OT: Can someone help me out with this?

[phlash74]

Michael

-----------------
"> phlash
On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list. Should be disqualified for
that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
8/22/2010

"Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
Igotskillz, 4/6/2011

-------- 

[phlash74]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/middleeast/yemeni-security-forces-fire-on-protesters-in-sana.html?hp

The people who voted for Bush in 2000/2004 and also voted for Obama in
2008 has to represent what, 0.1% of the population? Then why does Obama
continue to be the half-black version of Bush?

Seriously, killing an AMERICAN CITIZEN, not to mention his 17 year old
son, with drone attacks a month apart and justifying it because he was an
alleged terrorist?

________________________________________________________________________ 

[phlash74]

On Oct 17 2011 11:03 AM, phlash74 wrote:

See other post, hit send too soon.

----- 

[mo_ntresor]

On Oct 17 2011 12:07 PM, phlash74 wrote:

>
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/middleeast/yemeni-security-forces-fire-on-protesters-in-sana.html?hp
>
> The people who voted for Bush in 2000/2004 and also voted for Obama in
> 2008 has to represent what, 0.1% of the population? Then why does Obama
> continue to be the half-black version of Bush?
>
> Seriously, killing an AMERICAN CITIZEN, not to mention his 17 year old
> son, with drone attacks a month apart and justifying it because he was an
> alleged terrorist?

your great great granddad wanted obama's great great granddad to shine his
shoes. it's cool!

mo_ntresor

________________________________________________________________________ 

[BTSinAustin]

On Oct 17 2011 2:07 PM, phlash74 wrote:

>
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/middleeast/yemeni-security-forces-fire-on-protesters-in-sana.html?hp
>
> The people who voted for Bush in 2000/2004 and also voted for Obama in
> 2008 has to represent what, 0.1% of the population? Then why does Obama
> continue to be the half-black version of Bush?

I have no proof but I assume you estimate is way off. It's the
independents that swing elections
these days. I know quite a few people that voted just as you said. Bush
then Obama.

> Seriously, killing an AMERICAN CITIZEN, not to mention his 17 year old
> son, with drone attacks a month apart and justifying it because he was an
> alleged terrorist?
>

Obama is not any different. He's just another politician owned by the
military industrial complex. While people argue left and right the
process just marches on. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.



"Treat me with respect, and you will be treated with respect, no matter
how pitifully ignorant or unintelligent your beliefs." -- BillB 9/9/2011

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[Mossingen]

"phlash74" <a10...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:ug7um8x...@recgroups.com...

> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/middleeast/yemeni-security-forces-fire-on-protesters-in-sana.html?hp
>
> The people who voted for Bush in 2000/2004 and also voted for Obama in
> 2008 has to represent what, 0.1% of the population? Then why does Obama
> continue to be the half-black version of Bush?
>
> Seriously, killing an AMERICAN CITIZEN, not to mention his 17 year old
> son, with drone attacks a month apart and justifying it because he was an
> alleged terrorist?
>
> Michael

I don't really like the idea, but the issue isn't that simple. You make it
sound like he dropped a bomb on some guy's house in Des Moines for no reason
at all. I'm no hawk, but there is a reality out there of people who are
determined to create chaos and kill Americans. Some of these people include
American citizens. If the President had credible intel that this person
posed an immediate threat what exactly would you have him do? What would
President Michael do in that situation?

I don't think American citizens should get a free pass for going overseas
and plotting terror attacks against America. If they choose to do that then
they know the risks. I know I'm waiving the flag a lot here, but of all the
things President Obama has done (and has not done) in office that irritate
me, this is not one of them. It's one of the very few aggressive, difficult
decisions he's made while in office.

[Frostbite]

On 17/10/2011 11:34 AM, Mossingen wrote:


> I don't really like the idea,

I do. He was at war with the US, and, as I've said all along, THIS is
how you deal with these fucks. You don't spend $3 trillion invading a
couple of countries. That means they've won. Infiltrate and assassinate,
at a few million bucks a pop. Get it so that none of them can trust
*each other*. And when you find a Mr. Big, fly a drone over his tent or
house or whatever the fuck they live in, and turn it into a gravel pit.
Then tell the UN to go fuck themselves. Start from the top and work your
way down. And keep it on the down-low as much as possible, just like it
was in the old days.

but the issue isn't that simple. You make it
> sound like he dropped a bomb on some guy's house in Des Moines for no reason
> at all. I'm no hawk, but there is a reality out there of people who are
> determined to create chaos and kill Americans. Some of these people include
> American citizens. If the President had credible intel that this person
> posed an immediate threat what exactly would you have him do? What would
> President Michael do in that situation?
>
> I don't think American citizens should get a free pass for going overseas
> and plotting terror attacks against America. If they choose to do that then
> they know the risks. I know I'm waiving the flag a lot here, but of all the
> things President Obama has done (and has not done) in office that irritate
> me, this is not one of them. It's one of the very few aggressive, difficult
> decisions he's made while in office.

Way too much hand-wringing. You are the US of fucking eh!

[Iceman]

"Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:j7hseu$2f6$1...@dont-email.me...

> "phlash74" <a10...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
> news:ug7um8x...@recgroups.com...
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/middleeast/yemeni-security-forces-fire-on-protesters-in-sana.html?hp
>>
>> The people who voted for Bush in 2000/2004 and also voted for Obama in
>> 2008 has to represent what, 0.1% of the population? Then why does Obama
>> continue to be the half-black version of Bush?
>>
>> Seriously, killing an AMERICAN CITIZEN, not to mention his 17 year old
>> son, with drone attacks a month apart and justifying it because he was an
>> alleged terrorist?
>

> I don't really like the idea, but the issue isn't that simple. You make
> it sound like he dropped a bomb on some guy's house in Des Moines for no
> reason at all. I'm no hawk, but there is a reality out there of people
> who are determined to create chaos and kill Americans. Some of these
> people include American citizens. If the President had credible intel
> that this person posed an immediate threat what exactly would you have him
> do? What would President Michael do in that situation?

Even a regular cop is allowed to shoot someone who poses an immediate
threat. That isn't the issue. There was no conclusive evidence that he was
actually involved in terror plotting beyond just being a propagandist. Last
I checked the First Amendment was still in effect, no matter how vile
someone's speech is.

[Mossingen]

"Iceman" <oneo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:j7hup5$jt3$1...@dont-email.me...

>There was no conclusive evidence that he was actually involved in terror
>plotting beyond just being a propagandist.

If you believe that then you have to believe that the President signed a
death warrant based on a guy being a propagandist. I find that difficult to
believe. The President was told something by intelligence that made him
sign a warrant for a man's death. I don't think that President Obama takes
that sort of thing lightly, or signs them on the basis of propaganda alone.

But, that's the can of worms that is opened when we go down that road. We
have to trust POTUS to exercise that authority responsibly. Do we trust him
or not? Also, what happens when the Russians send assassination squads to
Texas to take out terrorists plotting against Russia? We have set a
precedent that is difficult to control.

[Frostbite]

On 17/10/2011 12:57 PM, Mossingen wrote:
> "Iceman"<oneo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:j7hup5$jt3$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
>> There was no conclusive evidence that he was actually involved in terror
>> plotting beyond just being a propagandist.
>
>
> If you believe that then you have to believe that the President signed a
> death warrant based on a guy being a propagandist. I find that difficult to
> believe.

iirc they tied him directly into the Christmas bombing plot.

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 17, 2:46 pm, Frostbite <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> On 17/10/2011 11:34 AM, Mossingen wrote:
>
> > I don't really like the idea,
>
> I do. He was at war with the US, and, as I've said all along, THIS is
> how you deal with these fucks. You don't spend $3 trillion invading a
> couple of countries. That means they've won. Infiltrate and assassinate,
> at a few million bucks a pop. Get it so that none of them can trust
> *each other*. And when you find a Mr. Big, fly a drone over his tent or
> house or whatever the fuck they live in, and turn it into a gravel pit.
> Then tell the UN to go fuck themselves. Start from the top and work your
> way down. And keep it on the down-low as much as possible, just like it
> was in the old days.
>

I hope this isn't someone else using your posting handle. This is the
most sensible thing posted on the subject. I would rather use police
work but covert operations are the closest you can get to police work
in neutral states tending to hostile and outright hostile states.

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because the state was so
closely connected with Al Quaida but I'm not sure about even that
decision.

--
Will in New Haven

[David Monaghan]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:07:59 -0700, "phlash74" <a10...@webnntp.invalid>
wrote:

>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/middleeast/yemeni-security-forces-fire-on-protesters-in-sana.html?hp

>Seriously, killing an AMERICAN CITIZEN, not to mention his 17 year old
>son, with drone attacks a month apart and justifying it because he was an
>alleged terrorist?

