[tomder55]

Hello again, Steve:

When you wanna discuss REAL WORLD stuff, post me. But, I'm not gonna get into that denial routine of yours.

In the REAL WORLD, when the Japanese waterboarded our soldiers it was torture... When WE do it, it's not... Thinking that OUR waterboarding is good, when their waterboarding was bad, is psychotic.

So, you can go on pretending that what we did wasn't torture, and I'll keep on telling you how loony your are.

excon

OK real world... Obama dispatched an “assassination” team into a sovereign nation without its consent to wack OBL. How's that for national values ? I have no problem with that or the fact that interrogators got rough to obtain the key info needed to locate him.
Seems like the dividing line is who made the order.

[NeedKarma]

Seems like the dividing line is who made the order.

Obama is more like Bush than you'd care to admit.

[excon]

How's that for national values ?

Hello again, tom:

What's even worse, is Obama sent a drone to attack an AMERICAN citizen who hasn't been convicted of any crime. They don't like him because he speaks English and goes on YouTube.

I haven't cut Obama any slack on that issue - and won't. I don't carry water for anybody.. But, there are PLENTY of apologists here for George W. Bush...

Let me say this again. Any government official who tortures, or kills Americans without due process of law, doesn't really understand what our country is about. They BOTH help the terrorists.

excon

[speechlesstx]

Awlaqi has made himself an enemy of the state and taken sides with al-Qaeda. In my book that makes him an acceptable military target.

[tomder55]

Our history tells a different tale. Seems to me that it is a late 20th century /21st century phenomenon that our sensibilities expects restraint .
I hope Holder tries to prosecute. I think you'll see jury nullification in a hurry.
As for the drone attacks... what alternative is there ? The Obots know the best policy for capture is GITMO ,but they've taken that option off the table. All they have left is execution... and that has been their policy.

[excon]

In my book that makes him an acceptable military target.

Hello again, Steve:

The problem is, YOUR book doesn't count... In a nation ruled by law, and NOT by men, it's the Constitution that counts... It's easy to disregard the Constitution when things are rough. But, that's when it COUNTS the most.

excon

[excon]

The Obots know the best policy for capture is GITMO ,but they've taken that option off the table. All they have left is execution....and that has been their policy.

Hello again, tom:

They HAVE painted themselves into a corner, haven't they?? He should have closed it, like he SAID he would...

excon

[speechlesstx]

The problem is, YOUR book doesn't count... In a nation ruled by law, and NOT by men, it's the Constitution that counts... It's easy to disregard the Constitution when things are rough. But, that's when it COUNTS the most.

Congress gave Bush and hence Obama the authority to use military force against al-Qaeda, that would include Alwaqi. Dd SCOTUS strike down the AUMF? If not it it the law of the land is it not? Since Obama has painted himself om a corner that's all he has left is treat them as military targets and take' them out.

[excon]

If not it it the law of the land is it not? Since Obama has painted himself om a corner that's all he has left is treat them as military targets and take' em out.

Hello again, Steve:

I don't know if you remember, but I spoke interminably about the loss of our Fifth Amendment right to "due process of law"... You guys kept on saying, oh no, excon, they'll NEVER designate an American citizen to be an enemy combatant, and thereby REMOVING his right to due process of law... Oh, no... That's only for terrorists...

But, of course, you see now, that the government can decide that ANYBODY is an enemy combatant simply by declaring it to be so... Consequently, if the government can declare it void, WE (that's YOU & ME) no longer have a right to due process of law. Being a Constitutional kind of guy, I'm a stickler on it, and THAT pisses me off...

People who ruin the Constitution like that HATE America. Why do the righty's HATE America?

excon

[smoothy]

Hello again, smoothy:

It's not that I care about the terrorists.. It's that I that I LOVE my country. I've spoken about the "fabric" of our country, and how becoming torturers changes it... I suspect you haven't a clue about what that is. Maybe you missed civics that day.

excon

Really? I didn't miss that civics class or any other.

We also didn't assign non-existent rights to foreign combatants.

Did you apprehend book and have a trial for every Viet Cong, and NVA soldier you came across in Vietnam? You didn't? THen didn't you voilate the COnstitutional rights they supposedly had...

Oh, they didn't have them... right... so when and who extended these very much American rights to people who aren't American and have never even been here in most cases?

