Obama's Tyranny

[jbombelli]

Agree about Ruby Ridge. Agree about Waco. Agree with everything you said.

By virtue of the fact we are having the discussion, I would say the the assassination order is not a secret. Just a wild guess.

I just worry about people getting Nifonged into a set of government crosshairs. That is what will happen if we give the government this power, eventually. It is inevitable.

And therefore should never be allowed at all.

 

[Joe Williams]

This is a real question: Why are/were there so many terrorists sent across the ocean to Gitmo to await trial (at our expense), and this guy is put in snipers crosshairs?

I am not for any terrorists rights, but this is a blatant double standard.

Cause they haven't caught him yet, and probably can't do so without great loss of American life.

It's clear that there are those here who value his life above those of American servicemen and women, but I'd just as soon the attack be conducted via remote control, with no loss of American military members.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I just worry about people getting Nifonged into a set of government crosshairs. That is what will happen if we give the government this power, eventually. It is inevitable.

And therefore should never be allowed at all.

I'll worry about it when it happens. I'm not so quick to connect dots that don't yet exist, although I do share your concern.

Until then as far as I am concerned this is the Commander in Chief executing the duties of his office under the Constitution. As such his decisions are not subject to judicial review or oversight. Let Congress take up the matter if they wish.

 

[DownByTheTracks]

I knew Ruby Ridge and Waco would be brought up.

It's a baseless comparison.

I would like to see the vids of Randy Weaver advocating people wage world war against the United States, see the videos he distributed urging acts of mass murder against our citizens while he sits in the camps of self declared enemies of not just our nation but our entire way of life plotting our demise.

I don't see it that way, but we all have opinions.

@SemperFi, I'm not pointing fingers at particular people; I just don't place my trust in any government. I understand the Gitmo resort was closed, but still, what policy or law changed that requires terrorists to stand trial v. being assassinated?

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

I don't see it that way, but we all have opinions.

@SemperFi, I'm not pointing fingers at particular people; I just don't place my trust in any government. I understand the Gitmo resort was closed, but still, what policy or law changed that requires terrorists to stand trial v. being assassinated?

It's not about the government. It's about Constitutional responsibilities. There is no law or treaty that prevents enemy combatants from being killed. We are at war. The Commander in Chief has declared him a target due to his ability to wage war on the US, citizenship notwithstanding. I don't understand how this can possibly be an issue?

 

[DownByTheTracks]

I re-read the article again, and it doesn't clearly specify where he was to be assassinated. If it's in a combat zone, fine, okie-doke.

My fault, I was assuming that this was all on American Soil. American soil is where I have an issue with assassinations.

 

[Fletch]

So what is it that restricts the president from naming anyone but a dyed-in-the-wool Muslim jihadi to the soon-to-be-dead list?

 

[jbombelli]

It's not about the government. It's about Constitutional responsibilities. There is no law or treaty that prevents enemy combatants from being killed. We are at war. The Commander in Chief has declared him a target due to his ability to wage war on the US, citizenship notwithstanding. I don't understand how this can possibly be an issue?

Please don't misunderstand. I really want to see that guy dead.

Seriously.

I just worry about our government at some point down the road targeting ME. I've said many times, "when all else fails, vote from the rooftops." That would, in the eyes of many, make me worthy of the titles "enemy combatant" and "terrorist." I've been called a terrorist in so many words in response to that phrase. Right along with all those people who have said the 2nd Amendment is about our right to cast aside a tyrannical government. I call myself a "right wing extremist", without hesitation. If we allow this, I will eventually be a target, as will many of you.

 

[Joe Williams]

I re-read the article again, and it doesn't clearly specify where he was to be assassinated. If it's in a combat zone, fine, okie-doke.

My fault, I was assuming that this was all on American Soil. American soil is where I have an issue with assassinations.

Yeah, that'd be a whole different ball of wax. Here, we can go get 'em. But this dude is firmly ensconced in enemy camps, and going to get him would be costly, even if it didn't involve the possibility of invading another country to do so.

 

[DownByTheTracks]

Yeah, that'd be a whole different ball of wax. Here, we can go get 'em. But this dude is firmly ensconced in enemy camps, and going to get him would be costly, even if it didn't involve the possibility of invading another country to do so.

Now we're on the same page!

 

[Joe Williams]

snip If we allow this, I will eventually be a target, as will many of you.

If this happens, it will be time for us to fight back and wage war against the government, and in the government's eyes, we will be terrorists. This guy is fighting our government, and our nation, now. The choice we have to make is... do we want him treated as the self-declared enemy of our society that he is, or do we want to allow him to continue to wage war against us unmolested? Do we wish to side with him, or eliminate the threat? We ignored Osama bin Laden and the war he waged against us for a decade, and paid a high price for it. This guy is at least as dangerous.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So what is it that restricts the president from naming anyone but a dyed-in-the-wool Muslim jihadi to the soon-to-be-dead list?

Wikileaks?

Seriously, I think if you are in a foreign country directing attacks against America in a time of war, you have no Constitutional right to not get your ass blown up.

