| Author | Message | ||
     Budgolf |
I think what scares me the most about it, other than it's unconstitutionality, is where it could lead, what kind of precedent it sets. What about when it's you because you're a Christian? Or you because you won't turn in your guns? Or you because you're drinking unpasturized milk in Wisconsin for crying out loud. It amazes me that our government finds Gitmo unconstitutional and will give the prisoners there trials in US courts at taxpayer expense, but finds it quite alright to obliterate an American BORN citizen without due process. And as far as needing to leave because I disagree with it...yeah whatever. | ||
| Blake |
Kent State, Ruby Ridge, and Waco were far worse. | ||
| Cowboy |
Old old story two set of rules one for Republican one for Democrat | ||
| Sifo |
Exactly right Budgolf. How many know that Hitler didn't start right off killing the Jews. He started in smaller numbers killing the Poles. It was a progressive program where at first only certain groups were targeted. It wasn't too hard for Germans to rationalize this because they were of course safe. Millions of people later it's easy to see the folly there. This is a very bad precedent that seems to have very popular support. It would be nice to think that this will represent the absolute limit of where our government will go, but that is seldom the case. I often wonder what average Germans were saying when the first signs of Hitler going so wrong were seen. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
Personally, I like terrorists DEAD, Pirates too. Dead. Hell Keel Haul them. I am also found of a more Gulag answer to prison than the current penal motel that we are running with cable, internet, college tuition and 'art therapy' for criminals. Big Rocks into Small rocks. Now on the steps to killing and launching the purges - it is when rank and file individuals can be labelled and 'criminals' of the state for speech, ideology, religion, or perceived threat. This is a very thin and razor crisp line. International law under the Geneva Convention CLEARLY allows for a bullet for terrorists, subversives, non state sponsored espionage, pirates, and underground resistance armed provacateurs. Look it up - there never should be ANY Constitutional consideration or guarantees to these miscreants. Bullet chest x 2; head x 1. Now the ATTACK WATCH pushes it closer to Lenin. IF they are going to start 'prosecuting' clensing, firing, or censuring based on 'attacks' against the President based on speech - then you have crossed the line into the slide of what Lenin, and later Stalin did. And the preemptive 'quotas' for eliminating those that could be enemies of the state based on profiling is next. So if you see armed drones over the border southern border - yep, they are not there to protect the integrity of the US.... they are up to no good and clearing the way for those 'illegal' to come across. and will grant rights to those illegals, while targetting those 'militia' that may have decided to arm themselves against the flow of illegals across their property. (Dont Laugh - I have been in 3 such wargames to do EXACTLY that) That is when you know it gets bad - Mobilized US Troops on the Border to 'protect' those coming across - not to defend sovereignty. And it is closer than you think. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
there is kind of a very big difference between Hitler deciding to murder innocent jews just because he didn't like them (starting small, then making a huge campaign about it) and the U.S.A. droning el wacko and his colleague don't you think? Kind of the opposite,...we started huge (Iraq/Afagan) and now have become surgical. But also,.. these aren't entirely innocent people being murdered either. They at least are planning or have planned the killing of innocent people themselves... just like Hitler when he got started. But we stopped them before they could do it. Wouldn't it have been nice to stop Hitler too? | ||
| Aesquire |
Why would you want to stop an innocent paperhanger, a vet unhappy with the versailles treaty and the damage, both economic, and moral it does to his country? Reads a bit, talks a lot in bars.... When do you want to kill Hitler? Can I get in on the op? The question is simply one of limits. No one here seems too upset that we zap some guy in the War. When do you "stop" someone? When he talks? When he Kills? Just because some guy talks big and hates you.... at what point to you have the right to take his life? It's pretty simple for a Private citizen. Only when he threatens you & yours and you have reasonable expectation that the threat is valid. Lotta grey area there, but the rules are simple. For OUR government, the rules are less easy to define. We are at war. So we can applaud a bomb strike on enemy HQ or a missile strike on al-whathisname as legit and, oddly, 21st century normal. Card carrying AQ member on the Pakistan border moving explosives for a suicide vest? ( well there's no card, and I suppose the Semtex could be for moving a stup.... ) Pretty easy. Self proclaimed Cleric ( you do the couple of admittedly big things that qualify you, you can call yourself a Cleric. There isn't a certifying board ) calls for strikes against America, allegedly linked to multiple terrorist ops, Traitor to his Culture... Still pretty easy, IMHO. But what of a guy we think is dirty because his name is on a watch list, and is seen in the wrong place near the wrong people...( and there are not an infinite number of names. Especially in cultures where "son of" gets stuck in there, ) But hey he's a suspicious dude in Algiers, so you hit his rent a car with a Hellfire. Still easy? Guy in Detroit, same thing. The Feds think he's the next al-whatsisface. Tow missile into the rented Ryder truck? Thinking this isn't a legit choice? Same guy, but his potential terrorism is to oppose the Attorney General. Grenade under the hotel bed? Hmmm? Certainly that's not legit, I bet you say. I agree. If you think that leap never happens..... check history again. ( in other words do you trust that President Bachman won't drone strike a domestic enemy? ) | ||
