Democrats 2020

[Arctish]

A fool committing a robbery may indeed be shot dead by a victim of his robbery who is a good man with a gun, and who stands his ground. We do not arrest the man who killed him for denying the robber a right to a fair trial.

There better be damn good evidence he was a robber and the man who killed him was 'a good guy with a gun', because otherwise it's murder and the killer is trying to get away with it by calling his victim a robber.

A fool who willfully goes to a foreign land to lead a Jihadist war against the US likewise has given up his right not to be killed on his chosen battlefield.

There better be damn good evidence he's a jihadist waging war against the US before assassination is considered. And even if there's evidence, it's still a violation of the Constitution to condemn him to death without a trial, or strip him of his Constitutional Rights without a Federal Judge ruling on the matter.

It is ridiculous to require the US to send people into a very risky land far away to arrest somebody who has no intention of being arrested and makes that task almost impossible in a jihadist infected area of a foreign land. It is also stupid to sit around wringing our hands and making no effort to stop the fools savage and brutal war mongering because some people wring their hands and say we need to treat that fool like a common criminal. He is a traitor and a self selected soldier in a war he has declared and acted on.

If the government has solid evidence he's a traitor, then it's a pretty straightforward process to get a Federal Judge to revoke his citizenship. But if all the Administration has is speculation and supposition, that's not good enough. If they can't make their case that the guy is a traitor in court and convince the Judge his actions warrant the ultimate penalty for treason, they have no business acting like he doesn't have Constitutional Rights.

It is very dangerous to give the government the power to deny the Constitutional Rights of citizens. Because history shows us that when a government has that power, it uses it to the detriment of any and all citizens.

Nixon had an Enemies List. Trump sees enemies and 'traitors' everywhere. Think it's a good idea to give a President the power to strip 'enemies' of their Rights?

The law is, lead military lethal military actions against the US or its allies or innocent civilians at large and you get a military reaction. These self selected war lords know this is going to happen so we do not have feel sorry for them, they chose their fates, knowingly and with full knowledge of the risks that being a jihadist war lord entails. Their trial is the leaving a trail of evidence that calls their attention to the US military, intelligent services, or intelligence services of trusted allies. when one becomes effective enough at being a war lord to in the estimation of the military to warrant the cost of tracking, and spending a lot of money on an expensive operation and an expensive hell fire missile, that expense is not done lightly or without good reason.

Again, go war lording, expect a war lord's death from above.

That might be a policy, but it isn't the law.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

A fool committing a robbery may indeed be shot dead by a victim of his robbery who is a good man with a gun, and who stands his ground. We do not arrest the man who killed him for denying the robber a right to a fair trial. A fool who wilfully goes to a foreign land to lead a Jihadist war against the US likewise has given up his right not to be killed on his chosen battlefield.

If he was in an active combat zone at the time, then your argument might hold water. When you see someone shooting at you, you can shoot back, whether the person is a US citizen or a foreign citizen. However, at the time of the drone strike, he was not in an active combat zone. That makes this nothing more than an assassination, not a combat death.

It is ridiculous to require the US to send people into a very risky land far away to arrest somebody who has no intention of being arrested and makes that task almost impossible in a jihadist infected area of a foreign land. It is also stupid to sit around wringing our hands and making no effort to stop the fools savage and brutal war mongering because some people wring their hands and say we need to treat that fool like a common criminal. He is a traitor and a self selected soldier in a war he has declared and acted on.

We send the police into dangerous areas to arrested people all the time. These are people who have no intention of being arrested either. That doesn't mean we simply bomb and flatten the building the person is in, and all the people in that building, simply because the suspect doesn't want to be arrested.

By the way, since you are calling him a traitor, please share with us the court case where he was tried and found guilty of treason. If you can do that, it will show that I was wrong about how Obama's doctrine of assassinating US citizens thereby rending him ineligible to be on the Supreme Court is not a relevant discussion.

 

[Politesse]

A fool committing a robbery may indeed be shot dead by a victim of his robbery who is a good man with a gun, and who stands his ground. We do not arrest the man who killed him for denying the robber a right to a fair trial. A fool who wilfully goes to a foreign land to lead a Jihadist war against the US likewise has given up his right not to be killed on his chosen battlefield.

It is ridiculous to require the US to send people into a very risky land far away to arrest somebody who has no intention of being arrested and makes that task almost impossible in a jihadist infected area of a foreign land. It is also stupid to sit around wringing our hands and making no effort to stop the fools savage and brutal war mongering because some people wring their hands and say we need to treat that fool like a common criminal. He is a traitor and a self selected soldier in a war he has declared and acted on.

