He doesn't need a civilian army.
Posted on 11/11/2010 7:01:16 PM PST by frog in a pot
I never thought I would find myself on the same side of an issue as the ACLU.
Some people say they think Hillary wouldn't be as bad as 0baMao.
Let's just think about this power in her hands.
And if this happened during the Bush admin?????
It was a typo, it’s the President’s executetive power. That’s what they teach in Chicago - just ask Al ... If you dare.
not the ACLU ‘of all places’ .. please note that this CCR is a communist organization. Look up its history, its board, its staff. One of the attorneys, I believe her name is Meerpool or something like that, was born “Rosenberg” as in Julius and Ethel. They were raised by a communist friend and somewhere along the line changed their names.
For example:
“Equally important to note is that the United States has already had war crimes charges filed against them in the International Criminal Court (ICC) over their invasion of Iraq, and which many Russian legal experts warn could very well place many high-ranking US officials in the position of having arrest warrants issued against them.”
The core problem with the above statement is that Saddam Hussein signed an armistice agreement with ‘the Allies’, a group of over forty nations united militarily against Saddam, after he was chased out of Kuwait. He promised ‘the Allies’ he would cease all hostilities.
In less than 24-hours after signing the armistice, he violated it by shooting at our aircraft. There were thousands more instances of violation over the next ten years or so.
The so-called invasion of Iraq was actually the restart of Desert Storm and perfectly legal internationally.
Although the case names an american of middle eastern descent, you know how quickly this authority would be abused and those of us that show any resistance to this marxist government will become targets.
From the ACLU link: “Federal Court Hears Arguments Today In ACLU And CCR Case Challenging Administration’s Claimed Authority To Assassinate Americans It Designates Threats”
They can try, but they had better succeed on the first try. If they don't (and what have the obamabots ever got right on the first try, if at all?) they will surely regret it. I reserve the right to defend my life with deadly force, including any and all means at my disposal. There will be no "overseas contingency." They won't have to come looking for me, I'll find them.
Let’s start with George Soros and work our way through the Tides foundation.
That is the ACLU/CCR headline. I sure would like to see the actual record, and not their take on it which would naturally be cast in ACLU/CCR terms. They are both super-left, anti-American (dare I say, communist) organizations working hand-in-glove, and frankly I don’t trust a single thing that comes out of either organization.
Like the broken clock that is right twice a day, these organizations could possibly be on the right side of the case but I sure as hell wouldn’t take their press release headline at face value. I really would have to read all the case briefs, the hearing transcripts, etc. before I’d accept their view as being accurately presented.
As a great man once said, trust but verify. Well, at least verify. Don’t trust them.
As I have just posted on this thread .. I do not believe a single word out of either the ACLU or the CCR. Before I’d jump on board this bandwagon, I sure as hell would have to read every brief filed in the case and transcripts of the hearings.
It’s possible they are on the right side of this case, I don’t know because I haven’t read the case file. But the odds are not in their favor. Their interpretation of what is good and what is constitutional rarely coincides with the view of any conservative. And their headline, while provocative, is as likely as not pure leftist propaganda.
I’d suggest taking the time to read the actual case, and not trust an ACLU/CCR press release.
But “jihad has many different meanings” doncha know.
I’m really not quite sure what to think about this. I understand why they want to put Al-Awlaki (a US citizen) on a hit list, but the precedent....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/25/AR2010092500560.html
This looks like this is related to the questions of whether pursuing terrorists is a law enforcement matter, and whether certain captured terrorists should be waterboarded, etc. Are there circumstances that justify waterboarding, or executing a ‘civilian’ terror leader?
Because the terror leader doesn’t have a standing army in the sense that nations do, is he not, nonetheless, a warrior? Isn’t his goal the same as any other commander, i.e. to kill the enemy? Are we or are we not at war with terrorists whose goal is to kill as many of the enemy as possible? How is it that al-Aulaqi is considered a ‘civilian?’
And why are the ACLU/CCR trying to tie the hands of those who could capture/kill him? What alternative do they propose to capture him and bring him to trial in the US? Or, since he is a US civilian citizen, is he free to lead a terror group abroad without options available to our military forces to capture/kill him? Is it better to have him and his ‘soldiers’ kill US soldiers rather than violate some civil right to which he was born but entitled, but has (imo) abandoned by taking up arms on behalf of those terrorists and their cause?
I guess in this case I’d give that authority to the president, even if it is a president I am not supportive of politically. In this new type of warfare, and this new type of enemy, we have to adopt new methods of dealing with those changes. Parameters could and should be set for use of more unconventional methods.
I did try to look up this case with information in the CCR press release. It says the case was argued in the US District Court for DC “today,” on a 11/8/10 release. There was no such case listed on the 11/8 calendar at the court. Reading this WaPo story shows that the hearing was Saturday the 6th. So the release wasn’t particularly helpful. Told ya you can’t trust anything they say.
Incidentally, the judge was a Bush 43 appointee and served in the US Army doing a tour in Vietnam. It will be interesting to see how he rules. Regardless, the case will most likely work its way up to the SCOTUS.
I agree with everything you said. I also don’t think it seems like anyone is discussing a blanket permission to go after American citizens. I’m also pretty sure that the options in regard to Al-Awlaki are kill or capture.
I’m interested in how this fits into the denial of habeas corpus rights to Al-Awlaki if he is captured. What kind of court/trial he would receive, etc.
Before I’d jump on board this bandwagon, I sure as hell would have...
FR is not a bandwagon, it is a discussion forum.
You will note I posted the article without comment as a means of inviting the views of others such as yourself who may have greater knowledge of the event. There was enough information in the excerpt to open a rational discussion.
I’d suggest taking the time to read the actual case, and not trust an ACLU/CCR press release.
Good advise, and nowhere did I advocate relying on the credibility of the ACLU/CCR for the truth of the matter. In fact, my posts reiterate the need for reading the filings or transcript of any arguments presented to the court.
It’s possible they are on the right side of this case...
Thank you.
Imagine what that means to us if theIr arguments are valid. This issue clearly is worth pursuing at the earliest moment,
Hope you have a nice day, Ed.
What does this have to do with my posting a link to the same article from a different source than provided by the thread poster whose original link didn’t work in the first place?
Secondly, the ACLU is filing suit, it’s noted by the same commie source as the original thread link.
http://www.ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings
Am suspecting this is just another of nobama’s outlandish “trial balloon” scare tactics that they did over and over his 1st year of pissin on the Constitution and poopin on the Oval Oriface rug.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.