| Sifo |
Well put Aesquire. How about a drone strike on Reverend Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church? Certainly that would make the US a better country, wouldn't it? Is anyone going to defend this POS?  | ||
| Cityxslicker |
IF they were rounded up, bled and slaughtered it would be exactly what Stalin or Lenin would have done. This administration loves them, they are more concerned with prosecuting returning veterans, gun owners, private property owners, successful private business and tea party. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
More importantly, they are all attorneys and running a giant scam. They are no more concerned with what God thinks about America than the average atheist or agnostic. They are vile but completely protected. Were they being rounded up, I would feel it necessary for the average citizenry to defend them. | ||
| Sifo |
They are vile but completely protected. In what way are they protected? | ||
| Xdigitalx |
But they are just "wishing" or "praying" for your demise or only voicing their opinion that they believe is true or will come true. They are not planning or talking about killing innocent people. Big diff there imho. Drone kills in the usa? Not likely. Unless there is another Wako. | ||
| Sifo |
Your right, they don't deserve drones. Just toss them in the reeducation camp. Is editing a magazine much different than what WBC does? It's just words trying to convince others of their philosophies. | ||
| Kenm123t |
The way to end the protests( charge) to use the facilites Then the service is a private affair subject to treaspass laws and crashers will be arrested. Only Invited guests and family will be allowed entry. A third party org could handle all this for the family so they can have private time without interuption | ||
| Aesquire |
Go ahead, walk up to the Westboro jerks and tell them to leave. You will bear the brunt of first the law enforcement folk taking you away, and then the Westboro scam artists suing you for violating their rights. That's a specially protected group. Xdigitalx, Explain the difference again between "you are going to hell" and "we are sending you to hell"? ( unfair? too easy? ) At Waco they sent tanks, snipers, and poison gas to murder 70 people who's only proven crime was to worry out loud that the BATF was going to attack them? And the BATF did. How different is that and a Drone attack on a tea party rally? True, Janet, "burn em all" Reno isn't in charge now. Now it's Holder. Refuser to prosecute voter intimidation, ( not "his people" ) responsible for the murder of dozens of Mexican and US citizens by selling arms to America's enemies..to make a lie of the President real. It's unlikely drones will be used extensively domestically, only because the FAA has issues with drones over populated areas. So a TOW blasting your bedroom is more likely. Again, Detroit, Al-fukuee, caller to killing the infidel, is in contact by e-mail with Yemen...suspected AQ... Good to kill? Again, Detroit, Bobby jo, caller to vote against Obama, is in contact by e-mail with Virginia...suspect Tea Party... Good to kill? | ||
| Aesquire |
Before I forget, Yea! Barry, bad A55! good kill. Keep it up. | ||
| Aesquire |
Kenm123t... what facilities? Is there a remote shed we have to hide in to escape the Westboro scum? These lawyer scam artists "protest" in public places. You go to the cemetery to bury your loved ones. That's usually an open, parklike setting. The Westboro family is trolling for lawsuits. That's what they do. There is no morality involved. AFAIK they have trisexual orgies after the "protest". | ||
| Kenm123t |
The Cemetary funeral home etc The problem is the vetrans Cemetarys are public property. Private Cemetarys can have controlled access. | ||
| Xdigitalx |
*Go ahead, walk up to the Westboro jerks and tell them to leave. You will bear the brunt of first the law enforcement folk taking you away, and then the Westboro scam artists suing you for violating their rights. That's a specially protected group. I probably will someday. 1 - "you are going to hell" - mother tells child: "Don't run with scissors or you will get hurt". (*warning) 2 - "we are sending you to hell" - mother tells child: "I am going to cut you with the scissors if you don't stop running". (* threat) I Don't every about Waco but I do know 2 wrongs do not make a right and especially not 3,4 or 5 of them. But, I thought they sent tanks, snipers etc because he had a large stash of weapons that were unregistered? And would not let the authorities see them or come into the compound. Why have such a large cache of weapons in a compound?? Why have a Compound anyways. Wasn't he preaching like Hitler was in the beginning? What did he need weapons for to begin with ... what was he planning and who was invading? Or was he getting ready to invade somewhere? I know it's not that simple and I am probably way off base but it goes back the the simplest of terms, like it or not, 2 wrongs do not make a right. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Sifo, Their speech is protected. Unless they break a law, they are completely protected against government OR private action against them. If you take direct physical action against them based upon their speech, it assault and battery. I don't believe individuals can be guilty of 1st Amendment rights violations. If the government takes action based upon speech, it's a 1st Amendment rights violation. They have to break a law to take action against them. They are careful not to. It's a scam. WBC is the punk kid yelling at you standing in his front yard with his mom watching daring you to come fight him. As soon as you step into the yard and beat his ass his mom steps in. Cowards. The difference in WBC and Al-Aweaponscatcher is that Al was actually working with enemy combatants planning attacks within the US. One could say that we attacked the editor of Al Qaeda Today and Al was simply "unfortunate" collateral damage. | ||
| Sifo |