How does it matter if he's an "AMERICAN CITIZEN" or not? Since when did
being a traitor entitle you to special privileges over other enemies? This
has got to rank as one of the most bizarre statements I've seen.

DaveM

[Mossingen]

"David Monaghan" <monagha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7s3p97hd7jljvo20e...@4ax.com...

There is a notion that a citizen might be entitled to more procedural
protections than non-citizens. For example, it might be argued that a
citizen is entitled to be arrested and afforded an opportunity to present a
defense before an impartial tribuna rather than face summary execution.
It's a view that is substantial, in my opinion. No clear correct answers on
this issue.

I'm less concerned about it when the citizen is dealt with summarily in
another country, though. Sort of an assumption of the risk.

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 17, 4:34 pm, David Monaghan <monaghand.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:07:59 -0700, "phlash74" <a102...@webnntp.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/middleeast/yemeni-security-fo...

> >Seriously, killing an AMERICAN CITIZEN, not to mention his 17 year old
> >son, with drone attacks a month apart and justifying it because he was an
> >alleged terrorist?
>
> How does it matter if he's an "AMERICAN CITIZEN" or not? Since when did
> being a traitor entitle you to special privileges over other enemies? This
> has got to rank as one of the most bizarre statements I've seen.

If he were _in custody_ it would matter. He could possibly be charged
with treason, for instance. On the other hand, his rights as the
accused would be spelled out and well-known.

However, he wasn't in custody and it doesn't seem likely that they
could have brought him in.

[Mossingen]

"Will in New Haven" <bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message
news:abd97f78-9384-4015...@g16g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

_________________________


I was on board with Afghanistan, but with the understanding that it was
going be a quick obliteration of the Taliban/Al Quaida leadership there and
we leave. I can't fathom why we are still there.

[HoneyMonster]

Let's just make sure we all have your position on this clear:

Summary "execution" of foreigners on foreign soil: OK.
Summary "execution" of U.S citizens on foreign soil: Less acceptable, but
still OK.
Summary "execution" of U.S citizens on U.S soil: No clear correct answers.

Is that about it?

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 17 2011 2:34 PM, Mossingen wrote:

> I don't really like the idea, but the issue isn't that simple. You make it
> sound like he dropped a bomb on some guy's house in Des Moines for no reason
> at all. I'm no hawk, but there is a reality out there of people who are
> determined to create chaos and kill Americans. Some of these people include
> American citizens. If the President had credible intel that this person
> posed an immediate threat what exactly would you have him do? What would
> President Michael do in that situation?
>
> I don't think American citizens should get a free pass for going overseas
> and plotting terror attacks against America. If they choose to do that then
> they know the risks. I know I'm waiving the flag a lot here, but of all the
> things President Obama has done (and has not done) in office that irritate
> me, this is not one of them. It's one of the very few aggressive, difficult
> decisions he's made while in office.

So... now the government can call anyone a "terrorist" and assassinate
them, even an American citizen. Swell. That's a pretty radical precedent,
don't you think? No checks, no balances, no due process, no oversight –
just blind faith that the party doing the executing is telling the truth.
What could possibly go wrong?

Hey, didja know that the DoD now refers to protesters as "low-level
terrorists"? True story.

Between you and ol' Snowflake, it's no wonder rule of law is such an
antiquated idea in this country these days – not even the lawyers respect
it.

---- 

[Mossingen]

"HoneyMonster" <som...@someplace.invalid> wrote in message
news:j7i4jj$len$2...@news.albasani.net...

> Let's just make sure we all have your position on this clear:

OK

> Summary "execution" of foreigners on foreign soil: OK.

Yes, as long as it's not arbitrary and necessary for the defense of our
country. You can't seriously object to that notion. The problem is the
secrecy in making the decision whether the target in fact constitutes a
threat serious enough to warrant summary execution. At some point we just
have to trust that POTUS is doing the right thing, or weigh the consequences
of inaction. Did you object to Bin Laden's execution? If so, why
(specifically)?

> Summary "execution" of U.S citizens on foreign soil: Less acceptable, but
> still OK.

Sure, applying the same criteria as above.

> Summary "execution" of U.S citizens on U.S soil: No clear correct answers.

WFT did you come up with this? Of course there is a clear answer. The
citizen is entitled to constitutional protections under the criminal justice
system. My comment about no clear answers was in the situation where a
citizen is abroad plotting terror acts. I think it's reasonable to believe
that a citizen is entitled to certain basic procedural protections in that
situation, but then again it's reasonable to believe that he is not.

It's a tough call by the President. You can critcize him about it, but you
don't have the responsibility, he does. It's a little tougher when you're
not in an easy chair talking out of your ass.

[BTSinAustin]

That damn old Bush... what?...Obama?... never mind.

Change you can believe in

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[Mossingen]

"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:p2ium8x...@recgroups.com...

> Between you and ol' Snowflake, it's no wonder rule of law is such an

> antiquated idea in this country these days - not even the lawyers respect
> it.



Guys like you have all the answers sitting in behind your computer. If you
were POTUS and charged with the responsibility of protecting the country and
had the authority to fashion ways to do that, it would become complicated in
a hurry, with lots of tough, gray-area decisions.

Then, when some of those tough decisions are made, you would have to listen
to the tin-foil hat crowd squawking about concentration camps and FEMA
gulags.

What is your answer then? You are POTUS and have top-secret intel that a
citizen of the U.S. is in Pakistan actively plotting terrorist attacks
against the U.S. or has done so in the past. What is your move?

[HoneyMonster]

Ah, I misunderstood. So if this suspected plotter (who is a U.S. citizen)
is overseas, it's OK to murder him, but if he is on home soil, he is
entitled to due process. Have I got it right now?

[Frostbite]

On 17/10/2011 2:08 PM, ChrisRobin wrote:

> So... now the government can call anyone ...

Ya, that's it...just "anyone." Because government is evil, and the guy
who would plant a nuke in NYC in a NY minute if he got the chance
deserves every benefit of the doubt, and every generous interpretation
of the law. What is wrong with you? This guy was 100% terrorist through
and through, he admitted it and was proud of it, he wanted you and your
family dead, and he aided and abetted those inclined to carry out his
wishes. To increase his chances of success, he decided to wage his war
on the US from a nearly impenetrable culture and country. I have a word
for "citizens" like that: targets.


"The Yemen-based al-Awlaki has been linked to the Fort Hood massacre and
the attempt in December to blow up a Detroit-bound jet by a man wearing
explosives in his underpants.

The decision to add him to the US hit list required a National Security
Council review because of his citizenship.

Officials said US intelligence had argued that the cleric now posed a
direct threat to America, an al-Qaeda recruiter who had graduated from
encouraging attacks to active involvement in them.

Al-Awlaki, 38, became famous last year after it emerged he had
communicated extensively by email with Major Nidal Hasan, the army
psychiatrist accused of killing 13 soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas.

The cleric, who allegedly had ties with the 9/11 hijackers, later
praised the Fort Hood killings and said Muslims should only serve in the
US military if they intended to carry out similar attacks."
























No check and balances at all. Obama just decided one day in the shower
"let's take this motherfucker out" and that was the end of it. I'm sure
that's exactly how it went down.

[mo_ntresor]

On Oct 17 2011 3:21 PM, HoneyMonster wrote:

> > WFT did you come up with this? Of course there is a clear answer. The
> > citizen is entitled to constitutional protections under the criminal
> > justice system. My comment about no clear answers was in the situation
> > where a citizen is abroad plotting terror acts. I think it's reasonable
> > to believe that a citizen is entitled to certain basic procedural
> > protections in that situation, but then again it's reasonable to believe
> > that he is not.
> >
> > It's a tough call by the President. You can critcize him about it, but
> > you don't have the responsibility, he does. It's a little tougher when
> > you're not in an easy chair talking out of your ass.
>
> Ah, I misunderstood. So if this suspected plotter (who is a U.S. citizen)
> is overseas, it's OK to murder him, but if he is on home soil, he is
> entitled to due process. Have I got it right now?

you forgot something critical. are you asking senator obama or president
obama?

mo_ntresor

------ 

[David Monaghan]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:43:02 -0500, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote:

>"David Monaghan" <monagha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7s3p97hd7jljvo20e...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:07:59 -0700, "phlash74" <a10...@webnntp.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/middleeast/yemeni-security-forces-fire-on-protesters-in-sana.html?hp
>>
>>>Seriously, killing an AMERICAN CITIZEN, not to mention his 17 year old
>>>son, with drone attacks a month apart and justifying it because he was an
>>>alleged terrorist?
>>
>> How does it matter if he's an "AMERICAN CITIZEN" or not? Since when did
>> being a traitor entitle you to special privileges over other enemies? This
>> has got to rank as one of the most bizarre statements I've seen.

