of a number of people during the prosecution of the war and actively locked up those that protested the decision to not only go to war but also how the war was being prosectued. Even though some of those people were then considered undesirables (such as the Wobbilies, communists, anarchists or even those who were of a Germanic background), All without due process or on trumped up charges under the sedition acts. Give yourself a chance to look it up and study the history. Lets not forget that the good president Lincoln suspsend Habeus Corpus from 1861 until he was killed by at a theater, all with the stroke of a pen and without consulting either the USSC or US Congress. Then lets not forget about those horrible Sediation acts that were passed while John Adams was president (one of the founding fathers and a man who defended the British Army troopers from the charges of murder in the Boston Riots) and was used to prosecute people during both the Quasi-war and the 1812 war. For as much as we claim that we believe in the rule of the law, this nation has teetered into becoming a totalitarian state trying to provide security to each other, at times this has been done through the use of shady legal prescedent or via the use of a pen. Some in our government have chosen not to learn from the past in our mistakes, but instead accepted that these little deviations into the dark parts of the forrest as the natural path to take in providing security for the populace.

AFMike said...

All those things were terrible decisions that were wrong.  "But mom, Woodrow did it too!" doesn't really qualify as justification for current policy.  That's actually terrible logic and ranks right up there with "I was just following orders" as stuff that no one should ever use as justification for doing something.

SouthernAP said...

Mike,

Your totally correct. Just mentioning that since this nation was founded it wasn't all wine and roses, we have collectively made decisions that make Coyote Ugly decisions look brilliant.

The hardest decision in a free nation is trying to make that line between freedom to be as you please, while supressing crime to provide security at the same time. It isn't easy and it take a good leader and good followers to know when and how to push that line and when to not challenge some of those freedoms.

AFMike said...

al-Awlaki's father filed suit (in conjunction with those evil freedom hating monsters at the ACLU and CCR) to determine what the qualifications were that the Administration had to place his son on the list.  The government refused to give up the information and a federal judge threw out the lawsuit, so we won't be getting that court ruling any time soon.  In short, it will take a lot more than a FOIA to get, and in fact in all likelihood we will never know what the qualifications were.  Which is the crux of the problem: the government is literally asking us to just believe it that due process was followed.  You're giving the government WAY too much credit.  There is not a single type of crime where this would in any way be acceptable, but you utter the word "terrorism" and people lose their damned minds and start throwing every single principle of established law out the windows because we as a society are completely and utterly irrationally afraid of a couple of guys in the desert using printer cartridges as bombs.

AFMike said...

I've heard a lawyer joke before.  Usually they're actually funny, not just comparing them to traitors and rapists and then calling for them to be hung.  Ha ha, I see the humor now, it's hilarious!

DeltaBravo said...

I guess the question is:

At what point, when one takes arms against one's own nation and joins a declared war against one's own country, does one forfeit the rights of citizenship?  When one does that for the better part of a decade, and refuses all opportunities to return and face justice, does one become, de facto, a citizen who renounced citizenship?  Is there something they know that we don't?  It's a little late for his daddy to start whining. 

SouthernAP said...

You mean like how some kids are on the "No-fly" list even though the application of the "reasonable man scenario" suggests that there is no way a six year old is an international terrorist.

The same could be said of those local tin foil hatters that like to live up in the mountain of Idaho, Montana, Washington and the Rockies along with the backwoods of a large number of places; running around screaming about survivialist, coming nuclear attack, one world government, black helos, etc. There are groups out there such as the Southern Poverty Law Center who are all about defending the rights of these tin foilers and in the same breath condeming or outright trying to eliminate thier rights for being tin foilers. The minute that one of those groups gets raided by the law enforcement brigade, the local media spins the story, the local populace has to listen to how they are so hate filled to allow these groups living near them and then someone gets a bee in thier bonnet to start supressing rights of the whole to protect from a statisically low threat.

DeltaBravo said...

I"m pretty sure, if the CIA is involved, as the news reporters say, that their legal beagles have gone through this with a fine-tooth comb and have checked all the boxes. 

I'm interested in what reasoning our Constitutional Scholar in Chief has to say about this, though.  And no, I'm not sorry the SOB is dead. Fort Hood will suffer forever for what he inspired and encouraged there.

LT B said...

As it turns out, the US didn't kill him.  The Yemeni military did as he was a leader in AQAP and they have been mounting an insurection agains the government of Yemen.  See, there, I fixed it.   Warm fuzzies for all.

DeltaBravo said...

Yay!  Warm fuzzies!  I knew there was a way to skin this particular cat!  Thanks LtB.

AOD said...

AF Mike, our willingness to suspend rational thought (and the Constitution) every time "terrorism" is thrown out there is directly related to our belief that we as a people are too incompetent to provide defense for ourselves through completely rational and cost effective means such as regulated concealed carry for trained non-felons.  So, because we are brought up to believe that we are a herd of sheep requiring protection from folks in uniform who are born no different than any of the rest of us (according to the core beliefs of the constitution and declaration of independence), we quickly volunteer our rights away and congratulate ourselves on the "patriotism" that we are showing by allowing 6 year olds to get patted down and forcing great-grandmothers to remove soiled diapers prior to boarding aircraft.  Sigh.  This is all related.