I just don't see the 5th amendment being less important than the 1st amendment. I guess as long as an important sounding title is made up after the killing, all is good. That one don't look right to me... Get him up against the wall... | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Sifo, Are we talking about WBC or Al? I don't believe the 1st supersedes the 5th except in specific circumstances. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[1]" WBC's actions don't meet the test for exception under the 5th. I think that Al's actions could. | ||
| Sifo |
Why is it that Al should be exempt from the 5th amendment? Same question for the editor. | ||
| Aesquire |
Al-Aweaponscatcher  Thanks Ft_, I'm going to use that. Re: Waco. Private citizens with legally owned weapons ( 2nd amendment ) that the jerkizoid leader invited the local authorities to inspect, just to be sure they WERE legal. The Trial after the massacre failed to prove that the rifles were illegal. The BATF sent a cattle car full of armed and armored BATF troops, a camera crew ( but no ambulance ) to film the bust, and an attitude to Waco, for the purpose of having a nice little "aren't we awesome?" movie for Congress on the next budget begging. Who shot first we will never know, for sure. Several factors, including the use of incendiary tear gas grenades, actually pumping lethal concentrations of flammable war gases banned for civilian use into a wooden house, the subsequent fire, and the use of tanks to destroy the compound eliminated crucial evidence..( in violation of posse comitatus .... justified by the lie from the BATF to the US Army that whatshisface had a meth lab ) Not at all defending the cult leader, or his followers. It's a tiny bit understandable not surrendering to people ( the BATF ) who seem to want you dead and obviously have no respect for the rule of law was one bad decision in a long list. ( starting with joining the Davidians in the first place.... ) The BATF and FBI HRT have a different opinion on that, btw. Xdigitalx's interpretation of the warning/threat difference is correct IMHO. As stated, I all happy with killing AQ on the Afghan front, the Iraq front, the Yemen front, Somali front etc... How about Detroit? ( we know they are there promoting murder & Jihad. Look on line ) And ultimately, if it's cool to kill the enemy, ( duh ) It makes little difference if it's tank, TOW, Hellfire from copter or drone, spec ops or you with a baseball bat. For fairly obvious reasons the government won't name the enemy. ( they gave Bush a lot of crap about using the word Crusade... for a reason ) 2 trumpeted triumphs for this admin in a few months. Not arrest, not detain, no trial, just kill. So, AQ in Yemen good? AQ in Detroit? Tea party in Detroit? Where does your moral sense draw the line? (Message edited by aesquire on October 02, 2011) | ||
| Aesquire |
You had to know this was coming. It's their Culture. and it sucks. http://www.foxnews.com/topics/politics/national-se curity.htm#r_src=ramp I suppose I must retract a previous statement. I said "For fairly obvious reasons the government won't name the enemy." Apparently I was wrong. http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/pr_1239817562001 .shtm http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/14/homelan d-security-warns-rise-right-wing-extremism/ | ||
| Blake |
Sifo, I think that the following interesting excerpts from the first fox news link Patrick posted above answer your concerns pretty well. Kill enemy in war. No need for hand wringing that I can see. The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., warned in an interview with Fox News Radio on Friday that the cleric’s death was bigger than that of the Al Qaeda network’s leader. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Sifo, If a US citizen, in time of war is actively engaged in combat activites against the US, guilt is presumed. The alternative is that we would need to check the citizenship status of EACH enemy combatant before engaging. If he says bad things against the US but isn't actively engaged, I think we might have a problem particularly if he is located inside our borders. If a US citizen is captured but not killed, I say we try them and THEN execute them. The same rules hold true here in a shootout. If you are firing on police here, the officer has the authority to terminate without trial in defense of himself and for the protection of the general public. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
"Why have such a large cache of weapons in a compound?? Why have a Compound anyways. " Trust the Government, this is not the enemy you are looking for - in my best Jedi Mind trick voice. I will go you one better - my cache is overseas. | ||
| Aesquire |
The Kennedy's have a Compound. Several, in fact. And weapons, and armed men to use them. Might even be legal. Sifo, WBC is shysters. Shysters are a protected group. Ask anyone who's not a lawyer. ( not all lawyers are shysters. Not all Muslims are jihadi. the other way around is assumed for both groups. ) My fantasy about the WBC involves a phalanx of armored guys with staffs.... Mainly because that'a hobby, and I know how it would feel. Never going past the "wouldn't it be funny" stage, like any fantasies involving paintballs, angry skunks, and getting Micheal Moore to bring a bunch of flaming gays to bug them... again. ( I can't stand Moore, but even I have to admit it was a little funny ) Certain I am NOT advocating violence against another citizen. That would be wrong. If I understand Sifo correctly, he's all good with us shooting a convoy of baddies in Yemen, just worried that it is not a good thing to have a government kill it's own citizens. There's been a lot of that this last Century, and it has been mostly done by people of an ideological bent that many in the President's staff, Czars, etc. admire and/or envy. So I can see the concern. | ||
| Buellifer |
Quote>>> "Well put Aesquire. How about a drone strike on Reverend Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church? Certainly that would make the US a better country, wouldn't it? Is anyone going to defend this POS?" Only if Obama has them killed. |