>There is a notion that a citizen might be entitled to more procedural
>protections than non-citizens. For example, it might be argued that a
>citizen is entitled to be arrested and afforded an opportunity to present a
>defense before an impartial tribuna rather than face summary execution.
>It's a view that is substantial, in my opinion. No clear correct answers on
>this issue.

This is still looking-glass thinking to me. Worse, it seems to suggest that
foreigners can treated as vermin, whereas a traitor should be afforded extra
courtesy, despite their de facto rejection of the same.

DaveM

[David Monaghan]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 20:53:07 +0000 (UTC), HoneyMonster
<som...@someplace.invalid> wrote:


>Summary "execution" of foreigners on foreign soil: OK.
>Summary "execution" of U.S citizens on foreign soil: Less acceptable, but
>still OK.
>Summary "execution" of U.S citizens on U.S soil: No clear correct answers.

>Is that about it?

No, you missed out "Summary execution of foreigners on US soil"

DaveM

[Iceman]

"Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message

news:j7i1b5$6us$1...@dont-email.me...

> "Iceman" <oneo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:j7hup5$jt3$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>There was no conclusive evidence that he was actually involved in terror
>>plotting beyond just being a propagandist.
>
> If you believe that then you have to believe that the President signed a
> death warrant based on a guy being a propagandist. I find that difficult
> to believe. The President was told something by intelligence that made
> him sign a warrant for a man's death. I don't think that President Obama
> takes that sort of thing lightly, or signs them on the basis of propaganda
> alone.

If Dear Leader says Awlaki is a bad terrorist and needs to die, it must be
true. Would you say that about President Bush, President Nixon, or
President Palin?

> But, that's the can of worms that is opened when we go down that road. We
> have to trust POTUS to exercise that authority responsibly. Do we trust
> him or not?

I think it gives the POTUS too much power. Even Bush wasn't claiming that
he had the right to assassinate a US citizen without trial.

> Also, what happens when the Russians send assassination squads to Texas to
> take out terrorists plotting against Russia? We have set a precedent that
> is difficult to control.

If they had carried out an attack, or were in the process of carrying out an
attack, and the US government refused to act against them, that would be one
thing - you can argue that was the justification for the Afghanistan War.
But what about a Russian citizen living in Texas who broadcasts Youtube
videos attacking Putin's government, calling for violent resistance to it,
and cheering Chechen attacks on Russian soldiers, without any evidence that
person has actually been involved in any terrorist attacks or plots?

[bo dark]

On Oct 17, 1:07 pm, "phlash74" <a102...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/middleeast/yemeni-security-fo...
>

> The people who voted for Bush in 2000/2004 and also voted for Obama in
> 2008 has to represent what, 0.1% of the population?  Then why does Obama
> continue to be the half-black version of Bush?
>
> Seriously, killing an AMERICAN CITIZEN, not to mention his 17 year old
> son, with drone attacks a month apart and justifying it because he was an
> alleged terrorist?
>
> Michael
>
> -----------------
> "> phlash
> On your circle jerk k00l kidz email list.  Should be disqualified for
> that, but I'll give him a pass because he is smart." - ramashiva,
> 8/22/2010
>
> "Hitler has already been forgiven, but you have not." - Reptillian AKA
> Igotskillz, 4/6/2011
>
> ________________________________________________________________________ 

http://www.mugshots.com/Terrorism/Anwar-al-Awlaki.html


Wasn't this guy a cast member on Seinfeld ?

[necron99]

What are you guys going to say when China starts assasinating Falung Gong
and Free Tibet members in Long Beach..

Adam

______________________________________________________________________ 

[HoneyMonster]

Not to mention all the fucking gweilos.

[DDawgster]

i agree 100 %..i was getting ready to make a similar post and decided to
see your opinion first

well put ....ny han

> Apparently I see no reason for Perry to have lied well over a year ago..

Another gem from Alim Nassor

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[DDawgster]

so was the rest of the world .. then the dumb fuck manufactured IRAQ

[DDawgster]

On Oct 17 2011 2:57 PM, Mossingen wrote:

> "Iceman" <oneo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:j7hup5$jt3$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>
> >There was no conclusive evidence that he was actually involved in terror
> >plotting beyond just being a propagandist.
>
>
> If you believe that then you have to believe that the President signed a
> death warrant based on a guy being a propagandist. I find that difficult to
> believe. The President was told something by intelligence that made him
> sign a warrant for a man's death. I don't think that President Obama takes
> that sort of thing lightly, or signs them on the basis of propaganda alone.

i will bet there better evidence that this guy was a threat than there was
when Bush manufactured the WMD bullshit

>
> But, that's the can of worms that is opened when we go down that road. We
> have to trust POTUS to exercise that authority responsibly. Do we trust him
> or not? Also, what happens when the Russians send assassination squads to
> Texas to take out terrorists plotting against Russia? We have set a
> precedent that is difficult to control.

> Apparently I see no reason for Perry to have lied well over a year ago..

Another gem from Alim Nassor

________________________________________________________________________ 

[DDawgster]

On Oct 17 2011 5:10 PM, Iceman wrote:

> "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:j7i1b5$6us$1...@dont-email.me...
> > "Iceman" <oneo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:j7hup5$jt3$1...@dont-email.me...
> >
> >>There was no conclusive evidence that he was actually involved in terror
> >>plotting beyond just being a propagandist.
> >
> > If you believe that then you have to believe that the President signed a
> > death warrant based on a guy being a propagandist. I find that difficult
> > to believe. The President was told something by intelligence that made
> > him sign a warrant for a man's death. I don't think that President Obama
> > takes that sort of thing lightly, or signs them on the basis of propaganda
> > alone.
>
>
> If Dear Leader says Awlaki is a bad terrorist and needs to die, it must be
> true. Would you say that about President Bush, President Nixon, or
> President Palin?
>
> > But, that's the can of worms that is opened when we go down that road. We
> > have to trust POTUS to exercise that authority responsibly. Do we trust
> > him or not?
>
>
> I think it gives the POTUS too much power. Even Bush wasn't claiming that
> he had the right to assassinate a US citizen without trial.

no .. but he thought it was OK to send 4600 of our best soldiers to die in
Iraq based on lies and manipulation

>
> > Also, what happens when the Russians send assassination squads to Texas to
> > take out terrorists plotting against Russia? We have set a precedent that
> > is difficult to control.
>
>
> If they had carried out an attack, or were in the process of carrying out an
> attack, and the US government refused to act against them, that would be one
> thing - you can argue that was the justification for the Afghanistan War.
> But what about a Russian citizen living in Texas who broadcasts Youtube
> videos attacking Putin's government, calling for violent resistance to it,
> and cheering Chechen attacks on Russian soldiers, without any evidence that
> person has actually been involved in any terrorist attacks or plots?

> Apparently I see no reason for Perry to have lied well over a year ago..

Another gem from Alim Nassor

-------- 

[DDawgster]

i wiosh you had used this kind of logic in the thread about the card being
on the floor .. NOW you are starting to understand

[Clave]

"HoneyMonster" <som...@someplace.invalid> wrote in message

news:j7i68i$rid$1...@news.albasani.net...

<...>

> Ah, I misunderstood. So if this suspected plotter (who is a U.S. citizen)
> is overseas, it's OK to murder him, but if he is on home soil, he is
> entitled to due process. Have I got it right now?

You are aware that our Constitution isn't sovereign law anywhere else,
right?

Jim

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 17 2011 5:14 PM, Mossingen wrote:

> Guys like you have all the answers sitting in behind your computer. If you
> were POTUS and charged with the responsibility of protecting the country and
> had the authority to fashion ways to do that, it would become complicated in
> a hurry, with lots of tough, gray-area decisions.

Rule of law shouldn't be a matter of convenience. And you're making one
absolute whopper of an assumption – that the POTUS believes he has an
actual responsibility to protect us, American citizens. He's shown little
evidence of this. Think about it, particularly as it pertains to the
current financial crisis. Has he shown any interest in protecting you, me,
or anybody else who doesn't cut him a six figure check every four years?
Has anybody been prosecuted for blatant, obvious fraud that has cratered
the economy and put hundreds of thousands of people on the street?

