I wonder what other posters thoughts are on this...

[David Jamieson]

Socialist, Nazi, Socialist, Nazi.........


After all in the end that's what all of that drivel comes down to!

I like how Palin refuses to recognize that Americans are ALL real Americans.

there's no such thing as an American who is a more real American than any other.
Who wants that kind of a person up there creating new hatred in the world.

Get rid of her. Or keep her for the entertainment value she brings with her retarded behaviours.

[Reality_Check]

Now stop dodging my questions.

Are American citizens protected from the Government by the Constitution?

Can you please show me the Constitutional amendment that supercedes the 5th and 6th Amendments?

The Executive Branch has taken it upon itself to deny due process and Constitutional rights to American citizens based on the nature of the crime they are suspected of committing. The Executive Branch has even declared that it can kill American citizens, nowhere near a battlefield and not under arms, merely based on an accusation. Does that sound right to you?

[BoulderDawg]

I like how Palin refuses to recognize that Americans are ALL real Americans.

there's no such thing as an American who is a more real American than any other.
Who wants that kind of a person up there creating new hatred in the world.

Get rid of her. Or keep her for the entertainment value she brings with her retarded behaviours.

Shhhhh.........Let's keep it quiet with the Palin criticism. There is nothing more I'd rather see than her as the GOP nominee in 2012.

[1bad65]

So, we're going to kill an American citizen based on the say so of a foreign government? He's not on a Yemeni hit list, he's on a US hit list. Go back to the beginning of the thread, reading is fundamental

I must have missed where Michael Fay was on a US hit list. He was tried and convicted under Singapore's laws. Wow, due process, what a concept.

What happened to Anwar al-Aulaqi happened under Yemen's laws.

Fay was denied his US Constitutional rights. He suffered what our courts have found is "cruel and unusual punishment". He was not protected by the US Constitution because he was in a foreign nation and he did not have diplomatic immunity.

Now stop dodging my questions.

Are American citizens protected from the Government by the Constitution?

Can you please show me the Constitutional amendment that supercedes the 5th and 6th Amendments?

Again, when on foreign soil you do not have your Constitutional rights, unless you have diplomatic immunity. It is what it is.

[Reality_Check]

What happened to Anwar al-Aulaqi happened under Yemen's laws.

Fay was denied his US Constitutional rights. He suffered what our courts have found is "cruel and unusual punishment". He was not protected by the US Constitution because he was in a foreign nation and he did not have diplomatic immunity.


Again, when on foreign soil you do not have your Constitutional rights, unless you have diplomatic immunity. It is what it is.

Seriously, are you really this dim?

Anwar al-Awlaki is a US citizen being denied his Constitutional rights by the US Government by being put on a US hit list. In other words, the US Government is targeting him for assassination. Not Yemen. What Yemen does is not my concern, nor is it the point of this thread. What the US does is. Planning on killing a US citizen by the US Government without due process is ILLEGAL under the US Constitution.

He wouldn't have US Constitutional rights from Yemen's government. That would be absurd. Nor have I stated that anywhere. I am speaking of the actions of the United States only.

Now with that cleared up, stop dodging my questions.

Are American citizens protected from the Government by the Constitution?

Can you please show me the Constitutional amendment that supercedes the 5th and 6th Amendments?

The Executive Branch has taken it upon itself to deny due process and Constitutional rights to American citizens based on the nature of the crime they are suspected of committing. The Executive Branch has even declared that it can kill American citizens, nowhere near a battlefield and not under arms, merely based on an accusation. Does that sound right to you?

[Drake]

After skipping through two-three pages "Uh huh / NUH UUUH!!" I still have yet to receive a suitable answer for my question. How do you arrest a man in a foreign country, at a militant training camp? Be advised that virtually every organization responsible for arresting US citizens has absolutely no jurisdiction there, and are therefore incapable of arresting him. In fact, the simple act of arresting him would be violating numerous laws regarding jurisdiction and foreign sovereignty, along with extradition laws to boot.

The second problem is that the man is hostile towards the United States, so we cannot ignore his presence. At the same time, we cannot arrest him, because he no longer falls under the criteria in which the Constitution was intended (ie, I'm sure James Madison didn't stop and say "Hey, what should we do when someone leaves the US, wages a holy war against us, and is unable to be arrested?"). One of the key warnings about the Constitution is that it is to be kept in context with the times.

