General Discussion

treestar

(82,383 posts)

201. You are very wrong to characterize my argument that way

Tue Mar 12, 2013, 09:32 AM

Mar 2013

I should not have to defend my statement from an interpretation so ridiculous, and in such bad faith.

If I were going to argue similarly I could as logically say: So you think someone like Al Awlaki should be able to kill as many Americans as possible (and then most likely himself) and get away with it? You must really hate Americans. In fact, you must be siding with Al Qaeda. That's really serious. If you're not joking, maybe I should get in touch with the FBI.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

202 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why was Anwar al-Awlaki executed by drone, without due process? [View all] MadHound Mar 2013 OP

A citizen does not have a right to take up arms, join our enemies & make war against the US govt. baldguy Mar 2013 #1

He did not take up arms, nor did he make war against the US. MadHound Mar 2013 #2

He didn't kill any Americans, but he certainly wanted to. And he praised those who did. baldguy Mar 2013 #6

There are lots of people in this world who want to kill Americans, and praise those who do so, MadHound Mar 2013 #11

And here we can question, monitor, even infiltrate those organizations. randome Mar 2013 #14

Well gee, we managed to do just that to get bin-Laden. MadHound Mar 2013 #16

I am not in charge of the military. randome Mar 2013 #19

Well that's a lame answer, MadHound Mar 2013 #20

Not at all what I meant. randome Mar 2013 #24

So killing American citizens without due process doesn't rise to the level of grievous activities? MadHound Mar 2013 #28

You KNOW the response to this. randome Mar 2013 #31

But that's the point, MadHound Mar 2013 #36

I'm sorry BO 08 Mar 2013 #40

So you do believe treestar Mar 2013 #129

hundreds? BO 08 Mar 2013 #35

LOL! MadHound Mar 2013 #39

You are forgetting the precedent Rigby5 Mar 2013 #190

Gen. Westmoreland salutes you. WinkyDink Mar 2013 #127

He would not like my counter salute. randome Mar 2013 #132

That's not the policy, has never been the policy, and there are no plans for that being the policy baldguy Mar 2013 #25

Well, judging by how the drone program is being carried out, that is indeed the policy. MadHound Mar 2013 #32

How many Americans have been killed by armed drones on American soil? Zero. baldguy Mar 2013 #66

Actually three US citizens have been killed by US drone strikes, at least that we know about. MadHound Mar 2013 #78

You are lying again. baldguy Mar 2013 #101

I used the same quote you posted, MadHound Mar 2013 #144

The reality of the situation is that you're trying to pin an imaginary policy onto the President baldguy Mar 2013 #153

You're the one misquoting Holder's letter... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #195

Sorry, but I have no sympathy for ANYONE, US citizen or not, who engages in.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #103

So, leaving al-Awlaki out of it altogether, what about his son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki? MadHound Mar 2013 #146

Wow. Your post is so full of false assumptions. But no matter what anyone tries to tell you.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #164

Bush killed more americans than 911 did. Based on a bunch of fucking lies. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #172

Remember the parameters of the drone program: baldguy Mar 2013 #176

self-serving garbage to rationalize crimes every bit as awful as anything done by our official HiPointDem Mar 2013 #177

Using military force for law enforcement operations is illegal. baldguy Mar 2013 #180

so is bombing other countries and assassinating their citizens. fuck this pretense of 'legality' HiPointDem Mar 2013 #181

Why don't you try reading the thread before spouting off? baldguy Mar 2013 #182

"Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist HiPointDem Mar 2013 #184

I think many of us don't 'support' it, per se. randome Mar 2013 #183

Eric Holder altered those parameters... ljm2002 Mar 2013 #196

but he certainly wanted to- we dont execute people for their wants leftyohiolib Mar 2013 #13

Ever visit facebook or Free Republic? whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #91

You're using the same "reasoning" the OP is. And it's nothing but lying propaganda against Obama. baldguy Mar 2013 #102

Riiight... whatchamacallit Mar 2013 #119

Bush killed more americans than this guy could dream of. Based on a fucking lie. Drone *him*. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #171

