- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,813
- Reaction score
- 2,233
- Location
- Huntsville, AL
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
You know, that was my first thought too.When did this go from a debate over killing terrorists to kinky sex talk?
You know, that was my first thought too.When did this go from a debate over killing terrorists to kinky sex talk?
Thanks for voting and being a citizen. Its all the same to me. Ive spent 8 years now since my retirement putting soldiers and families back together...but I also work with civilians who have experience the worst kinds of combat...family life. Its all just a thing.
Id still LOVE to hear how this whole 'due process' thing works for a terrorist. Served in absentia...tried in absentia...THEN killed? Or just kill the non-US born terrorists that are responsible for slaughtering men women and children.
When did this go from a debate over killing terrorists to kinky sex talk?
The point cant be any clearer. Dood represented a clear and present danger. He is/was a threat to the US. Candidate Obama preached about how he would offer constitutional rights to terrorists. President Obama realizes national security is more than feel good pretty speeches. Thats why he reneged on his campaign promise. Thats why he aggresively pursues terrorists. The guy taking his dirt nap and chilling with his 72 virgins? He earned it and is right where he belongs. Your opinion is contrary to the opinion of those responsible for making the decisions and those that validate those decisions. THAT is the fact.
None of which addresses the fact that he could have been tried which would have ended most of this discussion.
None of which addresses the fact that he could have been tried which would have ended most of this discussion.
Tried ? We had a CIA finding.
We had a hearing in the House. Meanwhile, Al-Dirtbag is actively engaged in plotting to kill more US citizens. Apparently not concerned that we might revoke bail ................ oh wait.
LOL. Awesome. Ruff, tuff Marine!not bad at all... but you are certainly in no position to insinuate that i'm some sort of sissy peace-nic... not even close.
like you, i come from military lineage... except my family was rooted in the Corps.. all the way back to my great grandfather
I hung up my rifle ( the first time) in 1993 ..after serving 23 years.
when I enlisted, I ,too, was considered "support".. MOS 5923.. (HAWk missile Hi-power illuminator radar tech).. my first deployment was to Monkey Mountain.. outside of Da Nang... as a boot, i didn't get to do my actual job though.. i spent time in Graves and registration at Da Nang proper ( with nightly excusions to dogpatch for whiskey and wimmin)... I reenlisted for infantry.. and that where I hung my hat until the Corps decided to promote me enough times as to ensure I didn't carry a rifle anymore, but to lead Marines instead.
after 23+ years, 5 Combat actions ribbons, 2 purple hearts, and over 50 months ,total, of actually fighting Americans enemies, I think i've earned ..at the very least.. the right NOT to be called a sissy by Air Force support staff.
so, now I think we can stow the bullsh*t and get to debating like adults.
i'd be happy with judicial review of the evidence that supposedly exists in regards to Americans on the list.
after researching a bit.. it seems we have no legal mechanism for trials in absentia ( whether we should or not is a separate debate, I think)... but there has to be some sort of alternative to simple unchecked executive power when it comes to targeted killings of American citizens.
When you consistently apply the wrong standard you will consistently get the wrong answer.None of which addresses the fact that he could have been tried which would have ended most of this discussion.
War crimes trial.
Here you have stumbled onto the truth. But notice how you just pick yourself up, dust yourself off and wander on as if nothing important happened.War crimes trial.
That is not how our legal system works nor when time has passed will anyone agree that is how they want it to work. The CIA does not get to decide which U.S. citizens get to live and which ones get to die.
In our justice system you are innocent until proven guilty. It would have been very easy to have proven his guilt if all that is claimed is fact.
When you consistently apply the wrong standard you will consistently get the wrong answer.
There is war, where we do not care about guilt and innocence. We care to win or to avoid defeat.
And there is criminality where we do care about guilt and innocence.
You are judging a war action through the lens of criminal justice. And that is why you err.
War crimes trial.
I dunno, it seems SCOTUS had ruled the trials in absentia are a no-no.
unless you are talking about an international war crimes trial... there is plenty of precedent for in absentia convictions there.
I view it through the eyes that ALL citizens have Constitutional rights and that we do not want to go down the road of the government in any form deciding who is a citizen and who isn't. At one time in our history women would lose their rights by marrying a foriegner. People would lose their rights if they held dual citizenship and voted in another country.
It isn't about this person. It's about the big picture. I care less that this guy is dead in the big picture. I disagree with the death penalty but this would be a rare exemption IF he had been found guilty.
We do not want to give the government the ability to decide who gets due process and who doesn't as a citizen. It was noted that in cases like this, the terrorists do win. When we give up our rights, that is a win for terrorism.
You are right. It is not about an individual. It is about whether or not we view war as a criminal proceeding (something new) or as a war with its own rules.I view it through the eyes that ALL citizens have Constitutional rights...
It isn't about this person. It's about the big picture. I care less that this guy is dead in the big picture. I disagree with the death penalty but this would be a rare exemption IF he had been found guilty.
We do not want to give the government the ability to decide who gets due process and who doesn't as a citizen. It was noted that in cases like this, the terrorists do win. When we give up our rights, that is a win for terrorism.
Here you have stumbled onto the truth. But notice how you just pick yourself up, dust yourself off and wander on as if nothing important happened.
It is a war. He is not a criminal within a criminal justice system. He was an unlawful enemy combatant, a propagandist for the enemy side of this war. But of course you know that.
Let's argue that it can not be done. It's why people like Paul need to bring things like this up because the ramifications go far beyond this case.
When you consistently apply the wrong standard you will consistently get the wrong answer.
There is war, where we do not care about guilt and innocence. We care to win or to avoid defeat.
And there is criminality where we do care about guilt and innocence.
You are judging a war action through the lens of criminal justice. And that is why you err.
There you go again !! Confusing a criminal proceeding with a military action. So long as you embrace this erroneous perspective, you will be as a horse with blinders on.
Again, the courts have ruled that one does not lose their constitutional rights by being an enemy combatant. You may not like that but that was the ruling. If the courts had ruled otherwise we would not be having this discussion.