America was never conceived as a free ride, but that is what it has become, and if you listen to the morons who lead us, that is what those of us still in uniform and or government service (reserve, active or other) are supposedly defending.  We're defending the free ride instead of defending against that which our people have no reasonable expectation of defending themselves against.  Is an active shooter something that our people can't defend themselves against, neccessitating each police department to have armored tanks and belt fed machine guns?  Hell no.  An armed citizenry can dispatch an active shooter before he kills his 3rd victim.  A SWAT team takes at least 30 minutes to make entry, and that is assuming that you have the team at least 1/2 geared up in the squad bay once the dispatch comes in.

Government can be smaller. Liberties can be restored.  We just need to be willing to sack up and pick up the slack WRT personal responsibility that we have pushed onto government.

AFMike said...

Show me where he took up arms.  Saying I hate America/Death to America/Kill Americans/whatever else he said is not taking up arms, and in fact is protected speech under the First Amendment using the "imminent lawless action" test established in Brandenberg v. Ohio, as I pointed out below. 

So going "well he de facto renounced his citizenship card so it's all good" is pretty weak sauce and is not at all legally supported.

DeltaBravo said...

Maybe your definition of treason and mine differ.

AFMike said...

"<span>I"m pretty sure, if the CIA is involved, as the news reporters say, that their legal beagles have gone through this with a fine-tooth comb and have checked all the boxes."</span>

Hahaha...seriously?  So we don't trust the government in pretty much anything domestically (justified, by the way) but as soon as you mention terrorism we automatically assume the best?  Interesting worldview.

AFMike said...

Apparently so.  I guess our definition of that pesky freedom of speech thing differs as well.

ewok40k said...

Is it me or late hit series with senior AQ leadership can be fallout from the OBL raid intel booty?

Byron said...

You know, Grandpa, I read all the above  angst about this assholes civil rights and I thought, yeah, he's an American citizen, how dare we! Then I thought, wait, he said screw America, screw the Constitution, screw the American ideal of freedom from tyranny and decided to go the tyranny of the rule of Muslim law instead. So sucks to be you, asshole. You had it good and didn't know it, and now your dead and that ends MY angst.

LT B said...

Sort of.  Think of the Battle of Midway.  It affected the War in Europe as the defeat of the Japanese Navy allowed the US to continue to focus on Europe and then bring more to the Pacific theatre.  Now that UBL is out, it allowed a stronger focus on AQAP and watch the Haqani Network in Afghanistan.  As they step up, we direct our resources to go after them, knock them down and move to the next threat. 

AOD said...

Delta Bravo, by your definition, are the fat white guys in Michigan who belong to their grand daddy / daddy's militia renouncing their citizenship?  Or are they to be accorded every right that any other american citizen is?

AOD said...

The CIA doesn't exactly have an outstanding record wrt "legal matters."  Don't get me wrong, I'm totally all about covert operations, especially renditions and what not, as long as they don't involve American Citizens.  I am passionate about defending our rights against a government, and am always wary about any successors using precedent--the most powerful tool in the government--to take away even more of my rights.

AOD said...

What government of yemen?

DeltaBravo said...

AOD, I think that's a difference with a distinction.  Like the difference between a separatist movement and a civil war.

I'm happy to see AFMike supports the free speech of Awlaki and all the things he says... not seeming to understand that the freedom of speech thing is not absolute.  You do not have the right to slander, yell fire in a crowded room where there is no fire, or give away state secrets or other things.   

If the jihadists figure out that they only have to recruit Americans and those leaders will have the cloak of invulnerability around them (colored awkwardly like an American flag) they'll recruit more here to have their super untouchable jihadist leaders.  I'm personally glad they settled their hash before they used their resources to plot, plan and deliver another Ft. Hood kind of assault here.  

UltimaRatioRegis said...

Make "concealed carry for trained non-felons" into "concealed carry for non-felons" and you have yourself a deal. 

You are responsible for what happens if you mishandle a firearm.  Which, compared to climbing behind the wheel of a 3,000 pound steel weapon, happens so seldom as to be not worth mentioning. 

My "training" will be used as a means of control by the government to infringe upon my Second Amendment rights.  I don't need some yokel police chief deciding who gets to exercise their rights and when.  The range I belong to also trains local cops.  Some are quite good, most are mediocre, and some are dreadful.  And none of them are qualified to tell me how to use a handgun.  Or any other weapon.

DeltaBravo said...

CIA doesn't operate domestically.  Different legal basket they're dealing with.  I'm no cheerleader for law enforcement abuses like Ruby Ridge and Waco.  But we're dealing with a war being fought from beyond our borders directed at us using terror mechanisms.  It's not a law enforcement deal.  It's war.  I'm noting a dissonance here... we're previously mad because terrorism was being treated like a law enforcement deal.  So now it's treated like war... and people are angry the participants aren't being dealt with like this is a law enforcement deal... (i.e. arrest, trial, witnesses.. evidence.)  We've already had lengthy discussions about trying to deal with chain of custody and collecting evidence on the battlefield.  So is this war or isn't it?  And when an American citizen joins a declared war against the United States, what rights do WE have to protect ourselves.  And allowing them to sit out there and plot the terror attacks and say "neener neener you can't get me, I'm one of you" doesn't wash for me. 