"...but he certainly wanted to." You made madhound's case right there. n/t truth2power Mar 2013 #199

"fire in a crowded theater" hfojvt Mar 2013 #17

Really? MadHound Mar 2013 #18

that might be news to these guys hfojvt Mar 2013 #73

He gave up his citizenship when he joined Al Quaeda LastDemocratInSC Mar 2013 #72

And yet he's still the hero poster boy of the anti-Obama crowd. baldguy Mar 2013 #75

Thanks for showing your agenda finally in this thread. Rex Mar 2013 #81

Run along. You'll miss the next Alex Jones Show. baldguy Mar 2013 #105

+1 uponit7771 Mar 2013 #110

Key words you are leaving out, "Potentially Expatriating Acts." MadHound Mar 2013 #85

he 'joined' al qaeda? is there an official sign-up sheet with a secret handshake? HiPointDem Mar 2013 #173

Wrong, any person has that right, and it is government that has no rights. Rigby5 Mar 2013 #188

This was settled in 1865. A US citizen taking up arms against the US govt is committing treason. baldguy Mar 2013 #192

And if he was holed up in a building here in America... randome Mar 2013 #3

Accidently, that is a key word in your hypothetical scenario, MadHound Mar 2013 #4

I dunno, maybe don't hang out in a country we're bombing the shit out of NightWatcher Mar 2013 #5

So why are we launching drone strikes against Yemeni, and US, citizens? MadHound Mar 2013 #7

Abdulrahman al-Aulaqi made the mistake of having dinner with Ibrahim al-Banna hack89 Mar 2013 #100

Umm, no, that is not true. MadHound Mar 2013 #143

No excuses - it was an unfortunate accident hack89 Mar 2013 #145

No, it wasn't an "unfortunate accident". MadHound Mar 2013 #148

Ahhhh yes... 99Forever Mar 2013 #9

i'll bet you'd show some outrage if it was a drone belonging to another government. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #174

Bush needs to be arrested for war crimes for okaying this... RetroLounge Mar 2013 #8

His son was executed by drone two weeks later for even less discernable reasons. Poll_Blind Mar 2013 #10

Because he occupied the expanded battlefield, Agnosticsherbet Mar 2013 #12

The AUMF essentially makes the whole world a battlefield which means everybody is a potential target MadHound Mar 2013 #15

and for this very reason theaocp Mar 2013 #22

Broad sweeping authority does not make it unconstitutional... Agnosticsherbet Mar 2013 #27

Step back a minute, MadHound Mar 2013 #80

An Amicus Brief is not a court decision. So your comment about Constitutionality is invalid. Agnosticsherbet Mar 2013 #113

You aren't quoting any court. onenote Mar 2013 #120

A beautiful nugget of accurate information... Agnosticsherbet Mar 2013 #121

It actually reaches beyond the constitution, we are talking absolute tyranny here. TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #185

Horsefeathers. n/t DeSwiss Mar 2013 #99

To make the President look like a tough dude. (nt) limpyhobbler Mar 2013 #21

An exercise in PR pretending we didn't lose the war on "terra". Tierra_y_Libertad Mar 2013 #23

invisible unaccountable dumbass idiots obsessed with power librechik Mar 2013 #26

perhaps the President/cia didn't share all of their information with you???? spanone Mar 2013 #29

Ah, so we should wait until all the information is in before doing anything, eh? MadHound Mar 2013 #34

+1 DCBob Mar 2013 #108

Have we learned nothing from VietNam and "The Pentagon Papers"? WinkyDink Mar 2013 #130

Two points Melike Death from Drones cheering squad NEVER address. 99Forever Mar 2013 #30

Despite the denigrating name you have assigned, jazzimov Mar 2013 #77

I hope that there is more to the story. Nye Bevan Mar 2013 #33

You mean outside of the treasonous videos he made? cliffordu Mar 2013 #37

He didn't renounce his citizenship. MadHound Mar 2013 #43

IF you cannot see the difference between Fonda and her photo op cliffordu Mar 2013 #46

