Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Glen Greenwald would be considered a leftist by most folks. One I happen to agree with on this issue. So, for those of you claiming no one on the left is decrying this action...here you go:
Hold the phone. Did awlawki renounce his U.S. citizenship?
He sure the hell did and now he looks like a piece of toast and to all those who would seek refuge in foreign soils and try and kill Americans turn the toaster on high andtoast and roast.
He sure the hell did and now he looks like a piece of toast and to all those who would seek refuge in foreign soils and try and kill Americans turn the toaster on high andtoast and roast.
When are we going to go back and finish the job in Viet Nam?
I hate loose ends, man.
Like, they can unravel, or something.
And...of course you realize we had "militarily" won that war. It was the very ignorant (youth for the most part) hippies of the '60's that demonstrated with a lot of violence that "coerced" Johnson to leave Vietnam...which I might add resulted in how many hundred thousands of slaughtered people by the entity we defeated but then pulled out and left to rise up and kill again?
Don't try to get smart mouthed...you will not win that war of words.
And...of course you realize we had "militarily" won that war. It was the very ignorant (youth for the most part) hippies of the '60's that demonstrated with a lot of violence that "coerced" Johnson to leave Vietnam...which I might add resulted in how many hundred thousands of slaughtered people by the entity we defeated but then pulled out and left to rise up and kill again?
Don't try to get smart mouthed...you will not win that war of words.
"Clear and present danger" is not just the title to a movie. It is a principle of both law and human civilization, that defines the boundary of lethal force. It can't be thrown out just because you are miffed or need closure to restore your fragile sanity..
I suppose those acts of terrorism committed by al Qaeda since before, during and after 9/11 are just figments of our fragile sanity?
Quote:
Every person who is not at the moment engaged in a criminal act is entitled to due process.
So it your argument that planning, recruiting, are free periods as opposed to an ongoing criminal conspiracy?
Quote:
According to standard police procedure, lethal force is only justified to prevent or curtail an impending criminal act or one in progress, in which public safety is at immediate risk.
One more time with feeling;
In striking down a Tennessee statute authorizing the use of deadly force to "seize" a fleeing felon, writing for the Majority, Justice White wrote:
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.
I might also remind you that you steadfastly omit to reference Article 51 of the U.N. Charter that allows a nation to exert what force it deems necessary to defend itself, you also steadfastly refuse to reference the Constitutional power of the President to declare even a sentence an enemy combatant lawful or otherwise and the Constitutional power of Congress to authorize that use of force, and that the right of a nation to defend itself against unlawful combatants is not constrained by the Rules of War.
Quote:
Furthermore, every person associated with Al Qaeda is not necessarily a "terrorist", any more so than was every person associated with the Communist Party necessarily a participant in overthrowing the US government by violent means.
The imprecision of your argument belies its faults. Even a member of the Communist Party could not be prosecuted solely on the grounds of being a member of the CPUSA because the CPUSA was never found to be actively attempting to overthrow the government of the United States, see Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 77 S. Ct. 1064, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1356 (1957)
Quote:
Your McCarthyist position on terrorism and Al Qaeda is a much greater danger to the USA than Al Qaeda itself.
If you cannot understand the distinction between, arresting or detaining individuals who advocate the propriety of jihadist activities and those who willingly join organizations actively working to commit terrorist acts you are lost in a miasma of delusion.
I suppose those acts of terrorism committed by al Qaeda since before, during and after 9/11 are just figments of our fragile sanity?
Suppose the CIA is al Qaeda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
So it your argument that planning, recruiting, are free periods as opposed to an ongoing criminal conspiracy?
Are you advocating that we just shut down the U.S. Government?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
One more time with feeling;
CIA!
CIA!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
In striking down a Tennessee statute authorizing the use of deadly force to "seize" a fleeing felon, writing for the Majority, Justice White wrote:
The use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead. The Tennessee statute is unconstitutional insofar as it authorizes the use of deadly force against such fleeing suspects.
It is not, however, unconstitutional on its face. Where the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force. Thus, if the suspect threatens the officer with a weapon or there is probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm, deadly force may be used if necessary to prevent escape, and if, where [471 U.S. 1, 12] feasible, some warning has been given. As applied in such circumstances, the Tennessee statute would pass constitutional muster.
I might also remind you that you steadfastly omit to reference Article 51 of the U.N. Charter that allows a nation to exert what force it deems necessary to defend itself, you also steadfastly refuse to reference the Constitutional power of the President to declare even a sentence an enemy combatant lawful or otherwise and the Constitutional power of Congress to authorize that use of force, and that the right of a nation to defend itself against unlawful combatants is not constrained by the Rules of War.
Say-So - Hearsay, man. Unless a jury decides.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
The imprecision of your argument belies its faults. Even a member of the Communist Party could not be prosecuted solely on the grounds of being a member of the CPUSA because the CPUSA was never found to be actively attempting to overthrow the government of the United States, see Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 77 S. Ct. 1064, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1356 (1957)
Musta been a jury trial.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ovcatto
If you cannot understand the distinction between, arresting or detaining individuals who advocate the propriety of jihadist activities and those who willingly join organizations actively working to commit terrorist acts you are lost in a miasma of delusion.
They should rename al Qaeda Entrapment Central.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