The third problem is that when someone takes up arms against the US with a known foreign threat with a known objective of "Islami-fying" the rest of the world, at what point should we no longer consider him a citizen? I've sourced the goals of Al Qaeda a long time ago, and I'm not about to do it again. You can just Google Osama Bin Laden and quotes... see what comes up.

And as for the Nazi war criminals? German and international law, not American. If you cannot surmise that there are some very important differences between the two, it probably shouldn't have been brought up.

Finally.... BD, kill yourself.

[Reality_Check]

After skipping through two-three pages "Uh huh / NUH UUUH!!" I still have yet to receive a suitable answer for my question. How do you arrest a man in a foreign country, at a militant training camp? Be advised that virtually every organization responsible for arresting US citizens has absolutely no jurisdiction there, and are therefore incapable of arresting him. In fact, the simple act of arresting him would be violating numerous laws regarding jurisdiction and foreign sovereignty, along with extradition laws to boot.

The second problem is that the man is hostile towards the United States, so we cannot ignore his presence. At the same time, we cannot arrest him, because he no longer falls under the criteria in which the Constitution was intended (ie, I'm sure James Madison didn't stop and say "Hey, what should we do when someone leaves the US, wages a holy war against us, and is unable to be arrested?"). One of the key warnings about the Constitution is that it is to be kept in context with the times.

The third problem is that when someone takes up arms against the US with a known foreign threat with a known objective of "Islami-fying" the rest of the world, at what point should we no longer consider him a citizen? I've sourced the goals of Al Qaeda a long time ago, and I'm not about to do it again. You can just Google Osama Bin Laden and quotes... see what comes up.

And as for the Nazi war criminals? German and international law, not American. If you cannot surmise that there are some very important differences between the two, it probably shouldn't have been brought up.

Finally.... BD, kill yourself.

So, I guess we should modify the Bill of Rights and add some caveats that they don't apply if the US citizen is accused of terrorism and too difficult to apprehend. Then it's okay to kill them without a trial or any sort of due process.

However, it is nice to know that you and 1bad65 have absolutely no faith in our Constitutional institutions.

Regarding answering your question, it has been answered. You may not have liked the answers because it doesn't feed into your authoritarian mindset, but it has been answered.

How did we get Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani or Wadih el-Hage or Mohammed Saddiq Odeh into court? We arrested them (or our allies did). Isn't that what our law enforcement and intelligence agencies are for?

You didn't answer my question:

"The Executive Branch has taken it upon itself to deny due process and Constitutional rights to American citizens based on the nature of the crime they are suspected of committing. The Executive Branch has even declared that it can kill American citizens, nowhere near a battlefield and not under arms, merely based on an accusation. Does that sound right to you?"

I'll add another, can you please show me the Constitutional amendment that supercedes the 5th and 6th Amendments?

How did the world handle the Nazi's after the end of WW2 who had escaped the Allies?

They put a price on their head and informed the police to chase them whenever possible.

And those guys actually WERE part of a state which we had declared formal war on.

If someone won't show up in court then you treat them like any other criminals. All US embassies and ports have an order to detain, revoke their passports, ask all our allies to do the same etc.

If they haven't had a trial all you can (constitutionally) do absent a formal declaration of war is try to detain them to stand trial, and shoot back IF AND ONLY IF they are shooting at you at the time.

What a ridiculous statement. I'm sure that everyone the FBI or your local police arrests (or has ever tried to arrest) surrenders peacefully.

Terrorists (and those merely accused of being terrorists - which is not the same thing) don't have super powers. They are criminals and should be treated as criminals. Which means due process. And yes, that would include American citizens (i.e. the genesis behind this thread).

The Government has to demonstrate a person's guilt before it is assumed. You know those pesky Constitutional guarantees.

You are assuming that Anwar al-Awlaki is in league with terrorists. What evidence do you have of that? The say so of the US Government. It should be fairly self-evident that the fact that the Government labels someone a "Terrorist" is not proof that someone is, in fact, a Terrorist. So, the Government can label someone as a terrorist and then kill them. No need for any of that inconvenient "evidence".

http://www.kungfumagazine.com/forum/...postcount=1137

Originally Posted by Reality_Check
You have an inordinate fondness for seeing the Constitution as the end all be all...as some sort of talisman or trump card.

That's because it is? Who taught you politics?

Looks like fear of terrorism has caused you to turn your back that which you once claimed to be the end all be all. It's very sad.