> Then, when some of those tough decisions are made, you would have to listen
> to the tin-foil hat crowd squawking about concentration camps and FEMA
> gulags.

Who cares what he has to listen to? He has a tough job and a lot of
critics, boo hoo. No one forced him to run for office.

> What is your answer then? You are POTUS and have top-secret intel that a
> citizen of the U.S. is in Pakistan actively plotting terrorist attacks
> against the U.S. or has done so in the past. What is your move?

Work with our so-called Pakistani allies to have him arrested and
extradited. Or barring that, break the law, and face the consequences. But
there should be consequences, and rules, to prevent potential abuses. What
you're promoting is total lawlessness.

This "24"-like situation is such an extreme example, it has no bearing on
reality. The federal government is taking full advantage of this hysteria
to expand its powers, and I'd argue that this is no accident. Look at
Anwar Al-Awlaki – all he was ever proven to be was a motivational speaker,
an Al-Qaeda propagandist. He wasn't any kind of direct or imminent threat.
And yet he was assassinated, same as if he had been planning to mount a
suicide bombing in Times Square tomorrow. Once this precedent is
established, you think the federal government is going to stop or slow
down? GMAFB. They've seen they can get away with it with no consequences.
It's game on now.

You lawyers seem to share this deference to authority disease, where you
believe everyone in power exists solely to protect you from the terrorist
boogeyman. This naivety is just mind-blowing. I've got a news flash: The
people running the show have agendas, and our welfare is not on the list.
Go revisit Sibel Edmunds' testimony re: 9/11 if this is unclear – there
were multiple warnings within the CIA and FBI that an attack was imminent.
The warnings were snuffed out by superiors in both organizations, because
– gov't complicity issues aside – THESE ORGANIZATIONS EXIST TO ENCOURAGE
TERRORISM, not fight it. No terrorism, and half of the national security
complex vanishes, overnight. Don't you fools see this? There's an
inherent, systemic conflict of interest in that the military industrial
complex NEEDS terrorism, needs a cast of boogeymen, in order to justify
its existence. They don't exist to protect us – as currently constituted,
the system exists only to PROTECT ITSELF.

You and Snowflake are not stupid people. Misguided and confused and
hopeless naive about the true machinations of power, yes. But not stupid.
Surely you can see the folly of what you're encouraging. Because if you
can't, I fear there's little hope for the rest of these American zombies.

------ 

[bub]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:14:06 -0500, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
wrote:

>You are POTUS and have top-secret intel that a
>citizen of the U.S. is in Pakistan actively plotting terrorist attacks
>against the U.S. or has done so in the past. What is your move?

well, don't put him in gitmo...that's cruel and violates his rights

[necron99]

They don't seem to have any problem applying US laws to non citizens who
are not on US soil when it suits them.
Ask Neteller.

Adam

-------- 

[FL Turbo]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 13:34:30 -0500, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
wrote:

>"phlash74" <a10...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>news:ug7um8x...@recgroups.com...
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/middleeast/yemeni-security-forces-fire-on-protesters-in-sana.html?hp

>>
>> The people who voted for Bush in 2000/2004 and also voted for Obama in
>> 2008 has to represent what, 0.1% of the population? Then why does Obama
>> continue to be the half-black version of Bush?
>>

>> Seriously, killing an AMERICAN CITIZEN, not to mention his 17 year old
>> son, with drone attacks a month apart and justifying it because he was an
>> alleged terrorist?
>>

>> Michael

>
>
>
>I don't really like the idea, but the issue isn't that simple. You make it
>sound like he dropped a bomb on some guy's house in Des Moines for no reason
>at all. I'm no hawk, but there is a reality out there of people who are
>determined to create chaos and kill Americans. Some of these people include
>American citizens. If the President had credible intel that this person
>posed an immediate threat what exactly would you have him do? What would
>President Michael do in that situation?
>
>I don't think American citizens should get a free pass for going overseas
>and plotting terror attacks against America. If they choose to do that then
>they know the risks. I know I'm waiving the flag a lot here, but of all the
>things President Obama has done (and has not done) in office that irritate
>me, this is not one of them. It's one of the very few aggressive, difficult
>decisions he's made while in office.
>

Well, haven't they been "giving aid and comfort to the enemy"?
Isn't that Treason?
Doesn't the Constitution prescribe the death penalty for Treason?
What's the problem?

Personally, as a member of the VRWC, I just luv to see the Leftards
grind their teeth and fume and fuss at Obama.
What spoils my Schadenfreude is the realization that they will all
vote for him anyway.

[Clave]

"necron99" <necr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:neuum8x...@recgroups.com...

Um, that's a company doing business in the US.

Jim

[Mossingen]

"Iceman" <oneo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:j7i94h$ti7$1...@dont-email.me...

>
> "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:j7i1b5$6us$1...@dont-email.me...
>> "Iceman" <oneo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:j7hup5$jt3$1...@dont-email.me...
>>
>>>There was no conclusive evidence that he was actually involved in terror
>>>plotting beyond just being a propagandist.
>>
>> If you believe that then you have to believe that the President signed a
>> death warrant based on a guy being a propagandist. I find that difficult
>> to believe. The President was told something by intelligence that made
>> him sign a warrant for a man's death. I don't think that President Obama
>> takes that sort of thing lightly, or signs them on the basis of
>> propaganda alone.
>
>
> If Dear Leader says Awlaki is a bad terrorist and needs to die, it must be
> true. Would you say that about President Bush, President Nixon, or
> President Palin?

C'mon. You think President Obama or any President just arbitrarily decides
to pick some guy at random and direct the CIA to kill him? I can understand
the hesitancy to grant such a power to the President, but you're respons is
just flippant.

>> But, that's the can of worms that is opened when we go down that road.
>> We have to trust POTUS to exercise that authority responsibly. Do we
>> trust him or not?
>
>
> I think it gives the POTUS too much power. Even Bush wasn't claiming that
> he had the right to assassinate a US citizen without trial.

I don't think he would have opposed it. Unless you think Dick Cheney would
have objected.

>> Also, what happens when the Russians send assassination squads to Texas
>> to take out terrorists plotting against Russia? We have set a precedent
>> that is difficult to control.
>
>
> If they had carried out an attack, or were in the process of carrying out
> an attack, and the US government refused to act against them, that would
> be one thing - you can argue that was the justification for the
> Afghanistan War. But what about a Russian citizen living in Texas who
> broadcasts Youtube videos attacking Putin's government, calling for
> violent resistance to it, and cheering Chechen attacks on Russian
> soldiers, without any evidence that person has actually been involved in
> any terrorist attacks or plots?

What about it? What if such a thing is punishable by death under Russian
law?

[Mossingen]

"DDawgster" <a1e...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:9onum8x...@recgroups.com...

> i wiosh you had used this kind of logic in the thread about the card being
> on the floor .. NOW you are starting to understand

LOL...they two situations aren't exactly analogous.

[Mossingen]

"FL Turbo" <noe...@notime.com> wrote in message
news:3kmp979rfo2j1i8mg...@4ax.com...

Usually, before the government subjects a citizen to a loss of his right to
life, they have to provide him one of those trial thingies.

> Personally, as a member of the VRWC, I just luv to see the Leftards
> grind their teeth and fume and fuss at Obama.
> What spoils my Schadenfreude is the realization that they will all
> vote for him anyway.

I doubt I vote for him again, but I might. Still undecided. I don't really
want to, but the GOP is making it really, really difficult to have
confidence in an alternative.

[Mossingen]

"HoneyMonster" <som...@someplace.invalid> wrote in message

news:j7i68i$rid$1...@news.albasani.net...

> Ah, I misunderstood. So if this suspected plotter (who is a U.S. citizen)
> is overseas, it's OK to murder him, but if he is on home soil, he is
> entitled to due process. Have I got it right now?

I don't know if it's right. I think there are reasonable arguments to be
made either way. The situation under discussion was a citizen who has
aligned himself with Al Quaida. If there were no dispute about that, and
about the fact that he was plotting terrorism in the U.S. or had done so in
the past, then what is your action as POTUS?

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 17 2011 5:08 PM, Mossingen wrote:

> "HoneyMonster" <som...@someplace.invalid> wrote in message

> news:j7i4jj$len$2...@news.albasani.net...

> > Summary "execution" of foreigners on foreign soil: OK.
>

> Yes, as long as it's not arbitrary and necessary for the defense of our
country.

Who determines what's "arbitrary" or "necessary?" Surely you (a lawyer no
less!) can see the absurdity of applying these totally subjective
standards. They're meaningless.

