StrangeSox

no one said you'd kill leftists, what the hell are you ranting about?

lol

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 09:25 PM) Tu quoque is a stupid fallacy. I mean, imagine Bill Clinton telling people not to get blown by their interns. Not very credible, is it? Logic!!!!! yabut your idea is just paint-with-a-broad-brush-and-make-a-bunch-of-assumptions-to-dismiss-all-criticism crap. NSS isn't exactly a partisan democrat here.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 09:19 PM) Oh, replace "government" with "we". Same f***ing point.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 08:52 PM) Geez, guy. Don't give yourself an aneurysm. He called people on the right insane. So I showed some equally insane people from the left. He called a man on the right arrogant, so I showed someone on the left who is every bit as arrogant. The post went along with my thesis that NSS's ideas of sanity and arrogance fall very much along partisan lines. If I'm wrong, he'll come back with another post clarifying his opinion and we'll go from there. That's how a debate works, Mr. I-Support-The-Troops-Cuz-I-Was-In-A-Club-Once. That's actually not how debate works, that's tu quoque and it's a logical fallacy.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 08:34 PM) \. No more so than, say, Valerie Jarrett claiming that the purpose of government is to give people livelihoods so they can provide for their families. Would you call that insane? Or does it get a pass because its more in line with your own views?\ That's not actually what she said, that's the right-wing blog alternate universe version.

QUOTE (kjshoe04 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 06:46 PM) I kept hearing that mad men got better but I could only watch 8 episodes before I gave up out of boredom.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 05:23 PM) Al Qaeda is neither a government nor is it an official public military force. Adding adjectives like Fundamentalist or "Seeks the destruction of America" does not change that fact. You're right on the merits but the law here does not reflect the situation...if a law is out of date, the right answer isn't to get annoyed with the people pointing out the problem and then ignore the law, it is to update the law to reflect the new reality. And even then...there's an open question about what level of action is required for the U.S. President to be able to unilaterally declare that a person has sworn military allegiance to a non-state-entity. You don't want it to be too easy for the President to simply declare that someone isn't a citizen and then have no review possible. That'd be an enormous expansion of executive and government power. And, again, the public doesn't actually have any evidence of his involvement with AQ. We have assertions by the US government and refusal to substantiate based on state secrets claims. This criticism is part of the same line of classifying someone as an enemy combatant and then locking them up indefinitely, even if they're a US citizen. The Executive now has the power to completely circumvent the judicial branch up to and including killing a US citizen.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 05:37 PM) Fair enough. In that case, the law is in need of a serious upgrade. And no matter what, I continue to hold that al-Awlaki was an evil man who endangered our way of life. His death is a victory for our country. Citizen or not, I'm glad he's dead and I will never feel sympathy for him. I don't feel any sympathy for him and I don't personally doubt that he actually was involved with Al Qaeda, even if no such evidence has been presented to the public or the courts. My issue comes with the line that was crossed. The President now has the authority to unilaterally classify an American citizen as an imminent threat, refuse to present any defense for that classification and then kill that person. That's not a line I want my government to cross.

QUOTE (God Loves The Infantry @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 05:07 PM) He lost that status when he took up arms against the United States. I will shed no tears for him. Besides, if this wasn't justice, what would have been? Allowing him to live and continue to murder innocent people out of some refusal to extrajudicially execute a "US citizen" (and I use that phrase in the loosest way)? I don't think so. Regardless of the legal implications here, the world is now a better place and AQAP is substantially weaker. I'll take it! Besides, he could have gotten his fair trial at any point by simply surrendering. But he didn't do that. Instead he continued to fight. And we have no obligation to capture individuals who take up arms against us and do not surrender to our forces, no different than the fact that a cop no longer has any obligation to capture the criminal who shoots at him. Awlaki can burn in Hell. I hope his body is devoured by wild pigs. He never lost his status as a US citizen. Again, speech advocating violence against the government or even particular government officials is protected speech unless it poses an imminent threat eg "hey, shoot that guy standing next to you!" He didn't need a fair trial because he was never indicted for anything. Comparing someone who gives speeches advocating violence against the US (operational or material support for terrorism hasn't ever been shown) to someone actually firing at police or soldiers misses the point.