Besides, if Eric Holder signed off you KNOW this guy needs to die.

Please don't misunderstand. I really want to see that guy dead.

Seriously.

I just worry about our government at some point down the road targeting ME. I've said many times, "when all else fails, vote from the rooftops." That would, in the eyes of many, make me worthy of the titles "enemy combatant" and "terrorist." I've been called a terrorist in so many words in response to that phrase. Right along with all those people who have said the 2nd Amendment is about our right to cast aside a tyrannical government. I call myself a "right wing extremist", without hesitation. If we allow this, I will eventually be a target, as will many of you.

I'm with you 100%. This is just not the guy I would use as the poster child for the my-government-should-not-target-terrorists pledge drive.

 

[Vasili]

awlaki is an easy target.
he's a nonsympathetic guy. he's a bad guy.
he's a terrorist and a piece of crap to boot.

but imagine your worst political enemy.
isn't it possible that within the next 20, 30, 50 years, someone like that could come to power? and how will it feel knowing you've condemned your grandkids to inherit a country where the constitution no longer matters?

that's what makes principle principle, you stick to it even when everything else begs you not to.

 

[jbombelli]

If this happens, it will be time for us to fight back and wage war against the government, and in the government's eyes, we will be terrorists. This guy is fighting our government, and our nation, now. The choice we have to make is... do we want him treated as the self-declared enemy of our society that he is, or do we want to allow him to continue to wage war against us unmolested? Do we wish to side with him, or eliminate the threat? We ignored Osama bin Laden and the war he waged against us for a decade, and paid a high price for it. This guy is at least as dangerous.

Welcome to the list, my friend.

 

[Fletch]

Wikileaks?

Seriously, I think if you are in a foreign country directing attacks against America in a time of war, you have no Constitutional right to not get your ass blown up.

And what is it that says only people "in a foreign country directing attacks against America in a time of war" can be treated thus? Where is the legislative restriction that prevents any other person from being put on the hit list? All I'm asking for is a reference, and all you're giving me is "trust Obama" or "trust the government" to know where the line is.

 

[Joe Williams]

awlaki is an easy target.
he's a nonsympathetic guy. he's a bad guy.
he's a terrorist and a piece of crap to boot.

but imagine your worst political enemy.
isn't it possible that within the next 20, 30, 50 years, someone like that could come to power? and how will it feel knowing you've condemned your grandkids to inherit a country where the constitution no longer matters?

that's what makes principle principle, you stick to it even when everything else begs you not to.

Don't kill him and those like him now, and it won't take 20 years before the Constitution has been kicked to the curb. We will have been conquered because we were too weak and stupid to kill our enemies.

 

[Joe Williams]

Welcome to the list, my friend.

Been there a long time. It causes me to lose no sleep. My oath was and is to the Constitution, and if I fall in battle, it will be defending it.

 

[antsi]

By virtue of the fact we are having the discussion, I would say the the assassination order is not a secret. Just a wild guess.

Google. Link. Read. Think.

I will spoon feed it to you. Obama is arguing in court that he does not have to defend the assassination program, or justify it, or explain who is determined to be a terrorist, or what criteria they use to determine who's a terrorist, or anything else, because these are all state secrets. In other words, he gets to kill anyone he wants, not subject to any kind of oversight or justification, because it's a secret.

You all are saying you're good with that, because in this case it's someone you know something about and you think he ought to be dead. But this program isn't limited to that guy, or even to people like him. We don't know who's on the list, or why, or what criteria they're using to put people on the list.

I guess the Soviets won the Cold War after all, because we're turning in to them. Sheep off to slaughter. Kill whoever you want, Mr President; as long as you tell us it's for our safety.

You people would have been good little Nazis or Communists. So long as the Authority tells you someone is Bad, you will write them a blank check.

Unaccountable governments, in the name of State Security, have killed many hundreds of thousands of times more innocent victims in the last 100 years than all the terrorists combined. Your assessment of relative risk is way off kilter.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

And what is it that says only people "in a foreign country directing attacks against America in a time of war" can be treated thus? Where is the legislative restriction that prevents any other person from being put on the hit list? All I'm asking for is a reference, and all you're giving me is "trust Obama" or "trust the government" to know where the line is.

Have we finally found Fletch's breaking point, where the long internventionalist arm of government is required?

Seriously, it's a war thing. The Constitution says the President is Commander in Chief during war. We are at war. This guy is the enemy. The CiC can do his thing.

Just because the President can order the military to kill our enemy on the battlefield does not mean he can legally order the murder of American citizens on American soil not in his role as CiC. I think there are already enough laws to cover murder.

 

[Fletch]

Have we finally found Fletch's breaking point, where the long internventionalist arm of government is required?

I'm all for laws telling the government what it can't do. Laws that tell me what I can't do are another matter entirely. I'm hypocritical like that.

Just because the President can order the military to kill our enemy on the battlefield does not mean he can legally order the murder of American citizens on American soil not in his role as CiC.

But, as stated above, that is EXACTLY what he's arguing in court, and you're totally cool with it.