> You can't seriously object to that notion. The problem is the
> secrecy in making the decision whether the target in fact constitutes a
> threat serious enough to warrant summary execution. At some point we just
> have to trust that POTUS is doing the right thing, or weigh the consequences
> of inaction. Did you object to Bin Laden's execution? If so, why
> (specifically)?

"At some point we just have to trust that POTUS is doing the right thing."

Jesus H. Christ, how can anyone possibly be this mentally challenged? He's
not an emperor or a fucking dictator. He's an elected head of state, bound
by U.S. law and pledged to defend the Constitution. You are anointing him
Supreme Being, with the power to unilaterally order the death of anyone,
anywhere, so long as he isn't a U.S. citizen on American soil, so long as
he offers up a good enough excuse. That's insane.

> > Summary "execution" of U.S citizens on foreign soil: Less acceptable, but
> > still OK.
>

> Sure, applying the same criteria as above.

U.S. citizens lose their Constitutional rights of due process when they
step on foreign soil? I'm no lawyer, but isn't their citizenship what puts
them within the Constitution's jurisdiction, not their mere physical
location?

> > Summary "execution" of U.S citizens on U.S soil: No clear correct answers.
>

> WFT did you come up with this? Of course there is a clear answer. The
> citizen is entitled to constitutional protections under the criminal justice
> system. My comment about no clear answers was in the situation where a
> citizen is abroad plotting terror acts. I think it's reasonable to believe
> that a citizen is entitled to certain basic procedural protections in that
> situation, but then again it's reasonable to believe that he is not.

Jesus, you sound like da pickle.

> It's a tough call by the President. You can critcize him about it, but you
> don't have the responsibility, he does. It's a little tougher when you're
> not in an easy chair talking out of your ass.

Just enforce the goddamn laws that already exists, rather than letting
some political sycophants in the DOJ whip up super-secret papers that
purportedly justify this madness. That'll make his decisions a lot easier.

______________________________________________________________________ 

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 17 2011 4:34 PM, David Monaghan wrote:

> How does it matter if he's an "AMERICAN CITIZEN" or not? Since when did
> being a traitor entitle you to special privileges over other enemies? This
> has got to rank as one of the most bizarre statements I've seen.

Someone correct me if this is mistaken, but I believe citizenship is what
grants U.S. citizens Constitutional rights such as due process.
Technically to be a "traitor" you need to be convicted as such, or you
need to have your citizenship revoked, which is also a judicial process.

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[Clave]

"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:0jhvm8x...@recgroups.com...

> On Oct 17 2011 4:34 PM, David Monaghan wrote:
>
>> How does it matter if he's an "AMERICAN CITIZEN" or not? Since when did
>> being a traitor entitle you to special privileges over other enemies?
>> This
>> has got to rank as one of the most bizarre statements I've seen.
>
> Someone correct me if this is mistaken, but I believe citizenship is what

> grants U.S. citizens Constitutional rights such as due process...

Actually it's physical presence on US soil which entitles anyone to
Constitutional protections, which is why Guantanamo is still open.

US citizens (non-diplomats anyway) are subject to other countries' sovereign
laws when they travel regardless of how their actions conform to US laws,
right? And if an American gets into the shit overseas, there's fuck all
that the US can do about it if the other country doesn't want to cooperate.

Of course we're almost certainly violating the laws of other countries when
we carry out a hit like that, but as far as US law is concerned, the action
is most likely extralegal.

Jim

[David Monaghan]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:12:46 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
wrote:

>"necron99" <necr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:neuum8x...@recgroups.com...

>> They don't seem to have any problem applying US laws to non citizens who
>> are not on US soil when it suits them.
>> Ask Neteller.
>
>Um, that's a company doing business in the US.

Nope. Take the export control laws, especially as they operated in the past.
DaveM

[Clave]

"David Monaghan" <monagha...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:sc7q975upl2crsccs...@4ax.com...

> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:12:46 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
> wrote:
>
>>"necron99" <necr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:neuum8x...@recgroups.com...
>
>>> They don't seem to have any problem applying US laws to non citizens who
>>> are not on US soil when it suits them.
>>> Ask Neteller.
>>
>>Um, that's a company doing business in the US.
>
> Nope.

OK fine -- *potentially* doing business in the US, with US citizens, with US
currency.

> Take the export control laws, especially as they operated in the past.

I keep waiting for someone to make some kind of point.

Jim

[David Monaghan]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 23:48:11 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
wrote:

>"David Monaghan" <monagha...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:sc7q975upl2crsccs...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 19:12:46 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"necron99" <necr...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:neuum8x...@recgroups.com...
>>
>>>> They don't seem to have any problem applying US laws to non citizens who
>>>> are not on US soil when it suits them.
>>>> Ask Neteller.
>>>
>>>Um, that's a company doing business in the US.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>OK fine -- *potentially* doing business in the US, with US citizens, with US
>currency.

Sorry. Missed the reference to Neteller - I wasn't arguing about that..

>> Take the export control laws, especially as they operated in the past.
>
>I keep waiting for someone to make some kind of point.

The export control laws on technology, at least how they operated in past,
meant that the US considered not just the original purchaser of technology
to be bound by US law on their export to banned countries, but also a
distant purchaser down the chain. I can't find a reference to the case I'm
thinking of, but I recall a small British manufacturer being arrested in
Spain in the 80's and extradited to the US for selling toys to Russia
containing computer chips banned for export. Not chips he had
purchased/imported from the US himself, btw, but ones that had passed
through several UK wholesalers.

DaveM

[Clave]

"David Monaghan" <monagha...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:jo9q97t6kjrmv4ru8...@4ax.com...

<...>

> The export control laws on technology, at least how they operated in past,
> meant that the US considered not just the original purchaser of technology
> to be bound by US law on their export to banned countries, but also a
> distant purchaser down the chain. I can't find a reference to the case I'm
> thinking of, but I recall a small British manufacturer being arrested in
> Spain in the 80's and extradited to the US for selling toys to Russia
> containing computer chips banned for export. Not chips he had
> purchased/imported from the US himself, btw, but ones that had passed
> through several UK wholesalers.

So?

The US is completely at liberty to *try* to get its
copyright/patent/whatever laws enforced by other countries, but that doesn't
mean our Constitution is the law anywhere else.

You said the key word yourself -- "extradited". That means the other coutry
picked up the subject according to ITS OWN LAWS and sent him to the US.

Jim

[monagha...@gmail.com]

Ok. I follow you now. That's a fair point and a pragmatic position. I
just object to "long-arm" laws on principle.

DaveM

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 17, 6:40 pm, "DDawgster" <a1e5...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Oct 17 2011 3:45 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
>
>
>
>

> > "Will in New Haven" <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote in message

Iraq was an insane act and cost the U.S. the good will of many who had
supported us in Afghanistan. Staying in Afghanistan is habit. We just
can't convince ourselves that there is nothing we can do to pacify,
stabilize or (any other verb that means something good happens) in
Afghanistan. I have known some Afghani immigrants and I cannot
understand WHY Afghanistan cannot be pacified, stabilized or (other
verb) but it cannot be.

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 17, 6:24 pm, "necron99" <necron...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18 2011 8:44 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 17, 4:34 pm, David Monaghan <monaghand.da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:07:59 -0700, "phlash74" <a102...@webnntp.invalid>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/world/middleeast/yemeni-security-fo...

> > > >Seriously, killing an AMERICAN CITIZEN, not to mention his 17 year old
> > > >son, with drone attacks a month apart and justifying it because he was an
> > > >alleged terrorist?
>

> > > How does it matter if he's an "AMERICAN CITIZEN" or not? Since when did
> > > being a traitor entitle you to special privileges over other enemies? This
> > > has got to rank as one of the most bizarre statements I've seen.
>

> > If he were _in custody_ it would matter. He could possibly be charged
> > with treason, for instance. On the other hand, his rights as the
> > accused would be spelled out and well-known.
>
> > However, he wasn't in custody and it doesn't seem likely that they
> > could have brought him in.
>

> > --
> > Will in New Haven
>

> What are you guys going to say when China starts assasinating Falung Gong
> and Free Tibet members in Long Beach..

That there has been a Han civilization for a long, long time. But
there doesn't have to be.

[Mossingen]

"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:kbhvm8x...@recgroups.com...

> On Oct 17 2011 5:08 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
>> "HoneyMonster" <som...@someplace.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:j7i4jj$len$2...@news.albasani.net...
>
>> > Summary "execution" of foreigners on foreign soil: OK.
>>
>> Yes, as long as it's not arbitrary and necessary for the defense of our
> country.
>
> Who determines what's "arbitrary" or "necessary?" Surely you (a lawyer no
> less!) can see the absurdity of applying these totally subjective
> standards. They're meaningless.

