- Joined
- Aug 7, 2009
- Messages
- 16,164
- Reaction score
- 5,060
- Location
- St Thomas, VI
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Please let me know when more facts come out, because I have read nothing that indicates he was specifically targeted.
Not at all. The father knowingly put his son in danger.
I like how you continue to reply with the same obscure response.
1. Care
2. To
3. Elaborate?
Well, his father certainly was. No evidence has been presented that the son was involved in any plots against the United States. So far, the Obama Administration won't even make an unsubstantiated CLAIM that he was.
His father had been dead for two weeks, when the drone strike hit the kid.
The kid, an American citizen, was denied due process and was basically murdered.
Yeah, there's a convincing case to be made that somebody who leaves his country and lives in a terrorist haven, surrounded by Al Qaeda terrorists, is just a tourist.
No, he was a casualty of war. One started on September 11, 2001 with 3,000 American deaths. He chose his side and paid the price.
Look, his father was a traitor who deliberately put his son in harm's way. Very sad for the son, I agree, but had his father NOT chosen his al Qaeda path, the son would be alive.
Let me try again:lol:
I said "sins of the father" blah blah blah
You said "not at all" blah blah blah
Yet you continue to explain this in a way that lines up with "sins of the father":lol:
Secondly, the CIA identified his son as a "military-aged combatant" before the drone strike. Explain how a 16 year old US citizen with no ties to a terrorist group (unless of course "sins of the father") in a country the US is not at war with is a "military-aged combatant"?
But of course, this is not an abuse of power, his father put him in harms way:lol:
Yeah, there's a convincing case to be made that somebody who leaves his country and lives in a terrorist haven, surrounded by Al Qaeda terrorists, is just a tourist.
Let me try again:lol:
I said "sins of the father" blah blah blah
You said "not at all" blah blah blah
Yet you continue to explain this in a way that lines up with "sins of the father":lol:
Secondly, the CIA identified his son as a "military-aged combatant" before the drone strike. Explain how a 16 year old US citizen with no ties to a terrorist group (unless of course "sins of the father") in a country the US is not at war with is a "military-aged combatant"?
But of course, this is not an abuse of power, his father put him in harms way:lol:
You are so uninformed it is pathetic:shock:
He was in Yemen. YEMEN! When the hell was Yemen a terrorist haven:lol:
Yemen is not a terrorist factory - CNN
Is Yemen a terrorist country
I didn't say it was a terrorist country. I said it was a haven for terrorists. Which it is. Much like Pakistan.
Al Qaeda In Yemen | FRONTLINE | PBS
Try informing yourself on these issues.
Yeah, there's a convincing case to be made that somebody who leaves his country and lives in a terrorist haven, surrounded by Al Qaeda terrorists, is just a tourist.
You are so uninformed it is pathetic:shock:
He was in Yemen. YEMEN! When the hell was Yemen a terrorist haven:lol:
So let me get this straight..in order for terrorists to be safe from any threat from the United States, they just need to find a sympathetic american to come and live with them?
Again, you will be providing proof that this was an innocent American citizen who was specifically targeted by the United States?
Well, if it's true that its only a few hundred, then it's a few hundred minus a few now. Don't try and get me to shed tears for these bastards. They deserve whatever they get, and so do those who shelter them and associate with them.
When has it not been?
First of all, your inclusion of the word "just" implies that this is an easy thing for them to do. There are very few Americans that would be interested in such an arrangement. Second of all, it's unclear that this kid was just collateral damage in a targeted strike on OTHER terrorists because the Obama Administration will not say.
The burden of proof should not be on me. This kid was an American citizen who should be considered innocent until proven guilty. The Obama Administration hasn't even accused him of any wrongdoing. The burden of proof for a president to order the death of an American citizen should be far higher than "I think he's a bad guy." And it should CERTAINLY be higher than "I think he might be a bad guy, but who knows?" This kind of **** should, at the very least, be routed through a federal judge with evidence that 1) he had broken the law, 2) he was an ongoing threat to the United States, and 3) he could not be extradited as a practical matter.
It's constitutional because it falls in line with the powers given to the legislative and executive branches in the constitution, the AUMF was a piece of legislation created over 10 years ago, it's been cited in court cases, the supreme court is well aware of it's existence so yes the fact that they have not ruled it unlawful says a lot, it says enough to reasonably say that it is in line with constitutional law (as we interpret it today). Obviously that can change but it's common knowledge that our views and the way we interpret things change with time and that certain laws change in different generation so I shouldn't have to point that out. It holds even more true since the US Supreme court has in the past supported an increase in the powers of the commander and chief if congress also supports the actions taken by the commander in chief (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer)
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer
You are so uninformed it is pathetic:shock:
He was in Yemen. YEMEN! When the hell was Yemen a terrorist haven:lol:
Yemen is not a terrorist factory - CNN
Is Yemen a terrorist country
Thomas F. Vietor, a spokesman for the National Security Council. “For over the past year, the Department of State has publicly urged U.S. citizens not to travel to Yemen and has encouraged those already in Yemen to leave because of the continuing threat of violence and the presence of terrorist organizations, including AQAP, throughout the country.”
Anwar al-Awlaki’s family speaks out against his, son’s deaths - The Washington Post
The AUMF is superfluous sophistry, bought into only by those who support the government agenda, or by those who don't understand the Constitution and its principles.
The Prez was ALREADY the C-in-C, and can do as he pleases. In the ideal, he would eventually have to explain his actions to Congress, after any given crisis might pass.
The AUMF was window dressing meant for the gullible and uninformed. In a sense, it was an abdication of responsibility by Congress, and a perverse effort in support of dictatorship.
What about the AUMF do you believe to be unconstitutional?