DeltaBravo said...

Yeah, when he embraces Shariah as his law, why should he be able to hide behind the Constitution?

SouthernAP said...

DB,

THat is the problem. We haven't declared war on terrorism and it is very hard to delcare war on a group that is trans-national. Since we haven't declared war (at least in the legal sense with all the congressional approval stuff and basically a written law saying we are at war with someone signed by the president), ergo we aren't able to treat this like a war situtation when Americans do decided to take up arms against thier fellow citizens. So, then it does fall back to legal sense as to how and what we do to American citizens that have decided to take up arms against thier fellow citizens and thier government. There are laws on the books that talk about the those that do have the need and want of some to violently change the American government  or commit sedition. So if we really want to change how this government approaches terrorism and American citizens who choose to take up arms against thier government, then we need to change the laws that are already on the books to modified it. The other issue then becomes what happens if some enterprise Americans travel to a foreign locale to help the local populace overthrow an undemocratic government some place and then end up fighting American Soliders who were put in place to help out support the foreign government because it was "Our Guy in BFE"? Should those people be actively targeted for UAV/UCAV attacks or SpecWar teams because they chose the "wrong" side of the fight?

AOD said...

CIA doesn't operate domestically.

Um......I'm going to let that one go.

ewok40k said...

I thought rather about intel captured in OBL raid that possibly allowed for tracking - or at least finding general whereabouts - of top AQ guys... He might not had an internet connection but some sort of info could be gathered possibly from any data storage captured...

DeltaBravo said...

Yeah... best to just leave it alone.  That's the story and they're sticking with it.

AFMike said...

I understand quite well that freedom of speech is not absolute...but it's pretty damn close.  Like I said above, read up on the imminent lawless action test that was established from Brandenberg v. Ohio.  You may disagree with it, but it's the established law of the land.  That is the standard by which we determine whether speech is protected speech or not.  You can't just hand wave it away by saying "well he was a 'terrorist' so the rules don't apply."

AOD said...

just remember that you reap what you sew.  We're not talking about a mature president or AG here, folks. We're talking Obama and Holder.  If they get away with killing an American citizen, what do you think is next?

You have not even begun to see them turn the heat up on the Tea Party yet.  TRUST ME.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

"<span>I understand quite well that freedom of speech is not absolute...but it's pretty damn close."</span>

See:  Fairness Doctrine, Hate Speech, Hate Crime.

AFMike said...

I disagree with all of those as well; the Fairness Doctrine has been repealed (a decision upheld by a Federal circuit court), hate speech laws are struck down without fail every time they are challenged, and hate crime involves an actual crime and as such doesn't really fall into First Amendment jurisprudence, so I guess I don't really see what your point is, besides bringing up standard talking points.  "They" did it once so it's okay if "we" do it too?

AFMike said...

The one that's busy slaughtering its own people.

AFMike said...

<span>Sorry, I meant to say "the one that is busy fighting AQAP and rooting out terrorism wherever it is found."  They sure do have some strange tactics, though, what with the indiscriminate shelling of cities and the use of live ammunition against peaceful protesters, but I guess that's the price the population of Yemen has to pay so we can feel safe from a couple of dudes sending printer cartridge bombs. 
</span>

UltimaRatioRegis said...

AF, your intellectual arrogance is something to behold.  The fact that the Fairness Doctrine and Hate Speech/Hate Crime laws are still even being considered, as well as the use of mandatory PC terminology in schools and public statements inside of today's United States of the Offended, makes free speech anything but "pretty damned close" to absolute. 

As far as "hate crimes" go, it does indeed involve restriction of speech, and punishment of speech, even if that is also tied to a violation of the 14th Amendment.  There are many judges in areas where hate crime laws are common who will consider something said which is considered derogatory in the alleged commission of a crime to automatically make such crime a "hate crime". 

My object is to show the double standard at work from those who yell the loudest about free expression, while making sure that the only expression allowed is that which they agree with.  The demonizing and gradual outlawing of countering views has been a hallmark of those who put this administration in office, and especially of those who want to keep it there.

AFMike said...

Great, there's a double standard.  Welcome to anything remotely political in the U.S.  I fully acknowledge that double standard and I disagree with it.  What does this have to do with Brandenberg v. Ohio and the imminent lawless action test?  My point is that legally speaking, free speech is pretty damned close to absolute.  The fact that there are those, on pretty much all sides of the political debate in this country, who want to change that doesn't change the fact that from a LEGAL PERSPECTIVE free speech is pretty much absolute.  You're throwing up random political arguments that have no bearing on the point I was trying to make, which was solely from a legal perspective.

Your intellectual incoherence is something to behold.  Is there any topic of discussion that doesn't somehow come back to you ranting about the diversity bullies?

By the way, DB, forgot to mention that the "shouting fire in a crowded theater" was a part of the terrible Schenck decision which was OVERTURNED by Brandenberg v. Ohio.  So if you're going to make assertions about what is and isn't protected speech, do a bit of reading.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

I am sure everyone appreciates the lecture, Mike.  You are saving us from intellectual incoherence, whatever that is. 