The law is, lead military lethal military actions against the US or its allies or innocent civilians at large and you get a military reaction. These self selected war lords know this is going to happen so we do not have feel sorry for them, they chose their fates, knowingly and with full knowledge of the risks that being a jihadist war lord entails. Their trial is the leaving a trail of evidence that calls their attention to the US military, intelligent services, or intelligence services of trusted allies. when one becomes effective enough at being a war lord to in the estimation of the military to warrant the cost of tracking, and spending a lot of money on an expensive operation and an expensive hell fire missile, that expense is not done lightly or without good reason.

Again, go war lording, expect a war lord's death from above.

"If the people raise a howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity-seeking. If they want peace, they and their relatives must stop the war."
- General William Tecumsah Sherman

Remind me why our troops are there in the first place? Would you say of them, too, that death should come from above, since it was their choice to go warlording in a land that is not theirs?

It does not surprise me, in the slightest, that you are a fan of Sherman, one of the most violent and heartless generals our nation ever produced.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Are you seriously suggesting that a jihadist war lord gets to lead a terrorist war against the US and allies and we just let him continue doing so? REALLY!? Ain't gonna happen, Is it? And no matter how some people stamp their little feet and yap about how we should not be doing that, that is not going to convince many people otherwise.

If a fool commits himself to leading a war of terror aimed at the US, if the drone operators can find him, that commander of jihadists will die in a war he has committed himself to leading. Sorry, but that is how war works.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Accused jihadist warlord. If you disagree show me the court proceedings where the executive established his guilt to a judge and convicted him of being a jihadist warlord.

If a fool commits himself and is found guilty of it. Accusation isn't proof.

We are not advocating letting him get away with waging war against the US. You are advocating that accusation is proof of guilt.

 

[lpetrich]

A court case is too high a bar here. What one needs here is evidence that (1) he is in some organization's leadership and (2) that organization is a militant Islamist one, instead of some ordinary local militia. Nobody needed a court case for Osama bin Laden, for instance. He abundantly satisfied both criteria.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Of course Osama bin Laden was not a US citizen either.

 

[fromderinside]

As others have said when authorities are called out to respond to a potential threat lethal force is always on the table. Citizens die every hour, almost, from either attack by threatening persons orby protecting authorities. Deference on the use of force, even when threats are missing, is to authorities in almost every jurisdiction.

It is only when one exceeds that authority and willfully takes life that such protecting behavior can be deemed inappropriate and those using is so can be sanctioned.

When a citizen has been deported, potentially stripped of citizenship, or of certain privileges derived thereof, which happens fairly routinely for international and anti-patriotic behavior in this age of non-state player terrorism he is entitled to no more than the care given to a fourteen year old displaying a play gun and getting killed by authorities under command of possible lethal threat, for so doing.

The presidents Bush and Obama operated with authorities similar to those of a government agent responding to a threat to life call from dispatch. The supreme court has been very clear that such agents are protected by the constitution for so acting. Those suggesting the status of citizen provides protection against all threats or actions which might take the citizen's life which is just not true. Law enforcement protections cover all authorities acting under cover of law for protection of citizens and america against all threats internal and external has been consistently upheld and emphasised by the USSC. Only those exceeding or wilfully taking life without regard to conditions covered by law and alerts can be charged.

The extensive history of  Anwar al-Awlaki provides ample evidence for taking him as a threat to the US. He even left the US under threat of being arrested should he be found.

Using citizen as a crudgeon of Judicial qualification is a false claim. It is one obviously pulled from whole cloth, with a very biased and personal prejudicial goal of tarring by association of two ideas, citizenship and killing of citizen by authority that are not connected in the reality of civil authority to protect state and public order under the constitution.

You've been doing a wonderful job Cheerful Charley. I'm ashamed I haven't been there with you. My bad.

 

[ZiprHead]

 Anwar al-Awlaki

Anwar Nasser al-Awlaki (also spelled al-Aulaqi, al-Awlaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي‎ Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; April 21 or 22, 1971 – September 30, 2011) was a Yemeni-American imam. U.S. government officials say that, as well as being a senior recruiter and motivator, he was centrally involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda,[7][8][9][10][11] but have not released evidence that could support this statement.[11] Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike without the rights of due process being afforded.[12][13] President Barack Obama ordered the strike.[14] His son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (a 16-year-old U.S. citizen), was killed in a U.S. drone strike two weeks later.[15] On January 29, 2017, al-Awlaki's 8-year-old daughter, Nawar al-Awlaki, was killed in a U.S. commando attack in Yemen that was ordered by President Donald Trump.[16][17][18][19] With a blog, a Facebook page, the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire, and many YouTube videos, al-Awlaki was described by Saudi news station Al Arabiya as the "bin Laden of the Internet".[20][21] After a request from the U.S. Congress in November 2010, Google removed many of al-Awlaki's videos from YouTube.[22] According to The New York Times, al-Awlaki's public statements and videos have been more influential in inspiring acts of terrorism in the wake of his killing than before his death.[23]