You understand them, don't you? They encompass a lot of conduct, but
they're hardly meaningless.

What existing laws deal with how to handle an American citizen who is an
active terrorist located in a foreign country and aligned with Al Quaida?
I'm not entirely convinced that the course chosen by the President is the
correct one, but I *know* that relying on our "allies" the Pakistanis (as
you suggested) is not going to address the problem, either (you know, our
"allies" who were harboring Bin Laden).

The fundamental problem with your approach is that eventually, when the
President is confronted with a threat to the U.S., he has to actually *do*
something about it. Further "dialogue" or debate about international law,
or entreaties to the Pakistanis are not effective.

You don't really disagree with anything that President Obama has done on the
merits of this issue, you just quibble with the fact that the mechanism used
to choose targets isn't clear to you and has the potential for abuse. It's
a fair criticism, but on balance I think decisive action in this area is
more important.

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 18 2011 11:35 AM, Mossingen wrote:

> What existing laws deal with how to handle an American citizen who is an
> active terrorist located in a foreign country and aligned with Al Quaida?
> I'm not entirely convinced that the course chosen by the President is the
> correct one, but I *know* that relying on our "allies" the Pakistanis (as
> you suggested) is not going to address the problem, either (you know, our
> "allies" who were harboring Bin Laden).

Then leave them alone. Radical idea, huh? But you see, this constant
interventionism isn't doing the slightest bit to combat terrorism, IT'S
MAKING THE PROBLEM WORSE. For every would-be terrorist we kill, two more
take his place, because we're also killing civilians and radicalizing
people who would not otherwise be a threat.

But of course, that's the real purpose of the policy. Can't wage a war
without an enemy. Can't find an enemy? Then create one.

> The fundamental problem with your approach is that eventually, when the
> President is confronted with a threat to the U.S., he has to actually *do*
> something about it. Further "dialogue" or debate about international law,
> or entreaties to the Pakistanis are not effective.

You've been perfectly brainwashed. The only reason you think the Prez has
to DO something is because our counter-terrorism policies are CREATING the
problem in the first place. It's a trick that's been practiced by
government's for centuries: create an artificial problem, and then
implement a solution that's THE ACTUAL POLICY GOAL – in this case,
imperial expansionism/perpetual war.

> You don't really disagree with anything that President Obama has done on the
> merits of this issue, you just quibble with the fact that the mechanism used
> to choose targets isn't clear to you and has the potential for abuse. It's
> a fair criticism, but on balance I think decisive action in this area is
> more important.

Are you kidding me? Have you understood nothing I've written? I disagree
with the entire framework of this country's "counter-terrorism" policies,
especially Obama's actions therein. Launching drone attacks into foreign
countries = not okay. Killing American citizens – ANYWHERE – not okay.
Wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen based on false pretenses = not
okay. Rendition, torture, etc., NOT OKAY.

The threat of terrorism has been vastly overstated in order to justify
this country's brutal foreign policy. STOP LIVING IN FEAR.

______________________________________________________________________ 

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 17 2011 4:45 PM, Mossingen wrote:

> I was on board with Afghanistan, but with the understanding that it was
> going be a quick obliteration of the Taliban/Al Quaida leadership there and
> we leave. I can't fathom why we are still there.

Because obliterating Taliban/Al Qaeda was NEVER the point, it was merely
the propaganda used to justify it. How is this not painfully obvious to
you now, after nearly a decade of this horror show?

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 17 2011 3:57 PM, Mossingen wrote:

> If you believe that then you have to believe that the President signed a
> death warrant based on a guy being a propagandist. I find that difficult to
> believe.

Lol. Why? He signs death warrants for suspected terrorists and innocent
civilians alike every time he approves a drone strike on foreign soil. He
doesn't appear terribly broken up about it.

> The President was told something by intelligence that made him
> sign a warrant for a man's death. I don't think that President Obama takes
> that sort of thing lightly, or signs them on the basis of propaganda alone.

Your opinion is based entirely on wishful thinking – it has no objective
basis.

I'll explain this for the hundredth time: Intelligence might justify
targets, but it doesn't dictate POLICY. Intelligence is
massaged/twisted/distorted/manufactured to JUSTIFY policy. The policy
ALWAYS comes first.

> But, that's the can of worms that is opened when we go down that road. We
> have to trust POTUS to exercise that authority responsibly. Do we trust him
> or not?

This is the "deference to authority" disease I mentioned yesterday. Trust
is earned. Obama hasn't earned my trust – quite the opposite. What has he
done to earn yours, other than win a friggin' election?

> Also, what happens when the Russians send assassination squads to
> Texas to take out terrorists plotting against Russia? We have set a
> precedent that is difficult to control.

Finally, a cogent thought! I knew you had it in you.

________________________________________________________________________ 

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 18 2011 2:20 AM, Clave wrote:

> Actually it's physical presence on US soil which entitles anyone to
> Constitutional protections, which is why Guantanamo is still open.

True.

> US citizens (non-diplomats anyway) are subject to other countries' sovereign
> laws when they travel regardless of how their actions conform to US laws,
> right? And if an American gets into the shit overseas, there's fuck all
> that the US can do about it if the other country doesn't want to cooperate.

Also true. My point, though, was that the U.S. government cannot act
against its OWN citizens on FOREIGN soil – because foreign laws
notwithstanding, as U.S. citizens they're still technically protected from
the actions of their own gov't by the Constitution.

If this is incorrect, someone please clarify – I think I read this on the
blog of a legal professor months ago and IIRC his conclusions were far
from authoritative.

-------- 

[bratt]

I get it was never the point - but that doesn't answer why we are still
there with a different admin.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama, February 2009: If this economy hasn’t rebounded in three years, I’m
a one-termer

------- 

[Frostbite]

On 18/10/2011 10:09 AM, ChrisRobin wrote:

> If this is incorrect, someone please clarify – I think I read this on the
> blog of a legal professor months ago and IIRC his conclusions were far
> from authoritative.

It is incorrect. This has been litigated, because his father tried to
get some sort of restraining order against the US government to take his
son off the kill list. iirc, the best arguments the ACLUs top guns could
come up with, therefore the ones they litigated, were that Yemen was not
an established battlefield, and that al-Awlaki did not pose an "imminent
threat."

[Clave]

"Frostbite" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:vJinq.7699$6G4....@newsfe01.iad...

Actually, the suit his father filed was dismissed because the father didn't
have standing. The judge expressed serious concerns about the targeting,
but didn't offer any opinion as to its legality.

So it appears that the question is far from decided, and will likely remain
so until the administration releases the secret memo, which won't happen, or
Congress decides to enact some specific legislation addressing it, which
also won't happen.

So lacking a specific legal prohibition, I would expect this kind of thing
to continue -- much more quietly, I'd imagine.

Jim

[Frostbite]

Ya, I knew that. I didn't phrase it right, but that's what the ACLU was
arguing in its litigation briefs. I'm not saying it's a decided issue.
I'm saying even the human rights groups don't seem to be arguing that
you can't put a bullet in the head of a "citizen" who joins on with an
enemy you are at war with, and engages in war against "his own country."
They were arguing it wasn't a battlefield and he wasn't an imminent
threat, so I am assuming those are the best two relevant arguments
al-Awaki had (and, to me, they don't sound like very good ones on their
face).

[David Monaghan]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 10:46:44 -0700, "Clave" <cla...@the.monastery.com>
wrote:

>Actually, the suit his father filed was dismissed because the father didn't
>have standing.

Losing your son doesn't count as an injury in the law?

DaveM

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 18 2011 1:16 PM, bratt wrote:

> I get it was never the point - but that doesn't answer why we are still
> there with a different admin.

Energy (oil pipelines), location (proximity to Middle Eastern/Caspian
countries/energy sources, plus caches of rare earth minerals), nexus of
regional drug trade... and because war for the sake of war is the most
lucrative industry humankind's ever known.