How about all the other Americans that violated the rights of the Japanese and the Germans and all their Allies during WW2.

Oh right... THEY didn't have them either.


So exactly WHY do Muslim Terrorists have these rights above all others in the world.


Its no great secret that most real soldiers of the world are covered by the Geneva Convention... these aren't real soldiers.

Odd that Muslim TERRORISTS have more rights than Spies that get caught have as well.

[smoothy]

Wow, the US seems like a nice place to live.

I was referring specifically to the fact that if you are caught doing anything while driving by the traffic Nazi's... guilt is assumed and you have to prove innocence rather than the other way around that is true for everything else.

Not as bad as in most of the world where you actually have to pay any and all fines on the spot.

[speechlesstx]

But, of course, you see now, that the government can decide that ANYBODY is an enemy combatant simply by declaring it to be so...

If they can capture Awlaqi then read him his rights. OK? Meanwhile, he is treasonous leader of al-Qaeda who believes it is his "Islamic duty" to fight against the US military. Even the UN lists him as a terrorist and member of Al Qaeda.

When his father filed suit against the US his legal team contacted the director of the Centre for the Study of Human Rights at the London School of Economics and Political Science for advice, who said:

I have considerable respect for CCR. But in this case they have made a serious error of ethical judgment. Does a highly respected organisation, founded in the midst of historic struggles for civil rights and racial justice, now wish to be perceived by some as al-Qaida's legal team? Can you fight extra-judicial assassinations by standing alongside someone who advocates extra-judicial assassinations?

You just see him as a US citizen. I see him as a jihadist waging war against his own country and others. I don't see how protecting our country from a man waging war against us is ruining the constitution.

[excon]

I don't see how protecting our country from a man waging war against us is ruining the constitution.

Hello again, Steve:

If he's committing a crime, go arrest him. But, we don't kill American citizens because the president wants to.

excon

[tomder55]

What crime ? He is plotting and leading foreign jihadists in a war against the US on the battle field .What ? You don't think enemy training camps as legitimate targets ? Maybe we should ask the Yemeni government that is about to go down ;and never really administered law and order in the mountainous regions where the jihadists camps are ,to extradite him so he can be dutifully served. I know you don't think we should go in there and do a rendition.

Like you said ;the Obots painted themselves in a corner because they think this war is a kinetic overseas contingency operation .

[paraclete]

they think this war is a kinetic overseas contingency operation .

Very strange way to describe a war. The Afghan war is not being waged to avoid a contingency. The Afghan war is being waged because persons under auspices of the then afghan government attacked a target in the USA, not an event contingent upon any action, but an actual event. Bush said the war was being waged to prevent attacks on the US but in fact it is pure retaliation and would have some point if the persons complicit in the attack could be located and engaged. They are unfortunately long gone, long dead or well hidden and there seems little point to hunting them down to the last man standing. Kinetic speaks of energy but there is no real energy, just relentless thrust and retreat, take some ground, yield it again and take it again while the toll mounts.

[tomder55]

I didn't make up the phrase... I've always called it a 'war against Jihadistan'... That may be a fictional nation as far as contingent borders ;but it is as much a war against a political philosophy as the Cold War was.It transcends borders and is as much existential as the Cold War .Afghanistan is but a front in that war.

[paraclete]

is as much existential as the Cold War .Afghanistan is but a front in that war.

So now the war is existential, I have news for you it is very real, at least the one in Afghanistan, in some other places like the US it might just be an idea, a mind game, but it is played with real bullets and real bombs and real dead people. The cold war killed people too ask the people, in Vietnam and Afghanistan and Korea

[tomder55]

And the Cold War was existential . You do know what that means... don't you ? I'm not talking the philosophical concept but the actual dictionary definition.
existential - definition of existential by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

[paraclete]

. You do know what that means... don't you ? I'm not talking the philosophical concept but the actual dictionary definition.
Url]

denoting or relating to a formula or proposition asserting the existence of at least one object fulfilling a given condition; containing an existential quantifier

A word that defines itsself by itsself so by this definition the USA is existential

[tomder55]

1. Of, relating to, or dealing with existence.

The classic definition of "existential" pertaining to existence dates back at least to the 17th century before 20th century redefined the word . Perhaps to make it clear to 21st century nit-pickers a better sentence would be 'jihadistan (or before that global communism )is/was a threat to the existence of Western civilization ;the US ,Europe etc'