Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:53 pm
Well, as long as we're both annoyed, I think we've reached a good conclusion here. 
[/derail] please continue.
Page 7 of 14
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 3:57 pm
aww defiance ate all of our popcorn.
[/derail] please continue.
[/derail] please continue.
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 4:20 pm
you guys type too much
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 4:26 pm
I've gone to-to-toe with girlyboy before...he is a tough opponent. In the news article cited earlier, the U.S. Gov'ts stand was,“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,”
I'm not saying this is in fact in accoradance with U.S. law just because the memo says so. But I agree with the statement, and so do not see any harm legally or morally with what the U.S. gov't did. This does not mean I am defending everything the gov't has done in the past. Sure, we've made some downright immoral(amoral? anti-moral?) decisions. This wasn't one of them.
And I never made any kind of case or statement to get rid of Due Process. Just doesn't apply in this case.
I'm not saying this is in fact in accoradance with U.S. law just because the memo says so. But I agree with the statement, and so do not see any harm legally or morally with what the U.S. gov't did. This does not mean I am defending everything the gov't has done in the past. Sure, we've made some downright immoral(amoral? anti-moral?) decisions. This wasn't one of them.
And I never made any kind of case or statement to get rid of Due Process. Just doesn't apply in this case.
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 4:39 pm
I'm sure they consider themselves soldiers even if you do not.girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Oct 1 2011, 10:29 AM) Wait, wait, you think Al-Quaeda terrorists are soldiers? In a military? Who therefore are not mere "enemy combatants" or whatever, and are afforded all the legal protection that soldiers in foreign militaries should receive, like the Geneva convention and what-not? Son, what are you, some sort of commie?
Resorting to calling someone a "commie" because they can see things outside of nationalistic ideals is kind of close minded.
One mans "terrorist" is anothers freedom fighter- and if people of the world can't start seeing this (I know I'm far from the first to say it), then we will soon be reaching a new age of antiquity.
I'm not justifying acts of terrorism (either state sponsored or Al Queda/Christian Fundamentalist), I am just merely saying that if ending violence and terrorist acts is a goal of civilization, we have to understand the reasons why they take place. And to acknowledge that there are injustices in the world that will need be be remedied before peace can ever happen.
I'm sure the American Revolutionist's were considered terrorists by the British.
I guess we should also thank you for the 4 friendly targets you provided for our under-the-influence of speed pilot?girlyboy wrote:QUOTE (girlyboy @ Oct 1 2011, 10:29 AM) Since I pay taxes to the Canadian Government, you're welcome for my personally backing up your military in Afghanistan!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/friendlyfire/
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 5:26 pm
i told you arguing about this on moral/legal grounds was dumb
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:35 pm
very matureNightRychune wrote:QUOTE (NightRychune @ Oct 1 2011, 01:26 PM) i told you arguing about this on moral/legal grounds was dumb
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:41 pm
Ryujin wrote:QUOTE (Ryujin @ Oct 1 2011, 05:39 PM) I'm sure the American Revolutionist's were considered terrorists by the British.
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:42 pm
I'm okay with this person being dead by any means necessary.
Posted: Sat Oct 01, 2011 7:56 pm
TA you are so sneaky, but this is why you are completely wrong.
QUOTE U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:[/quote]
-Notice the lack of "automatic" in relation to a loss of citizenship, the term there instead is "SUBJECT." This implies there is some sort of proceedings necessary prior to the revocation of citizenship. In fact, all the stuff i can find says it requires a federal judge and a case presented against said individual for his citizenship to be revoked.
-Notice also the term "And" which means there are 2 conditions, not just one. He must have committed the acts with the intention to relinquish US citizenship, and there has been no evidence shown to that effect
QUOTE Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;[/quote]
-No evidence has ever been presented that Awlaki was involved with any armed hostilities against the US. He WAS a member of AlQaeda, but the only thing anyone knows about him is from what the Govt has said. If you need more convincing, remember the words of Rumsfeld "there are DEFINITELY WMDS IN IRAQ WE KNOW THEY ARE THERE STFU NOOBS"
I cant believe that you, ta, would just take everything Obama says about a situation as God's own truth without question.
QUOTE U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:[/quote]
-Notice the lack of "automatic" in relation to a loss of citizenship, the term there instead is "SUBJECT." This implies there is some sort of proceedings necessary prior to the revocation of citizenship. In fact, all the stuff i can find says it requires a federal judge and a case presented against said individual for his citizenship to be revoked.
-Notice also the term "And" which means there are 2 conditions, not just one. He must have committed the acts with the intention to relinquish US citizenship, and there has been no evidence shown to that effect
QUOTE Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;[/quote]
-No evidence has ever been presented that Awlaki was involved with any armed hostilities against the US. He WAS a member of AlQaeda, but the only thing anyone knows about him is from what the Govt has said. If you need more convincing, remember the words of Rumsfeld "there are DEFINITELY WMDS IN IRAQ WE KNOW THEY ARE THERE STFU NOOBS"
I cant believe that you, ta, would just take everything Obama says about a situation as God's own truth without question.