As imam at a mosque in Falls Church, Virginia (2001–02), al-Awlaki spoke with and preached to three of the 9/11 hijackers, who were al-Qaeda members.[24] In 2001, he presided at the funeral of the mother of Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, who later e-mailed him extensively, in 2008–09 before carrying out the Fort Hood shootings.[25][26] Al-Awlaki, however, did not reply to Hasan's many emails.[27]During al-Awlaki's later radical period after 2006–07, when he went into hiding, he may have associated with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted the 2009 Christmas Day bombing of an American airliner.[28][29] Al-Awlaki was allegedly involved in planning Abdulmutallab's attack.

The Yemeni government tried him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".[30][31] Some U.S. officials said that in 2009, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda.[32][33] Others felt that Nasir al-Wuhayshi still held this rank and that al-Awlaki was an influential member in the group.[32] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States.[34][35]

 

[PyramidHead]

Imagine thinking the US doesn't deserve to be attacked by jihadists from the Middle Eastern countries we have obliterated and occupied for decades

 

[fromderinside]

It is up to those countries. Obviously Yeman wasn't among them given the post by ZiprHead repeating segments of the wikipedia al-Awlaki article which stated he was convicted by Yeman and made subject to killing by most any means possible. State players don't use american standards.

Cherry picking who you take as a representative from some country lacks punch unless that reference speaks with the voice of a state.

If we are talking Iran I agree that the current government has standing. I'm pretty sure the Shah was installed by the west in the early '50s. Still, Iran doesn't speak for Yeman.


The west, European democracies mostly, and the US, have a pretty bad record in the ME. Yet there are many here who jump to protect a racist Israel against ousted muslims there. As it stands now, the US and Israel are tempting me to go back on my state position. However that would open me up to the same criticisms I'm using now. Just saying it's dicy.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The extensive history of  Anwar al-Awlaki provides ample evidence for taking him as a threat to the US. He even left the US under threat of being arrested should he be found.

That is not a court transcript demonstrating all the claims about Anwar al-Awlaki, that is a Wikipedia article stating what the claims are about Anwar al-Awlaki. You can think he is a horrible guy, you can think he is a great guy, but that doesn't mean that a court has determined anything.

He was not on an active battlefield at the time of his death. That is the apt analogy to killing a mugger in the act. There are times when a person can be killed without full process. If a person points a gun at a cop and pulls the trigger, odds are the cop won't wait for a court to give him permission, and rightly so. However, if the cop has a non-resisting suspect in handcuffs for a crime the cop did not see but does suspect, he cannot and should not kill the suspect. Anwar al-Awlaki was outside of an active battlefield, until the drone turned it into one. This is not a judicious killing, no matter how horrible the person killed. This was premeditated murder.

 

[PyramidHead]

The extensive history of  Anwar al-Awlaki provides ample evidence for taking him as a threat to the US. He even left the US under threat of being arrested should he be found.

That is not a court transcript demonstrating all the claims about Anwar al-Awlaki, that is a Wikipedia article stating what the claims are about Anwar al-Awlaki. You can think he is a horrible guy, you can think he is a great guy, but that doesn't mean that a court has determined anything.

He was not on an active battlefield at the time of his death. That is the apt analogy to killing a mugger in the act. There are times when a person can be killed without full process. If a person points a gun at a cop and pulls the trigger, odds are the cop won't wait for a court to give him permission, and rightly so. However, if the cop has a non-resisting suspect in handcuffs for a crime the cop did not see but does suspect, he cannot and should not kill the suspect. Anwar al-Awlaki was outside of an active battlefield, until the drone turned it into one. This is not a judicious killing, no matter how horrible the person killed. This was premeditated murder.

Something being an active battlefield for American interests does not make a killing justified. All American military acts after WWII have been premeditated murder

 

[Jarhyn]

Imagine thinking the US doesn't deserve to be attacked by jihadists from the Middle Eastern countries we have obliterated and occupied for decades

Well, nobody deserves to be attacked for retaliatory purposes. Maybe the US forces and the decision makers who currently plan and execute the obliteration and occupation need some discouragement or corrective action; personally I think we need to pull the troops home, stop making bad diplomatic calls to prop up or pull down regimes, and ultimately to stop spending so much money on war... That if we provide educational and infrastructural aid, we will make more friends and build a better world than if we send bombs and soldiers.

