another so-called "right"...to know why your government targets you for assassination

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

-------------------------------------------------
Sen. Ron Wyden: "Every American has the right to know when
their government believes it’s allowed to kill them. I don’t think
that, as one person said, that is too much to ask. And this idea
that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, that you can have
only one or the other, is something I reject. So we’re now going to
have to begin the heavy lifting of the congressional oversight
process by examining the legal underpinnings of this program. And
to make very clear, I am going to push for more declassification of
these key kinds of programs. And I think we can do that consistent
with national security."
-------------------------------------------------

full article:
http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/7/headlines

"U.S. citizens should be able to know why the government has
targeted them for assassination."

What a concept!
;-)

[StumpyREMF]

On 2/7/2013 2:34 PM, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote:
>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Sen. Ron Wyden: "Every American has the right to know when

> their government believes it�s allowed to kill them. I don�t think

> that, as one person said, that is too much to ask. And this idea
> that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, that you can have

> only one or the other, is something I reject. So we�re now going to

> have to begin the heavy lifting of the congressional oversight
> process by examining the legal underpinnings of this program. And
> to make very clear, I am going to push for more declassification of
> these key kinds of programs. And I think we can do that consistent
> with national security."
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> full article:
> http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/7/headlines
>
> "U.S. citizens should be able to know why the government has
> targeted them for assassination."
>
> What a concept!
> ;-)

you think they're after you?

[Ian B MacLure]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in news:_
9mdneNPCIBxtonM...@supernews.com:

Not if they are demonstrably stinking jihadi scum.
I'd count a drone strike under those conditions as suicide.
Awlaki for instance.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Son, go polish your stump...the adults are talking
;-)

[StumpyREMF]

On 2/7/2013 7:53 PM, Ian B MacLure wrote:
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in news:_
> 9mdneNPCIBxtonM...@supernews.com:
>
>>
>> -------------------------------------------------
>> Sen. Ron Wyden: "Every American has the right to know when

>> their government believes it�s allowed to kill them. I don�t think

>> that, as one person said, that is too much to ask. And this idea
>> that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, that you can have

>> only one or the other, is something I reject. So we�re now going to

>> have to begin the heavy lifting of the congressional oversight
>> process by examining the legal underpinnings of this program. And
>> to make very clear, I am going to push for more declassification of
>> these key kinds of programs. And I think we can do that consistent
>> with national security."
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> full article:
>> http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/7/headlines
>>
>> "U.S. citizens should be able to know why the government has
>> targeted them for assassination."
>
> Not if they are demonstrably stinking jihadi scum.
> I'd count a drone strike under those conditions as suicide.
> Awlaki for instance.
>

if he thought the jihadi were after him, he'd be screaming for more drones

[Ben]

In war if you don't kill enemy eventually you will be killed by enemy.
South Vietnam is an example. All nations should assassinate the
"useful idiots". From the Roman empire to the Barbarians, all wars are
brutal, and the winners write the history. Chairmen Ho, Mao are
praised by the history because they won the war. Had Hitler and
Hirohito won the war, they would be praised.
War sucks, but surrender by South Vietnam to end the war isn't
pretty. South Vietnamese had the choice to die bravely in the
battlefields or in re-education camps and at leaky boats in the seas.
Many selected the re-education camps and the seas.
If the US don't want to kill the enemy one way another, surrender to
the terrorists isn't pretty. Everyone must die some day, so if you
have the chance to kill enemy for your nation when you alive, do it.
The US did not allow South Vietnamese government to assassinate all
communist agents inside the ARVN (such as big Minh), the Buddhist
church, and student organizations, and South Vietnam lost the war. In
war, president of small nations must behave like Ho, Kim, Mao,Hitler
to eliminate all "useful idiots". In war, dictatorship and brutality
are justified.

[Joel Edge]

On Thu, 7 Feb 2013 17:34:46 -0500, Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D. wrote
(in article <_9mdneNPCIBxtonM...@supernews.com>):

>
> -------------------------------------------------
> Sen. Ron Wyden: "Every American has the right to know when

> their government believes itï¿œs allowed to kill them. I donï¿œt think

> that, as one person said, that is too much to ask. And this idea
> that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, that you can have

> only one or the other, is something I reject. So weï¿œre now going to

> have to begin the heavy lifting of the congressional oversight
> process by examining the legal underpinnings of this program. And
> to make very clear, I am going to push for more declassification of
> these key kinds of programs. And I think we can do that consistent
> with national security."
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> full article:
> http://www.democracynow.org/2013/2/7/headlines
>
> "U.S. citizens should be able to know why the government has
> targeted them for assassination."
>
> What a concept!
> ;-)

What you don't know won't hurt.....wait, I guess it does in this case.

[jonathan]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
news:_9mdneNPCIBxtonM...@supernews.com...

>
> "U.S. citizens should be able to know why the government has
> targeted them for assassination."

Before or after? Even a child knows why, for being part
of a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction
of America.


>
> What a concept!
> ;-)



What an exercise in mindless anti-Americanism!


s

[Andrew Swallow]

On 09/02/2013 17:27, jonathan wrote:
> "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
> news:_9mdneNPCIBxtonM...@supernews.com...
>
>>
>> "U.S. citizens should be able to know why the government has
>> targeted them for assassination."
>
>
> Before or after? Even a child knows why, for being part
> of a terrorist organization dedicated to the destruction
> of America.

If the US Government is going to kill one of its own citizens they can
at least declare him an outlaw by issuing an arrest warrant.

This is the original meaning of an outlaw - someone who has had his
rights cancelled so he can be killed with impunity.

Andrew Swallow

[Jim Wilkins]

"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

>
> If the US Government is going to kill one of its own citizens they
> can at least declare him an outlaw by issuing an arrest warrant.
>
> This is the original meaning of an outlaw - someone who has had his
> rights cancelled so he can be killed with impunity.
>
> Andrew Swallow

Do you know what a "nom de guerre" is?

[Andrew Swallow]

On 09/02/2013 19:31, Jim Wilkins wrote:
> nom de guerre

nom de guerre - a fictitious name used when the person performs a
particular social roll

I suspect that you mean:

bill of attainder

n. a legislative act which declares a named person guilty of a crime,
particularly treason. Such bills are prohibited by Article I, Section 9
of the Constitution.


An alternative form is the Latin "Caput lupinum"
where the man is declared to be a "wolf's head" - legal to kill him.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caput_lupinum>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caput_lupinum

Also
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlaw

Andrew Swallow

[Jim Wilkins]

"Andrew Swallow" <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote in message

news:bo6dnfXE588kJIvM...@bt.com...

> On 09/02/2013 19:31, Jim Wilkins wrote:
>> nom de guerre
>
> nom de guerre - a fictitious name used when the person performs a
> particular social roll
>
> I suspect that you mean:
>
> bill of attainder
>
> n. a legislative act which declares a named person guilty of a
> crime, particularly treason. Such bills are prohibited by Article I,
> Section 9 of the Constitution.

No, lamebrain, I mean the terrorists hide behind deniable cover names.

[Keith W]

Using a nom de guerre is hardly proof of terrorist intent, if it were
we would have to imprison half the people who post on usenet.

Keith

[Jim Wilkins]

"Keith W" <keithnosp...@demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:0ZzRs.8480$3F5....@fx20.fr7...

You don't usually confuse cause and effect so badly.

[Andrew Swallow]

Irrelevant. We do not need to know his real name to kill him.

Andrew Swallow