______________________________________________________________________ 

[Mossingen]

"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:6vn0n8x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Oct 17 2011 3:57 PM, Mossingen wrote:
>
>> If you believe that then you have to believe that the President signed a
>> death warrant based on a guy being a propagandist. I find that difficult
>> to
>> believe.
>
> Lol. Why? He signs death warrants for suspected terrorists and innocent
> civilians alike every time he approves a drone strike on foreign soil. He
> doesn't appear terribly broken up about it.
>
>> The President was told something by intelligence that made him
>> sign a warrant for a man's death. I don't think that President Obama
>> takes
>> that sort of thing lightly, or signs them on the basis of propaganda
>> alone.
>

> Your opinion is based entirely on wishful thinking - it has no objective

> basis.
>
> I'll explain this for the hundredth time: Intelligence might justify
> targets, but it doesn't dictate POLICY. Intelligence is
> massaged/twisted/distorted/manufactured to JUSTIFY policy. The policy
> ALWAYS comes first.
>
>> But, that's the can of worms that is opened when we go down that road.
>> We
>> have to trust POTUS to exercise that authority responsibly. Do we trust
>> him
>> or not?
>
> This is the "deference to authority" disease I mentioned yesterday. Trust

> is earned. Obama hasn't earned my trust - quite the opposite. What has he

> done to earn yours, other than win a friggin' election?

At bottom, you fear your own government more than the threats from other
countries. That is your de facto operating postulate, and it's not
rational.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 17 Oct 2011 16:08:41 -0500, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>

wrote:

>"HoneyMonster" <som...@someplace.invalid> wrote in message
>news:j7i4jj$len$2...@news.albasani.net...
>
>

>> Let's just make sure we all have your position on this clear:
>
>
>OK

>
>
>
>> Summary "execution" of foreigners on foreign soil: OK.
>
>
>
>Yes, as long as it's not arbitrary and necessary for the defense of our

>country. You can't seriously object to that notion. The problem is the

>secrecy in making the decision whether the target in fact constitutes a
>threat serious enough to warrant summary execution. At some point we just
>have to trust that POTUS is doing the right thing, or weigh the consequences
>of inaction. Did you object to Bin Laden's execution? If so, why
>(specifically)?
>
>

>> Summary "execution" of U.S citizens on foreign soil: Less acceptable, but
>> still OK.
>
>
>
>Sure, applying the same criteria as above.

That means a president can murder a political enemy on foreign soil
simply by declaring him an enemy combatant. If he's on US soil, he
can't do that, of course. He can only arrest him and throw him in
jail indefinitely.

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 18, 7:00 pm, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Oct 18 2011 1:16 PM, bratt wrote:
>
> > I get it was never the point - but that doesn't answer why we are still
> > there with a different admin.
>
> Energy (oil pipelines), location (proximity to Middle Eastern/Caspian
> countries/energy sources, plus caches of rare earth minerals), nexus of
> regional drug trade... and because war for the sake of war is the most
> lucrative industry humankind's ever known.

Except none of that works very well. I'm _not_ arguing that those
aren't the reasons some people go to war. It is just that peace brings
more prosperity and certainly more stability. And the loot from
conquest almost never materializes for anyone's benefit. Even the evil
bastards who do these things rarely gain as much as they could be
being evil duplicious bastards in peacetime.

darn it

--
Will in New Haven

"Where can a good man go crazy; where can a cowboy get stoned."
Slaid Cleves - "Tumbleweed Stew"

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 19 2011 10:18 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:

> Except none of that works very well. I'm _not_ arguing that those
> aren't the reasons some people go to war. It is just that peace brings
> more prosperity and certainly more stability. And the loot from
> conquest almost never materializes for anyone's benefit. Even the evil
> bastards who do these things rarely gain as much as they could be
> being evil duplicious bastards in peacetime.

Sorry, but that's just silly.

-------- 

[Will in New Haven]

What a brilliant, reasoned argument you make. I've been in awe of your
intellectual capacity for a long time but you have convinced me,
against all of my prior understanding, that war is good for the
economy.

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 19 2011 2:43 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

> That means a president can murder a political enemy on foreign soil
> simply by declaring him an enemy combatant. If he's on US soil, he
> can't do that, of course. He can only arrest him and throw him in
> jail indefinitely.

Nothing to fear, Pepe – just trust the President. He'll do the right
thing. Honest!

____________________________________________________________________ 

[ChrisRobin]

On Oct 18 2011 7:49 PM, Mossingen wrote:

> At bottom, you fear your own government more than the threats from other
> countries.

Absolutely! Our government is the single most powerful institution on the
planet, and it has essentially declared its divine right to kill anyone,
anywhere, without fear of reprisal or consequences. I find that a bit
scary. Don't you?

Oh right, you don't, because you "trust the President." But what what if
Bush was currently President? Or Nixon? Or, god help us, someone like Rick
Perry or Newt Gingrich or Dick Cheney? Would you still exhibit the same
trust, or would you hope that some sort of legal constraints were in place
to limit the office's power?

> That is your de facto operating postulate, and it's not rational.

It is, and it's perfectly rational if you look objectively at its actions
over the last few decades. It's declared war on scores of countries and
bombed, invaded, occupied many on them on the thinnest of pretenses; it
locks up more people per capita than almost any other country on the
planet, many for minor drug offenses; and it's currently lending its full
legislative might to protect a fraudulent financial system that has
crashed the economy and is stealing millions of homes from
homeowners/investors simply because the TBTF banks have so hopelessly
corrupted our political/judicial systems that they can get away with it.
And now, our benevolent masters have declared the right to kill even
American citizens without any hint of due process. It's madness.

If you're more concerned about terrorist boogeymen than you are about the
criminal looting class that currently occupies DC and Wall Street, you
need to get your head out of your ass, Mossy. This country is being
systematically strip-mined of everything of value, and the elites will
continue to get away with it as long as people like you tacitly support it
by remaining blissfully ignorant. Wake up.

------- 

[ChrisRobin]

Oh dear. I'm sorry Will, I thought the stupidity of your statement was
self-evident, given the storied history of financiers accruing gobs and
gobs of generational-level wealth via shameless war profiteering... but
apparently they didn't get the memo that they could be even more
fabulously wealthy by playing by the rules and making sure everyone got
their fair share. LMAO!

Of course war isn't good for the *greater* economy. But it is EXTREMELY
profitable for the select people and institutions that have designed the
current financial/economic model – the elites and their politically
connected underlings. These people aren't the least bit concerned about
overall prosperity or stability, because they can make massively more
money by selling arms (often to opposing sides in a conflict, as in WWII),
loaning huge sums of money and saddling sovereign nations with staggering
debt loads, and then financing reconstruction once all of the
infrastructure has been blown to smithereens. Same as it ever was.

But, thanks for the laugh.

_____________________________________________________________________ 

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 19, 5:53 pm, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Oct 19 2011 1:20 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Oct 19, 12:53 pm, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > > On Oct 19 2011 10:18 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > > > Except none of that works very well. I'm _not_ arguing that those
> > > > aren't the reasons some people go to war. It is just that peace brings
> > > > more prosperity and certainly more stability. And the loot from
> > > > conquest almost never materializes for anyone's benefit. Even the evil
> > > > bastards who do these things rarely gain as much as they could be
> > > > being evil duplicious bastards in peacetime.
>
> > > Sorry, but that's just silly.
>
> > What a brilliant, reasoned argument you make. I've been in awe of your
> > intellectual capacity for a long time but you have convinced me,
> > against all of my prior understanding, that war is good for the
> > economy.
>
> Oh dear. I'm sorry Will, I thought the stupidity of your statement was
> self-evident, given the storied history of financiers accruing gobs and
> gobs of generational-level wealth via shameless war profiteering..

Arms sales, one of the usual targets of these accusations, go on at a
high and _predictable_ level during peacetime. And the governments who
pay can be counted on to pay. In wartime, you can get regimes that
decide it is your patriotic duty to give them credit. You get
governments that lose wars and can't pay.

. but
> apparently they didn't get the memo that they could be even more
> fabulously wealthy by playing by the rules and making sure everyone got
> their fair share. LMAO!

Who the fuck said anything about "playing by the rules and making sure
everyone got their fair share." It is possible to lie, cheat and steal
in peacetime and the world is safer for your profits.

>
> Of course war isn't good for the *greater* economy. But it is EXTREMELY
> profitable for the select people and institutions that have designed the
> current financial/economic model – the elites and their politically
> connected underlings. These people aren't the least bit concerned about
> overall prosperity or stability, because they can make massively more
> money by selling arms (often to opposing sides in a conflict, as in WWII),

Imbecile. Do you think anyone who sold arms to the Axis powers, except
for the Swedes, made a net PROFIT out of that war? The current
situation, with one side pretty much guaranteed a win, makes your
argument more reasonable but you clearly believe the nonsense that
goes back to WWI and beyond.

> loaning huge sums of money and saddling sovereign nations with staggering
> debt loads, and then financing reconstruction once all of the
> infrastructure has been blown to smithereens. Same as it ever was.
>
> But, thanks for the laugh

You're welcome. It's only fair because your "believe every revisionist
who says that the standard sources lied to you" stupidity has given me
endless laughs.