The diversity bullies are not the disease, but merely a symptom.  And this "all sides" stuff is nonsense.  The most intellectually oppressive segment of the political spectrum is the one that considers itself the most "liberal".  Unless one holds precisely their long list of approved viewpoints, one is immediately labeled as one or more derisive and derogatory things, usually leading with "hateful".   That is how Herman Cain got to be a "racist" and how Michelle Bachmann "hates women". 

The constant use of the language of class warfare is a dead giveaway.  The uniformity of thought and outlook among these "liberals" is remarkable.  They all walk around dressed like Bolshevik labor organizers, each trying to "out-anti-establishment" the other.   They criticize the wearing of uniforms on campus, yet they all wear the uniform of their political outlook.  And it is sometimes impossible to tell them apart.

James said...

Wow you have a real stick up your a$$ dont you.

Its simple you see it your way and want a fight you want to argue and force me to bend.

Sont get so bent out of shape. You couldn't figure out it was a joke OK dont go over board.

Wait....are you a lawyer?

James said...

You know hearing this conversation on many forums i remembered something. Once before the CIA had a drone above a terrorist target. They could have taken the shot. Killed him. But Bill Clinton listened to his LAWYERS O:-)  who said it might cause problems......

His name was Osama bin Ladin.

Never Again.

AFMike said...

That's not at all what occurred, but keep on believing that.

Steel City said...

We can all debate until we are blue in the face.  The bottom line is the SOB is dead.  AMF and good riddance.  May your corpse rot in hell with your fellow 14th century thinking losers.

Steel City said...

This worthless terrorist renounced his right to be considered an American ages ago.  Give me a break.  He was a traitor that committed treason 100 times over.  His actions no doubt resulted in hundreds of true American GI deaths.  I relish and rejoice in his death and have the utmost respect for anyone and everyone that contributed to it.

DeltaBravo said...

Well, Mike, if you were on an airplane targeted to blow up and the only thing standing between you and oblivion was the incompetence of the bomber, maybe you'd have a different attitude toward Aulaqi.

I guess you're right.  We should have respected his precious free speech, the same speech that incited the massacre at Ft. Hood from one of his disciples, and left him to just plot, plan and kill AmCits.  Since he's one that makes it all right.

Just sit back and wait till your number is up.. no harm, no foul.  Couple of dudes sending printer cartridge bombs... that's really all they were. Yep. 

DeltaBravo said...

Mike seems to feel that Aulaqi's right to flap his piehole is more valuable than the rights of hundreds of American servicemen and civilians to breathe. 

AFMike said...

Nah, I just take my oath as one of those servicemen seriously, and firmly believe that engaging in speech that the government doesn't like is not sufficient cause to be blown up by your government.  I also believe that shredding rights in the name of terrorism is exactly what they want us to do.

DeltaBravo said...

To say he was blown up because he said things the government doesn't like is a gross oversimplification. 

There may have been findings that aren't published due to operational security that are the basis for the shredding of poor Aulaqi's rights.  I bet the families of the Ft. Hood victims aren't too sad about this.  Mike, your heart is bleeding over the wrong person's rights.  Maybe he died because he was in the car with someone who we were targeting.  He was collateral damage.  Tsk.    So sad too bad.

DeltaBravo said...

yeah... there's always that fraudulent passport he filed for where he claimed to be a Yemeni citizen. 

I'd take that as tacit renunciation of citizenship. 

SouthernAP said...

DB,

Although it pains me to believe so, Mike is sort of right here. Simply for the reason that we as Americans like to hold ourselves to a higher standard then the rest of the world with regards to freedoms. So we just can't go around restricting the rights of the minority no matter how wrong headed it seems or we (and I am violating Godwin's Law here) we end up going down the path of the Nazi's or Facists. They restricted the speech of others to speak out against the government no matter how right or wrong and initally most Germans went along with it all under the beliefs that in doing so they could turn thier country around economically along with securiing the borders from undesirables. We know how that path went. However, as URR pointed out down below, we should very actively find a way to allow those who hate the haters be given a chance to speak out as well. Restricting one side and not the other all in the name of protecting Diversity is just as wrong. As Justice Stewart put it in the debate about obscene materials, we as a society should know it when we see it. That is we should recognize obscene, hate, or other troublesome speech when we see it being spoken/written/televised/projected and that we at the local level should know what to do about it. This <span>Anwar al-Aulaqi</span> is not different then Iva Toguri D'Aquino, William Joyce, Mildred Gillars, Fred W. Kaltenbach, Robert Henry Best, or Rita Zucca. All of whom took up speaking out against thier government. Heck even the supposed great American Poet Erza Pound took up speaking in treasonous tones against the American Government during WW2 and speaking in pro-Nazi terms during WW2. All of which lead to thier arrest by military authorities being tried in either military or civilian courts and either sentanced to life in prision or some lengthy term in federal prision. There has to be a fine line if we want to preserve our ethical and moral standards between free speech rights for the minority and the majority rights to live with those given by the Divine to have life, liberty and happiness.