The Tevatron at Fermi shut down yesterday http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44735502/ns/te...e/#.ToY2SWVMFi8

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Sep 29, 2011 -> 10:25 PM) Not always true. My wife met me while I was drunkenly taking in the 2005 playoffs, yet still kept me around, and we have had several drunken dates over time. Now we are 2.5 years happily married and get along so great despite the drunken fun. My relationship with my wife started with a 3-month bender, more or less.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 03:06 PM) See, that's the problem...when you add in the circumstances and the existence of an AUMF, it makes the whole deal more complicated. If there were no AUMF in existence regarding Al Qaeda then clearly this would be illegal...but he's essentially become a combattant in something that the U.S. has authorized military force against, but he of course has had no ability to receive due process to challenge that. It's murky enough that I'd like to see better law written to clarify this exact case. His ties to Al Qaeda are based on US government assertions and evidence that they refuse to share. http://motherjones.com/mojo/2011/09/us-cit...l-awlaki-killed

Should Obama Have Killed Awlaki? What check is there on this power?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 02:37 PM) It's murky enough that I'm uncomfortable with either answer. I'm not uncomfortable that this guy is dead but I am uncomfortable with a legal theory that allows the President to assassinate a US citizen.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 02:54 PM) Go check his wikipedia page and see all the crap he's done. He's clearly a traitor to the country and he's clearly an imminent threat. Look at all the foiled plots that are attributable to him or his teachings. I'd think that would be enough. Wikipedia isn't due process, nor does citing it prove that he's an "imminent threat." Does the US government have carte blanch to kill US citizens who advocate, promote or organize violent acts without due process? edit: his ties to Al Qaeda and operational support are merely US government assertions at this point.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 01:50 PM) No argument for imminent danger? Having allegedly plotted attacks in the past doesn't make you an imminent danger in perpetuity. Otherwise the government could simply assert that someone was responsible without actually showing that they were and assassinate them at any time in the future.

Prove it, don't ignore the Constitution.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 01:25 PM) Given that this is the first time it's every happened, and given the strong evidence of the threat he posed, I don't think this is as much of a concern as you're making it out to be. No evidence of an imminent threat has ever been presented. It's probably there. Don't mistake my dislike of violations of a US's citizens rights as an excuse for his actions or doubting the likelihood of his responsibilities. Just because this is a (currently) exceptional case doesn't mean we should be ok with it or ignore the dramatic expansion of Executive power, however.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 01:21 PM) Yeah, i'm well aware of Brandenburg and its progeny. Out and out ordering Americans to attack the US goes beyond "advocacy" IMO. And I think that under that test a court would find the likelihood of action is very high, especially since he has gotten people to plot attacks before based on his words. Cool. So indict and try him for it. Based on what? Where is the due process that establishes his guilt and threat? All we have are State Secret claims. Is anyone who advocates for violence against the US government fair game for assassination? Literally shooting at American soldiers poses a clear imminent threat. Giving speeches that call for violence against the US does not. There is a significant difference between literally or figuratively shooting at someone.

A US citizen is declared an "imminent threat" to US national security and placed on an approved list for targeted assassination. When this is challenged in court, the DOJ responds with the now-common "State Secrets" mantra and the case gets tossed out. Then, without any due process, any judicial review, a US citizen is assassinated. Is this really something we should be comfortable with?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 01:03 PM) I'll add too that while a few independent bloggers/jouranalists have brought the 5th amendment issue up, it's not getting much press in the main stream. Can you imagine if this was done by Bush? The "he's ruining the United States' position in the world and taking away our freedoms!" crowd would have a field day. Greenwald and others are expressly calling that out. It's also interesting to contrast the media reaction to the two recently released US citizens who were caught illegally entering Iran with how often they even bother mentioning that we've held people for near 10 years now without charges and less evidence than the Iranians had.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 01:00 PM) Inciting violence or treasonous acts is not protected speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/hist...95_0444_ZO.html Mere advocacy of violence is protected speech. They can go down that route, but that doesn't mean it legitimates violating a US citizen's constitutional rights to due process or that it actually stands up to scrutiny. Where would you be comfortable with drawing the line on Executive power to declare US citizens treasonous and assassinate them?

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 12:52 PM) So, videotape of him telling Muslims in America to attack the US (among other things) is not enough to establish treason? Showing a video tape is not due process, no. We've had treason trials in this country in the past. There's also a big 1st amendment question there, and the US government maintains that he wasn't targeted for his speech.

QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 30, 2011 -> 12:32 PM) IMO acts of treason trump all that. Though I suppose there should be some sort of official designation by the US government concerning that before the strike occurred. You can't establish that there were actually acts of treason committed without due process. The government charging you with treason doesn't eliminate all of your rights and give them carte blanche.