WTF WTF WTF

spideycw · Post by **spideycw** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 3:42 am

Can you deploy a Daisy Cutter out the back of your plane?

SharpFish · Post by **SharpFish** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 10:23 am

Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Oct 3 2011, 07:24 PM) Treasonous acts must be proven in Court like anything else.

The difference is that said person wasn't in the US and was in the battlefield.

John Walker Lindh was captured on the battlefield, under arms, in Afghanistan, and received a trial and sentencing.

Post by **Raveen** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:43 am

germloucks wrote:QUOTE (germloucks @ Oct 2 2011, 01:54 AM) Dont get me wrong, i hated bush. But a lot of people naively believed things would change, and it sucks seeing the opposite. One of these days people are gonna march on that blighted capital and chase those politicians through the streets with pitchforks.

Easily solved, you just bomb the crap out of anyone with a pitchfork

FreeB brings up the same point that occurred to me, namely that it's built into the Constitution that the populous always has the option of armed revolt against a corrupt government but by TAs argument the uprising masses would be most likely not citizens any more and fair game either way. I guess it falls to the military to show a bit of sense and not attack revolting citizens even when ordered to do so by a corrupt administration Of course, the question is, who decides whether an administration is corrupt or that the revolutionaries are a genuine threat? A communist uprising in the 80s might be the latter but it'd be a very hard call to make.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:52 pm

Raveen wrote:QUOTE (Raveen @ Oct 4 2011, 07:43 AM) FreeB brings up the same point that occurred to me, namely that it's built into the Constitution that the populous always has the option of armed revolt against a corrupt government

Where in the constitution is this stated? The right to keep and bear arms is explicitly stated in the constitution as necessary for a well-ordered militia, not for armed revolt against a corrupt government.

I am aware that the founding fathers talked a lot about the right to revolt against a corrupt government, but by its very nature no government explicitly allows for the possibility of armed revolt. And the US has put down several armed revolts of its citizens in its history. It's one of those principles that people like to talk about but practically speaking results in death and/or jail time unless one is successful.

QUOTE I can agree with you there, but my point is that this ISNT the current state of the law.[/quote]

In the US we have a common law system. The current state of the law can and does change on a case by case basis. So if the Obama administration argues that this killing was lawful, and then it gets challenged in the courts, the courts can either uphold the decision as lawful or they can rule that it's not lawful. And in the present case, a Federal court ruled it to be a political question.

Thiswas like the third hit on a google search:

QUOTE In December 2010, a federal judge dismissed the lawsuit writing that al Awlaki’s father had no standing to sue on his son’s behalf and that targeted killings were a “political question” for executive officials to answer, not judges.[/quote]

NightRychune · Post by **NightRychune** » Tue Oct 04, 2011 1:54 pm

like i said

more relevance than if we had just completely ignored him

lexaal · Post by **lexaal** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 6:34 pm

Should not the law and the constitution of yemen be applied in this case instead of the US law?

NightRychune · Post by **NightRychune** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 7:12 pm

the constitution of yemen

hahahaahahahahaha

Sundance_ · Post by **Sundance_** » Thu Oct 06, 2011 11:12 pm

“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” an administration official said in a statement Friday.

President Obama and various administration officials referred to Aulaqi publicly for the first time Friday as the “external operations” chief for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a label that may be intended to underscore his status as an operational leader who posed an imminent threat.

Bad man got ded. Color me unimpressed. In my opinion, he quit being a citizen when he defected.

ryujin · Post by **ryujin** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 2:12 am

Nazi's who were caught/surrendered were at least given a trial...

Edit: I mean after the war was over....
The problem with our "War on Terror" is there is no clear enemy, nor a clear definition of when it would be over....

Heyoka · Post by **Heyoka** » Fri Oct 07, 2011 5:15 am

That's the beauty of it!

We're in a war that can't be defined as war, with an enemy that has no formal structure or hierarchy, whose soldiers are composed of civilians.

Basically what it means is we can attack anyone, anywhere, at any time and say it's because of the war on terror. We could quite literally continue this "war" for eternity. Truly magnificent.