James said...

I have a question. If it was 1942 and i went to germany and joined the Nazi party and helped them to kill allies and fellow americans would i be a traitor and enemy to the United States its constitution and its people or not?

I say yes. And this present war is no different.

James said...

Yes but AP he was a Member of a enemy "organization" which is currently at war with the United States and the people AND constitution of the US. He has through other with council both tachnical, and spiritual given aid to the enemy.

Thus he is a enemy combatant. His death would deal a serious blow to both enemy moral and operations.

This isnt some freaking hippie chanting poems while sucking on a bong. This is a man who went and joined the other side and by that extent gave up his rights.

DeltaBravo said...

SAP, during WWII, if someone of German or Italian or Japanese ancestry, say the child of immigrants, decided to go back and help the Motherland or Fatherland or whatever... would we have tried to go arrest them or would we have said "You are an American citizen, but you are fighting on the wrong side and you will die for that?

For all we know, Aulaqi transferred funds or gave other material assistance to terror plots that goes even beyond his abhorrent abuse of his freedom of speech.  We don't know what other info they have.   I'm saying if they have one wire transfer that he passed one dollar in assistance to the enemy in a terror plot, that would make him someone who is an enemy of the United States acting in support of those who have declared war on US.

SouthernAP said...

We as Americans pride ourselves on holding ourselves to a higher standard of play, a higher standard of treatment and actively hold our opponents to a higher standard as well. We do that because we try to have a better moral and ethical compass then the rest of the world so that we can be that beacon of freedom to the world. The minute we start to sell some of our moral or ethical standards (which were written by our founding documents and people) down the river to create our security or attempt to preserve our life; then we become no different then Stalinist Russia, Nazi Germany, or all those little Mid-East Countries that we have troops in helping to support governments which actively hate our lifestyles.

SouthernAP said...

I would also suggest that if anyone is curious look up the strange fruit of Robert Pranger. A German-American lynched because he chose to speak out against Wilson, The American Government, WW1, The war effort and in general American style Democracy. Some fine and upstanding Americans decided on what to do with that sort of talk as well. I have a loose family connection to that because a couple of distant cousins knew of Pranger from drinking at the same bars as him and the night Pranger became strange fruit, the mob tried to get some other Germans because they might have some of the same radical ideas in them. It took the strength of guns and these cousins taking a midnight train out of town to escape with thier necks still in the same length as they were born with.

Ask yourselves how it is right that we outright kill a man because he chose to exercise his god given and legally protected right to speak out against the government? How is it right that the rest of a town think that to nip a problem in the bud they kill him, but also potentially consider going after the rest of his diversity circle because they might have the same radical ideas?

SouthernAP said...

One last thing to add to this. Take a look at the German-American Bund, from the interwar period and up till when the war started. There were a large number of Germans-Americans that were active in that group. Simply because they believed this group was going to be like the NAACP, or the La Razas, or even the New Black Panther Party; a group loooking to try and secure rights for the German-Americans from being hated upon by fine upstanding native Americans (who in certain regions like the NE Atalntic coast region still held a grudge about the Lindberg baby incident) along with trying to secure the same sort of rights in the eyes of the law. It wasn't until the leaders of that group started to speak about actively changing through either the ballot box or the end of a gun the American Government into a socialist state like Nazi Germany that the mis-guided Germans started to bail from the group. Some of these same German-Americans then had to spend the next decade constantly proving themselves as being fine upstanding Americans that hated everything about the Nazis and outright hate thier hertiage. Because a group of Americans chose to assoicate not only the German background to Nazism but most of the German-Americans in the nation through the use of half-truths and outright lies.

ewok40k said...

It is a hard choice, in the post 9/11 world... Kinda a catch 22. You cant properly fight terror without risking the foundations of democracy you are protecting. It is a question not dissimilar to the one that promted Lincoln to say that constitution isn't a suicide pact, and pushed the wholesale internment of Japanese Americans in WW2. In the end USA managed to emerge from both crises both more democratic and stronger. Let's hope situation will turn out the same way...

Actus Rhesus said...

That guy needed to die for his crimes.  I am not sorry he no longer breathes my air.

But he needed to die by lethal injection after a jury of his peers convicted him in a court of law.  Whether we like it or not, the man was a US Citizen.  A traitor and a monster, but a citizen.  This is NOT a precedent I am comfortable with.  We are now using military force to execute citizens without due process.  Where is the line?

If this were Bush people would be rallying in the streets.

Oh, and the factually inaccurate comparison to Bin Laden = fail.  Bin Laden was not a US Citizen.

Actus Rhesus said...

Come on, DB, I know you aren't that naive.

Actus Rhesus said...

your last sentence is completely uncalled for.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

AR,

Glad you made an appearance.  This is the crux of the matter. 

During WWII, several thousand American citizens, including many born in America, returned to the "Fatherland" when war began.  Not in 1941 after Germany's declaration, but in 1939.  We faced, and killed and captured, hundreds of them.  None, to my knowledge, were given a civilian trial by a jury of their peers. 

So, one comment and two questions. 

I would have been far more comfortable with this Administration's actions if they had referenced these incidents, and told us that they considered Al-Waliki's situation to be the same.  At least it would have had some historical grounding. 