[ChrisRobin]

You think those debts aren't paid, in one form or another? Lol. The
financeers are the entities with leverage – NOT the governments. The
governments are just the bagmen.

> .. but

> > apparently they didn't get the memo that they could be even more
> > fabulously wealthy by playing by the rules and making sure everyone got
> > their fair share. LMAO!
>
> Who the fuck said anything about "playing by the rules and making sure
> everyone got their fair share." It is possible to lie, cheat and steal
> in peacetime and the world is safer for your profits.

But it isn't nearly as profitable. It's the debt that really matters,
stupid.

> > Of course war isn't good for the *greater* economy. But it is EXTREMELY
> > profitable for the select people and institutions that have designed the
> > current financial/economic model – the elites and their politically
> > connected underlings. These people aren't the least bit concerned about
> > overall prosperity or stability, because they can make massively more
> > money by selling arms (often to opposing sides in a conflict, as in WWII),
>
> Imbecile. Do you think anyone who sold arms to the Axis powers, except
> for the Swedes, made a net PROFIT out of that war?

I'm absolutely positive that certain financial interests made huge profits.

> > loaning huge sums of money and saddling sovereign nations with staggering
> > debt loads, and then financing reconstruction once all of the
> > infrastructure has been blown to smithereens. Same as it ever was.
> >
> > But, thanks for the laugh
>
> You're welcome. It's only fair because your "believe every revisionist
> who says that the standard sources lied to you" stupidity has given me
> endless laughs.

Another devotee of the cult of conventional wisdom! How droll. You guys
should start a newsletter or something.

______________________________________________________________________ 

[Will in New Haven]

You really don't understand. Of _course_ the standard sources lie to
you. However, the revisionists just use that fact to get you to
believe more lies.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 10:49:07 -0700, "ChrisRobin"
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

>On Oct 19 2011 2:43 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> That means a president can murder a political enemy on foreign soil
>> simply by declaring him an enemy combatant. If he's on US soil, he
>> can't do that, of course. He can only arrest him and throw him in
>> jail indefinitely.
>
>Nothing to fear, Pepe – just trust the President. He'll do the right
>thing. Honest!
>

Thanks for the reminder. Lost my head for a minute there.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 07:18:02 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>On Oct 18, 7:00 pm, "ChrisRobin" <a9db...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>> On Oct 18 2011 1:16 PM, bratt wrote:
>>
>> > I get it was never the point - but that doesn't answer why we are still
>> > there with a different admin.
>>
>> Energy (oil pipelines), location (proximity to Middle Eastern/Caspian
>> countries/energy sources, plus caches of rare earth minerals), nexus of
>> regional drug trade... and because war for the sake of war is the most
>> lucrative industry humankind's ever known.
>
>Except none of that works very well. I'm _not_ arguing that those
>aren't the reasons some people go to war. It is just that peace brings
>more prosperity and certainly more stability. And the loot from
>conquest almost never materializes for anyone's benefit. Even the evil
>bastards who do these things rarely gain as much as they could be
>being evil duplicious bastards in peacetime.
>
>darn it

One word: 1939.

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 18:49:43 -0500, "Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net>
wrote:

>> This is the "deference to authority" disease I mentioned yesterday. Trust
>> is earned. Obama hasn't earned my trust - quite the opposite. What has he
>> done to earn yours, other than win a friggin' election?

>At bottom, you fear your own government more than the threats from other
>countries. That is your de facto operating postulate, and it's not
>rational.

Then again, he's not so different from Thomas Jefferson in that
regard.

[Will in New Haven]

How is that a refutation of what I said? Do you think the long-term
health of the world's economy was _improved_ by spending capital on
weapons to destroy cities and kill people? That some people did profit
does not mean that they could _count_ on profiting or that they worked
in concert with people on the other side.

War introduces chaos into trade and _always_ causes some fortunes to
suffer. The vast international cabal that starts wars does not exist.

[Pepe Papon]

You're moving the goalposts when you add the world "long-term" and
"world economy". There was a depression in 1939. WWII ended it.
The US made out especially well, experiencing a big economic boom
after the war.

[da pickle]

On 10/24/2011 12:22 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>> How is that a refutation of what I said? Do you think the long-term
>> health of the world's economy was _improved_ by spending capital on
>> weapons to destroy cities and kill people? That some people did profit
>> does not mean that they could _count_ on profiting or that they worked
>> in concert with people on the other side.
>
> You're moving the goalposts when you add the world "long-term" and
> "world economy". There was a depression in 1939. WWII ended it.
> The US made out especially well, experiencing a big economic boom
> after the war.

Pepe, you cannot actually believe that all the resources "used up"
during WWII were a "good thing" for anyone in the economic sense? All
of those resources were "wasted" in any reasonable "good economic" sense.

[Will in New Haven]

It seems to me that the people who _started_ the war made out rather
badly economically. The main "beneficiary" was the U.S. Everyone else
ended the war impovrished. And yet the U.S. was not even involved in
the early stages of the war. What masterminds the secret cabals of
capitalism must have to plan this out and to get almost everyone to
sacrifice so the U.S. could have a boom.

[Pepe Papon]

I can believe that WWII stimulated the US economy. It's hard to
imagine an argument that it didn't.

[Pepe Papon]

Yes, they did. They gambled and lost.

Since war destroys wealth, it's a negative sum game. Winners can do
pretty well, though. And if a country is desperate enough, it could
be seen as a +EV gamble.

As the biggest supplier of weapons, the US is in a unique position.
War is hugely profitable for the weapons industry.

[Will in New Haven]

This doesn't mean anything much in the context of the huge
international plot to start wars for a profit.

>
> As the biggest supplier of weapons, the US is in a unique position.
> War is hugely profitable for the weapons industry

So is peace, although an _assured_ peace would be a disaster for the
weapons industry. Peacetime armament purchases are extensive and
peacetime ammunition purchases even more so. And you never have a
customer go under.

--
Will in New haven

[da pickle]

On 10/24/2011 3:22 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>> Pepe, you cannot actually believe that all the resources "used up"
>> during WWII were a "good thing" for anyone in the economic sense? All
>> of those resources were "wasted" in any reasonable "good economic" sense.
>
> I can believe that WWII stimulated the US economy. It's hard to
> imagine an argument that it didn't.

Pepe, you still do not see that just because something happened after
something else that does not prove that the former is the "cause" of the
latter.

[Pepe Papon]

Stop making up positions for me.

[Pepe Papon]

On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:50:44 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
<bill....@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:

>> Since war destroys wealth, it's a negative sum game.   Winners can do
>> pretty well, though.   And if a country is desperate enough, it could
>> be seen as a +EV gamble.  
>
>This doesn't mean anything much in the context of the huge
>international plot to start wars for a profit.

That's OK, since I don't believe in any such plot.

>>
>> As the biggest supplier of weapons, the US is in a unique position.
>> War is hugely profitable for the weapons industry
>
>So is peace, although an _assured_ peace would be a disaster for the
>weapons industry. Peacetime armament purchases are extensive and
>peacetime ammunition purchases even more so. And you never have a
>customer go under.

As I said, the US is in a unique position. We make weapons, and the
wars are all on foreign soil. Wealth gets destroyed, but not ours.
We profit from weapons sales, and if we're lucky, we profit from
post-war rebuilding.

[Will in New Haven]

On Oct 25, 11:46 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:50:44 -0700 (PDT), Will in New Haven
>

> <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com> wrote:
> >> Since war destroys wealth, it's a negative sum game.   Winners can do
> >> pretty well, though.   And if a country is desperate enough, it could
> >> be seen as a +EV gamble.  
>
> >This doesn't mean anything much in the context of the huge
> >international plot to start wars for a profit.
>
> That's OK, since I don't believe in any such plot.

But you are replying to posts that I made to someone who does.

[TruthSeeker]

Pepe Papon wrote:

> As I said, the US is in a unique position. We make weapons, and the
> wars are all on foreign soil. Wealth gets destroyed, but not ours.
> We profit from weapons sales, and if we're lucky, we profit from
> post-war rebuilding.

"Wealth gets destroyed, but not ours."? I seem to recall that those
cruise missiles cost over a million bucks each, and they sure get
destroyed when they're used. As are bombs, bullets, fuel. And not many
decommissioned ships get turned into cruise ships.

Sure, we make a profit on weapons sales to other countries. We spend a
great deal more on our own weapons and supplies.



--
TruthSeeker