It's apparent that you fully believe that the US Government can kill it's own citizens based merely on an accusation. Is that correct?

[David Jamieson]

After skipping through two-three pages "Uh huh / NUH UUUH!!" I still have yet to receive a suitable answer for my question. How do you arrest a man in a foreign country, at a militant training camp? Be advised that virtually every organization responsible for arresting US citizens has absolutely no jurisdiction there, and are therefore incapable of arresting him. In fact, the simple act of arresting him would be violating numerous laws regarding jurisdiction and foreign sovereignty, along with extradition laws to boot.

The second problem is that the man is hostile towards the United States, so we cannot ignore his presence. At the same time, we cannot arrest him, because he no longer falls under the criteria in which the Constitution was intended (ie, I'm sure James Madison didn't stop and say "Hey, what should we do when someone leaves the US, wages a holy war against us, and is unable to be arrested?"). One of the key warnings about the Constitution is that it is to be kept in context with the times.

The third problem is that when someone takes up arms against the US with a known foreign threat with a known objective of "Islami-fying" the rest of the world, at what point should we no longer consider him a citizen? I've sourced the goals of Al Qaeda a long time ago, and I'm not about to do it again. You can just Google Osama Bin Laden and quotes... see what comes up.

And as for the Nazi war criminals? German and international law, not American. If you cannot surmise that there are some very important differences between the two, it probably shouldn't have been brought up.

Finally.... BD, kill yourself.

dude, your last line of comment killed teh value of everything else you said.

try to speak with each other without the hate.

You guys do realize you are just fomenting ill will within yourselves as you bash away at each other.

everyday that you get up and get angry and start angrily responding to each other is one more day that you are eroding your own self in some way.

food for thought.

[Drake]

I don't hate BD. Why would I waste so much valuable hate energy on him when I can use it for bigger and better things?

[1bad65]

Are American citizens protected from the Government by the Constitution?

Can you please show me the Constitutional amendment that supercedes the 5th and 6th Amendments?

I've answered this before. Do I need to cut-and-paste my previous reply?

This is nothing new here. The US Gov't has worked with foreign Governments in dealing with alleged criminals for decades. The FBI/CIA/ATF etc work with foreign Governments all the time in the war on drugs. And US citizens abroad are sometimes the targets. If they are captured in a foreign country, they do not have their US Constitutional rights. For example, if the country they are captured in does not grant them a lawyer, it's their problem. Their rights have not been violated. If someone does not like the fact that Yemen will bomb suspected terrorist compounds without benefit of a trial, the easy solution is to not go to Yemen.

[Dragonzbane76]

it doesn't matter any of it. We are all going to die soon anyways. Found this on the interwebss so it must be true. suprised Uki didn't post this and say the gov. was behind it.



http://www.earthmountainview.com/yel...ellowstone.htm

[David Jamieson]

it doesn't matter any of it. We are all going to die soon anyways. Found this on the interwebss so it must be true. suprised Uki didn't post this and say the gov. was behind it.



http://www.earthmountainview.com/yel...ellowstone.htm

good old yellowstone supervolcano.

yep, it's creating geysers even! Old faithful and many more.
You can actually set your watch by them.

anyway, check the USGS site instead of some tinfoil hat site for info on Yellowstone. It has always hosted mini-quakes for as long as it has been recorded.

If it does go off, well, what are you gonna do? Nothing, that's what. It doesn't mena the world will end, just part fo America. I think we can absorb the loss.

[Dragonzbane76]

haha i know i was poking fun of Uki and his crackpot conspiracy theories.

[BoulderDawg]

dude, your last line of comment killed teh value of everything else you said.

try to speak with each other without the hate.

You guys do realize you are just fomenting ill will within yourselves as you bash away at each other.

everyday that you get up and get angry and start angrily responding to each other is one more day that you are eroding your own self in some way.

food for thought.

I was honestly floored.

I mean have you ever seriously told anyone to go and kill themselves? I sure haven't.

I believe this guy is from Colorado Springs however the one thing he's not telling us is that he's really into Dobson's Focus on the Family and seriously believes that I'm some sort of threat to his way of life.......no matter though.

If you want to hear hate up close and personal you should participate in a civil rights march down south...it's an eye opening experience!

[1bad65]

If you want to hear hate up close and personal you should participate in a civil rights march down south...it's an eye opening experience!

At least they don't openly brag about assaulting their wives like pacifists like Ward Churchill.