But, is it the same?  And if it is different, how is it different?

The Obama presidency continues to be the most secretive, opaque, clandestine Administration in US History.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

I'd sue the pants off him, AR! 

And yes, I do slay me.

Actus Rhesus said...

I don't think Mike is a lawyer, but I am.  And as an attorney, I have written wills to make sure the families of men about to go risk their lives for their country can have the peace of mind that should the worst happen, their loved ones will be cared for.  I have helped junior enlisted who couldn't afford legal help fight against unfair landlords. I have represented wounded combat veterans in disability hearings, making sure their case isn't lost in the system.  I have deployed overseas to help develop the rule of law and bring stability to a country fighting to eliminate an insurgent presence.  I have prosecuted the rapists you now compare me to.  I have advised operational commanders.  I have served my country.

So in short, fuck you.

Actus Rhesus said...

For me, the problem is the ambiguity of the "battle lines" in the war on terror, which according to Obama, we are no longer fighting. 

In your Germany example, what you have are either people who have defected and joined a declared hostile force (most likely) or they were civilians taking a direct part in hostilities in a conventional state vs. state armed conflict.  Under either analysis, international law is clear that these individuals are legitimate military targets and may be engaged.

The problem I have with our favorite corpse is that terrorism has a lot of blur and overlap between criminality and military aggression especially when we are talking state sponsored terrorism.  Terrorism, like piracy, has been recognized as an international crime of universal jurisdiction.  But it can also very quickly bleed into "insurgency" and that quickly can bleed into "belligerency".  So, while the lines are messy, I've always been of the belief that an act of terrorism by a foreign entity is best handled as an act of aggression against America, and should be dealt with through military force.  But when the act is committed by a US Citizen, I believe the courts are the best place to handle it as a domestic criminal matter.  I would have had ZERO issues with sending in a black OPs team on a snatch and grab mission to haul his ass before a federal judge and give him the needle for his treason, but traitors get trials (unless killed on the battlefield pursuant to international law).  It's in the Constitution.   

UltimaRatioRegis said...

I suppose it is that last part, where the case could be made that they were killed on a battlefield pursuant to international law, where the Administration failed so badly.  They could have made that case convincingly, IMHO, but have moved the line away from that by insisting that illegal combatants aren't really, and should be given the rights of a US citizen accused of a capital crime, despite not being US citizens and rather clearly defined by the 1949 Convention. 

Actus Rhesus said...

yeah.  Hard to square the circle of foreign fighters get habeas rights, but US citizens get predator strikes...

ewok40k said...

Option 1, sending spec ops team, with air support needed, to snatch him. Risking at least dozen or so lives, and lawfare later with defence claiming he was not read his right or some other procedural misstep... Oh and allowing him to broadcast his cause during trial.
Option 2, one drone, one missile, laser guided karma style...
No contest really... OBL was probably only target that warranted full commando raid into hostile territory.
Also, entire Yemen is a war zone/battlefield now AFAIK. Only US doesnt send there people (save possible spies)  but robots.
Had he appeared before the gates of local embassy and given in, a trial would be in order.  As I see it he wasn't worth risking US soldiers lives.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

AR: Out of his own mouth, by his own public statements, the man a) was committing treason on an ongoing basis; b) had defected to a hostile force which by its own public statements was at war with the government and non-muslim people of the United States (the super-majority); and c) was functioning as an officer of that hostile force at a high level and was effective in advancing the war aims of that force in its self declared war with the United States government and people. Functionally, he was an enemy General Officer, and a far more effective one than many or most of our own FOGO's in the prosecution of the ongoing war.
pull
He therefore was not an American citizen, having renounced his allegiance by word and deed, and was a combatant of an irregular enemy force placed outside the Hague Convention and the Geneva Accords by its announced policy, and observed strategy and tactics, over a period of decades. Generals are combatants, they do not pull triggers, for the most part. They are also high value military targets.

Done deed. Well done.  Slippery slope arguements and political posturing by parties in opposition to the current administration not withstanding.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Disregard the word pull, mystery to me too. :-[

Grandpa Bluewater said...

Byron, the things you say.  One would thing you made your living with a cutting torch, a chain fail, and a BFH.  How unnuanced of you. Tsk. Tsk. =-O

UltimaRatioRegis said...

GBW,

Precisely the argument the Administration should have made publicly.  Very publicly.  But, because they have been so adamant about Habeas Corpus for illegal combatants, they would be rightfully hammered for the double standard being applied to terrorists who visited violence upon US citizens. 

They left themselves little wiggle room.  It speaks volumes about their inept foreign policy approach, that they have been so badly outmaneuvered, first by Hamas and the statehood argument, and in the end, by themselves, for waving the banner of naive stupidity in handling of the illegal combatants.

Actus Rhesus said...

that is not a precedent I want to set.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

AR: You can do that equally well with a much classier manner. That wasn't even high class cussin'. Nothing wrong with artful invective, but please don't stoop to the universal noun, verb, adverb, adjective, conjunction, salutation and farewell of the left most quintile of the IQ bell curve.

