BTW, had he surrendered or was captured he would have been tried for terrorism against the USA.
Surrender to whom? The FBI? The CIA killed him. The CIA isn't law enforcement. Why would he be tried for terrorism? He was never charged for terrorism and a warrant for his capture was never issued.
You are a sick demented individual and really should get help! This guy was responsible for how many deaths and planning to kill how many others, and you sit there defending his innocence! He would have beheaded you and your entire family without a second thought, and you sit there playing your sicko jackass game, praising innocent without formal charges! It's all just a jackass game for you!
Yeah...rule of law and the legal protection that used to be afforded by the constitution is demented. Please tell me how many deaths he is responsible for. And spare me the one sided evidence offered by the executive branch, evidence that was never presented to the judicial branch. You know,that demented checks and balances that requires the executive branch to present their evidence to the judicial branch before being allowed to capture or kill US citizens.
Sorry if I'm concerned about a precedent being set that allows the president to have a secret kill list that can kill a citizen without presenting their evidence to the judicial branch. You remember, it's the judicial process which you swore to protect when you swore to defend the constitution.
You are a sick demented individual and really should get help! This guy was responsible for how many deaths and planning to kill how many others, and you sit there defending his innocence! He would have beheaded you and your entire family without a second thought, and you sit there playing your sicko jackass game, praising innocent without formal charges! It's all just a jackass game for you!
Presumption of innocence is the established procedure set forth by the founding fathers.
This guy was responsible for how many deaths and planning to kill how many others, and you sit there defending his innocence! He would have beheaded you and your entire family without a second thought, ...
Hearsay evidence.
Not admissible.
You have no actual proof that he killed anyone or planned to kill anyone.
You were told by someone else and you willingly disregard law and order and support whatever you are told.
Every single one of the founding fathers would shoot you in the back for your ignorance and disregard for people's rights.
No wonder the world hates you and those actions that you defend.
You support terrorism as a tool to fight terrorism.
It's exactly like trying to put out a fire with more gasoline than the other guys have.
Yeah...rule of law and the legal protection that used to be afforded by the constitution is demented. Please tell me how many deaths he is responsible for. And spare me the one sided evidence offered by the executive branch, evidence that was never presented to the judicial branch. You know,that demented checks and balances that requires the executive branch to present their evidence to the judicial branch before being allowed to capture or kill US citizens.
Sorry if I'm concerned about a precedent being set that allows the president to have a secret kill list that can kill a citizen without presenting their evidence to the judicial branch. You remember, it's the judicial process which you swore to protect when you swore to defend the constitution.
I see the outrage of the month club is back in session.
This time they appear to be outraged over concerned people expressing their feelings about killing people without a trial.
Most murderers and their supporters feel the same way as our outraged extremists.
Thank you Joe. I've read exerts of this report, but could never find the original text.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
From Joe's Link: Authorizing the drone strike on Scumbag Anwar al-Awlaki
Quoted Text
In light of these precedents, we believe the AUMF's authority to use lethal force abroad also may apply in appropriate circumstances to a United States citizen who is part of the forces of an enemy goranization within the scope of force authorization.
The use of lethal force against such enemy forces, like military detention, is an important incident of war. Based on the combination of facts presented to us, we conclude that DoD would carry out its operation as part of the non-interhational armed conflict between the United States and al-Qaida, and thus that on those facts the operation would comply with international law so long as DoD would conduct it in accord with applicable laws of war that govern targeting in such a conflict.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Not so secret, is it dumbass! Of course original information would be private and not shared, but this was released by the Government...so NOT SECRET DUMBASS!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Not so secret, is it dumbass! Of course original information would be private and not shared, but this was released by the Government...so NOT SECRET DUMBASS!!!
The headline was from the TIME article YOU linked DUMBASS. It was secret because it was released AFTER they killed him DUMBASS. It was secret because it was never presented to a court DUMBASS. It was an internal memo prepared by the White House attorneys and released after the fact - DUMBASS.
Is this the Constitutional legal system that you swore an oath to defend? Heaven help us if there are more ignorant people like you(and there are - Box) defending this warped concept of the U.S. Constitution.
Just remember joey, under your interpretation of the constitution, even YOU can be targeted and accused of treason and a traitor and enemy of the state, without a judge, and without your elected representative ever seeing the evidence for which you have been accused. But as long as it makes you feel safer giving the president the authority to kill citizens with zero due process, I have no argument that will convince you that unchecked power of the president is more dangerous than your irrational fear that a guy in Yemen is going to cut your head off in the middle of the night.
The headline was from the TIME article YOU linked DUMBASS. It was secret because it was released AFTER they killed him DUMBASS. It was secret because it was never presented to a court DUMBASS. It was an internal memo prepared by the White House attorneys and released after the fact - DUMBASS.
Is this the Constitutional legal system that you swore an oath to defend? Heaven help us if there are more ignorant people like you(and there are - Box) defending this warped concept of the U.S. Constitution.
Just remember joey, under your interpretation of the constitution, even YOU can be targeted and accused of treason and a traitor and enemy of the state, without a judge, and without your elected representative ever seeing the evidence for which you have been accused. But as long as it makes you feel safer giving the president the authority to kill citizens with zero due process, I have no argument that will convince you that unchecked power of the president is more dangerous than your irrational fear that a guy in Yemen is going to cut your head off in the middle of the night.
Why would I ever expect a dumbass douche nozzle sicko self-centered arrogant no-nothing jackass wannabe like you to understand how things like this really work.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
Once again, Cicero ignores the often used SWAT team tactics which are LEGAL. NO warrant, No arrest, No legal representation.
If you were to follow Cicero's plan, they would have had a meeting in some desert in Yemen, then read him his rights, provided him with an attorney, made sure that Anwar was comfortable, possibly over a nice glass of iced tea...
Then the suicide vest would have gone off and all in the meeting would be dead. BUT CISSY WOULD HAVE BEEN HAPPY! You know... just like the LEGAL tactics of US SWAT Teams.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
You ask for an "Islamist" and I posted one.