 

[PyramidHead]

Imagine thinking the US doesn't deserve to be attacked by jihadists from the Middle Eastern countries we have obliterated and occupied for decades

Well, nobody deserves to be attacked for retaliatory purposes. Maybe the US forces and the decision makers who currently plan and execute the obliteration and occupation need some discouragement or corrective action

Yeah, that's retaliatory purposes. The corrective action is the people they are invading defending themselves and killing the troops who have invaded them.

 

[laughing dog]

The extensive history of  Anwar al-Awlaki provides ample evidence for taking him as a threat to the US. He even left the US under threat of being arrested should he be found.

That is not a court transcript demonstrating all the claims about Anwar al-Awlaki, that is a Wikipedia article stating what the claims are about Anwar al-Awlaki. You can think he is a horrible guy, you can think he is a great guy, but that doesn't mean that a court has determined anything.

He was not on an active battlefield at the time of his death. That is the apt analogy to killing a mugger in the act. There are times when a person can be killed without full process. If a person points a gun at a cop and pulls the trigger, odds are the cop won't wait for a court to give him permission, and rightly so. However, if the cop has a non-resisting suspect in handcuffs for a crime the cop did not see but does suspect, he cannot and should not kill the suspect. Anwar al-Awlaki was outside of an active battlefield, until the drone turned it into one. This is not a judicious killing, no matter how horrible the person killed. This was premeditated murder.

Something being an active battlefield for American interests does not make a killing justified. All American military acts after WWII have been premeditated murder

If you really believe that responding to requests for military intervention from an invaded country is premediated murder, then rational discussion is not possible.

 

[PyramidHead]

Something being an active battlefield for American interests does not make a killing justified. All American military acts after WWII have been premeditated murder

If you really believe that responding to requests for military intervention from an invaded country is premediated murder, then rational discussion is not possible.

One crime syndicate hiring another to do crimes is still crime

 

[laughing dog]

Something being an active battlefield for American interests does not make a killing justified. All American military acts after WWII have been premeditated murder

If you really believe that responding to requests for military intervention from an invaded country is premediated murder, then rational discussion is not possible.

One crime syndicate hiring another to do crimes is still crime

Ok, you have confirmed that rational discussion is not possible.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

The extensive history of  Anwar al-Awlaki provides ample evidence for taking him as a threat to the US. He even left the US under threat of being arrested should he be found.

That is not a court transcript demonstrating all the claims about Anwar al-Awlaki, that is a Wikipedia article stating what the claims are about Anwar al-Awlaki. You can think he is a horrible guy, you can think he is a great guy, but that doesn't mean that a court has determined anything.

He was not on an active battlefield at the time of his death. That is the apt analogy to killing a mugger in the act. There are times when a person can be killed without full process. If a person points a gun at a cop and pulls the trigger, odds are the cop won't wait for a court to give him permission, and rightly so. However, if the cop has a non-resisting suspect in handcuffs for a crime the cop did not see but does suspect, he cannot and should not kill the suspect. Anwar al-Awlaki was outside of an active battlefield, until the drone turned it into one. This is not a judicious killing, no matter how horrible the person killed. This was premeditated murder.

Something being an active battlefield for American interests does not make a killing justified. All American military acts after WWII have been premeditated murder

That is wrong in the opposite way.

I was trained in the UCMJ that you only shoot at enemy combatants, and not at civilians. Nice theory, anyway.

However, if someone who is not dressed like an enemy combatant but like a civilian starts shooting at you, you are allowed to shoot back.

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump makes string of racist comments about Native Americans during attack on Elizabeth Warren

Speaking at a rally in Las Vegas, Donald Trump has claimed that Elizabeth Warren believed she was an “Indian” because she had “high cheekbones”, again dubbing her “Pocahontas“ in a mocking reference to her previous claims that she was of Native American heritage.

Later, again referring to her as Pocahontas, he called Ms Warren “mean” after her performance in Wednesday’s Democratic primary debate in which she energetically confronted several of her rival presidential candidates.

Mr Trump has previously been called racist by Native American leaders for calling Ms Warren Pocahontas and referring to native Americans as “Indians”, yet he keeps returning to it at campaign rallies.

He has also been called out for twice making jokes on Twitter involving historical incidents of genocide against Native American people.