In the words of Gunny Highway..."Just don't Bore me."

(signed) your doting Gramps.

LT B said...

Maybe, maybe.  Remember, they had a shot at him the next day or so after they got UBL and missed.  That said, they had a decent idea where he was, AND, he HAS been causing issues for the "government" of Yemen and they are starting to go after AQAP as well.  The power struggle there opens up different intel opportunities.

James said...

So inshort i cant make jokes about ANYONE because they might get hurt feeling?

Really and i didnt compare you to rapist or murderers.

If i had said "and maybe gerbals" do you think i seriously would have been comparing gerbals to rapist?

I'm glad you'ved helped people and im glad you've served your country.

BUT guess what while you were helping those people get taken care of incase the worst happened other lawyers were helping others other other side screw them over. And you know what ive seen more do crap like that than i have people like you.

James said...

There is a difference between going and joing a group before it goes into murdering Americans citizens and joining a active beligerent foreign organization with the intent to attack and kill united states citizens with the drive to replace american constitutional government with sharia law.

Actus Rhesus said...

oh you can make jokes all you want.

however, putting gym profession in the same sentence as terrorists and rapists

Actus Rhesus said...

is not a joke.  it's just ignorance

DeltaBravo said...

Well, when a limp-brained administration replaces a global WAR on terror with its campaign against "man-caused disasters" it leaves a question as to what you do with "disaster-causing men".

If al-Qaeda isn't an organization that fits the description of a terror movement that has repeatedly announced its plans to continue JIHAD with the USA, I don't know what is.  It's an armed, funded international organization that is at war with us here on our soil and abroad. 

Do we sit on our thumbs and wait for the next strike before we do something?

DeltaBravo said...

Aulaqi did more to assist the goals of al-Qaeda than waxing poetic about the virtues of Islam and superiority of 7th Century culture to locals at a pub.  If that were the case, the many Muslims who have made sympathetic comments about AQ would have been rounded up or J-DAMNED also.   I'm sure whatever evidence they have on him would be a Gordian legal knot to untie as to how to properly present it in court without giving away sources, methods and other classified info.  We've already been down that path and had ACLU lawyers pass info along from Gitmo detainees, haven't we?  So why do more of the same stupidity.   He knew a price was on his head.  His father knew it.  At no time did he step forward and say "Can we talk abou tthis?  This is all a big misunderstanding."  He never approached any consular officer (if he did it would have been wiht an exploseve belt to be sure.)  So he had no intention of removing himself from that kill list.  He thought he was invincible, I'm sure.  And Allah would protect him.  Or he was willing to die fighting the USA.  His choice.  It's not like it was a complete surprise to him he was "in big trouble" back "home."  Wait.. he left "home" and took up residence outside the country.  The only love notes he sent back home were wrapped in the underwear bomber's skivvies for an "Unpleasant Merry Christmas."  Good riddance to him.  (BTW, we don't necessarily know everything from all the depositions from others who have been caught.  They may have a wealth of evidence against him.  Is it our business as citizens to have TS case info?  I think not.  Not while we're looking for all the other snakes out there.)

ewok40k said...

<span>quote: ...it leaves a question as to what you do with "disaster-causing men".  </span>
You cause disasters happen to them... like landing missile within few feet.

ewok40k said...

quote:<span> The power struggle there opens up different intel opportunities.</span>
what a brilliantly roundabout way of saying that in ensuing chaos you can buy info more easily...

Actus Rhesus said...

I like to keep it simple.

AOD said...

Ladies and Gentlemen, if this is such a clear, open-and-shut case, then why isn't it being made publicly?  Two possible reasons:  1) Obama is hoping for another birther moment, where he dangles the bait in front of constitutionalists like myself, and then once we have raised Cain (or in this case, Ron Paul), he slaps the table with all the evidence he needs that Alwaki turned in his passport at the US Embassy in Yemen four years ago and renounced his citizenship. OR, 2) This is a huge legally shaky-ground problem, a target of opportunity presented itself and he made a command decision without properly considering second, third and fourth order effects (or having second thoughts thereafter).  Either way, it needs to be discussed in the open, and as soon as possible.  As an American Citizen, I am concerned about what our exposure is to precedent.  What is the justification?  Nobody from the administration has said that Alwaki wasn't an American Citizen.  Nor have they challenged the citizenship of his co-passenger.  Nor have they formally established his operational role or his position in Al Qaeda as anything other than spiritual leader.  If they do this, we can put the issue to bed.  But until then, it is a matter of the Constitution AS IT SHOULD BE.  Are we so weak as to be bended by the threat of violence so that we give up our rights at the first cry of "terrorist?"  I should hope not.  chess.......

AOD said...

wrong.  it is totally different.  If you join a foreign military, or assume a policy-making position within a foreign government you automatically forefeit your citizenship.

Key Words:  Government.  Army.  NGO's need not apply.  Just ask the contributors to the IRA from Boston.

AOD said...

Ms. Delta, I love you dearly, but you need to put some of that sass in check.  Mike's love of his fellow servicemembers should not be questioned.  We took an oath that perhaps you did not have to take, to support and defend the constitution.  That means that we put that document above our lives, and yes, the lives of our men.  That's the mission.  It sucks ass sometimes.  It really sucks when a lot of folks back home don't deserve protecting.  But you know what?  A lot do.  And so does the document, because it is a codified idea that as long as folks are willing to die for it, will live on forever.

AOD said...

every Jew in the world is entitled to an Israeli passport.  Many have even served in the IDF.  As long as you are never promoted to NONCOM or Officer, the United States is often willing to overlook that service...

Just saying.  It is never as cut and dry as some would make it out to be.

AOD said...

My final thoughts on this:
1. God it is good to be on the front porch!  I love having discussions like this!
2. We don't know what we don't know.  And I blame the administration for that.  Given our diverse intelligence gathering capability, couldn't they tell us SOMETHING about what justifies the assassination of a 'seemingly' american citizen without compromising everything from Roswell to the Kennedy Assassination and Elvis's true location?
3. Everyone cheers the lion in the coliseum until he hops the barrier and comes after you.
4. I don't trust Obama, holder and his regime and will NEVER trust him carving out more powers for himself.  I trust the Constitution.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

AOD,

Agreed.  Whether it is clear at this moment or not, this may be one of the most salient discussions ever had here. 

This is big stuff.  I don't know if the Administration acted within the bounds of our Constitution, or out of it.  The immediate result is pleasing, but the legacy of precedent may make the cure worse than the disease. 

As I said below, the failure (or unwillingness) of the Administration to make its case makes me trust them less than I did before, which ain't bloody much.

AOD said...

I lied.  I forgot to bring up one case that is germaine.  Jose Padilla.  Padilla, being an American Citizen (born in New York), attempted to develop a dirty bomb and was declared an enemy combatant by President Bush.  He spent three years in GTMO.  military charges were then dropped on him after complaints by the ACLU and other civil liberties groups.  He was remanded to federal custody where he tried for conspiracy and is serving a sentence of 17 years.  Despite German-Americans being treated as enemy combatants in the United States, the Supreme Court ruled that only the Congress can suspend Habeus under the Constitution.  

AOD said...

you said it all sir.

AOD said...

I think that Grandpa is just such an AR fan that he hates to see her lose her icy cool (don't ever let them see you bleed, sweat, or cry).  that being said, James, I don't know what I'd be more fearful of...an AR with icewater in her veins, or an AR with a vein popping out of her forehead.  Either way she will get you dead-to-rights.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

URR: Can I boil that down to "the stupid are self punishing?" 8-)

Grandpa Bluewater said...

I thought Melvin Purvis set the precedent ICO John Dillenger.

Grandpa Bluewater said...

I believe that if successful, they will claim to be a Government, to wit, a Califate. Close enough for me.

UltimaRatioRegis said...

If the punishment was limited to "self", I would rest easier. 

When the helmsman is a drunk, and the ship ends up on the rocks, all the crew and passengers get to share the experience.  Or, if instead of the rocks, it is another vessel that he strikes, then both crews and passengers get to play (Israel and other allies).

James said...

AR is a women? WTH why didnt you say so now it all makes sense.

No thats not sexist it just makes sense that she got so pissed off over that.

James said...

AR i do appologise if what i said offended you. I ment it as a joke and my weird sense of humor isn't understood by alot of people im kinda morbid.

I would never advocate for the death of a lawyer unless they did something to deserve it.

So all i will say is this i must respectfully disagree with you. While you may have a opinion to the contrary i must respect yours as i ask you to respect mine.

I will stop now before my nature takes over and makes me say something to purposely piss you off justs to get you angry (runs in the family im afraid).

cdrsalamander said...

Oh no you didn't.  Ummmmmmm ...... oh goodness.

James said...

;)

Like i said below arguing just to argue seems to be a off family gene.

I'm pretty sure Gene owes me some money also...

Anonymous said...

[p]The two most famous and popular designs made [url=http://www.cheapoakleyuksale.co.uk]cheap oakley sunglasses[/url] by Ray-Ban brand are the Ray-Ban Aviator and Ray-Ban Wayfarer . Replica Oakleys certainly are a common option for people who are searching for a set of eyeglasses which are stylish and stylish, however higher standards shades like this may be fairly costly . Oakley Sunglasses have usually played a defining role in the evolution of eyewear . Take advantage [url=http://www.cheapoakleyuksale.co.uk]oakley sunglasses[/url] of weight lifting . The X-metal styles are never made of plastic . Constantly traveling from Ny to Wiesbaden and back by way of Paris, she's often asked with regard to useful [url=http://www.cheapoakleyuksale.co.uk]uk oakley sunglasses[/url] advise and tips . With the current focus on audiobook CDs, DVD, downloadable WMA, MP3s, iPods etc you may think they're very recent . Nowadays computers Cheap Oakley Sunglasses are widely [url=http://www.cheapoakleyuksale.co.uk]oakley radar[/url] used in our work, learn and entertainment.[/p]

Anonymous said...

When I originally commented I clicked the "Notify me when new comments are added" checkbox and now each
time a comment is added I get four e-mails with
the same comment. Is there any way you can remove people from that
service? Appreciate it!

Also visit my web blog ... vakantiehuizen frankrijk huren