So again, the question, MadHound Mar 2013 #49

He was neither convicted nor even charged with treason. TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #186

HE bragged about his treason. cliffordu Mar 2013 #187

Seems it would be easy to get the indictment then, right? TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #198

If there were any way to get him, sure. cliffordu Mar 2013 #202

Hint, he is an Arab roxy1234 Mar 2013 #38

Funny thing is, both men were born in the US. MadHound Mar 2013 #45

Well At Least Yours Got Some Responses... WillyT Mar 2013 #41

Oh, I have my "fans", MadHound Mar 2013 #48

americans have unlimited rights to butcher anyone at any time for any reason. its in the 10 msongs Mar 2013 #42

You wanna know the real reason? leveymg Mar 2013 #44

my good man BO 08 Mar 2013 #51

I called it a policy change. You used the "C" word. leveymg Mar 2013 #58

You said there must be some reason BO 08 Mar 2013 #64

Semantical difference? When agencies carry out conspiracies they're called programs and policies. leveymg Mar 2013 #70

Sorry what are we talking about? BO 08 Mar 2013 #71

You interjected an assumption into the narrative that doesn't necessarily follow the rest. leveymg Mar 2013 #74

Sadly roxy1234 Mar 2013 #55

The timing was very significant. On Dec. 24, the day before the Underwear Bomber was put on that leveymg Mar 2013 #61

Because ProSense Mar 2013 #47

Actually it isn't a law, it hasn't been passed by Congress, MadHound Mar 2013 #50

The same UN that brought up war crime charges BO 08 Mar 2013 #52

Yes, ProSense Mar 2013 #54

Full quote, MadHound Mar 2013 #60

Al-Awlaki was an American citizen on paper only. Comrade_McKenzie Mar 2013 #53

No, he was actually born here, MadHound Mar 2013 #59

The 1 attack he is accused of "coordinating" resulted in no casualties except the bomber's scorched leveymg Mar 2013 #67

He appears to have been a double-agent who worked both sides. We don't know what he believed he leveymg Mar 2013 #63

Yes, good riddance indeed. :-/ n/t DeSwiss Mar 2013 #123

Because he was a bad man... SomethingFishy Mar 2013 #56

Why was Osama bin Laden executed without trial? Cleita Mar 2013 #57

"The use of poisons of chemical and biological weapons against population centers is allowed" bhikkhu Mar 2013 #62

"By any means necessary." Malcolm X MadHound Mar 2013 #82

False equivalences are easy when its not your decision, or your responsibility bhikkhu Mar 2013 #89

You are making the mistake that many people make, MadHound Mar 2013 #94

He took up arms against the US in a time of war bhikkhu Mar 2013 #115

It's similar to opposition to the death penalty. randome Mar 2013 #117

He took up arms? Really? Show me when and where. MadHound Mar 2013 #150

I can tell you for certain this is just another Obama-Hater thread. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #65

+1000 baldguy Mar 2013 #68

This message was self-deleted by its author demosincebirth Mar 2013 #76

Nope, it's about the issue of drones, not the man who is launching them, MadHound Mar 2013 #84

Sorry, not buying the idea that you don't have a vendetta against the President. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #97

Why should I have a vendetta against the President? MadHound Mar 2013 #142

that is a terrible response Enrique Mar 2013 #134

You are also welcome to your opinion, however misguided it may be... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #138

what's insulting? Enrique Mar 2013 #156

Please refer me to the post where I engaged in "flippant namecalling".... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #159

No...nt SidDithers Mar 2013 #69

You conveniently forget Mr. Awlaki's involvement in the BA bomb plot, the Cargo Bomb plot, Times msanthrope Mar 2013 #79

Actually, you are glossing over a lot there, MadHound Mar 2013 #86

Direct contact and conspiracy with Rajib Karim on the BA Passenger Bomb Plot-- msanthrope Mar 2013 #87

LOL, let me repeat myself, MadHound Mar 2013 #93

Handwringing over a terrorist who was directly plotting to kill Americans. He was lawfully killed msanthrope Mar 2013 #95

But, but, but don't you understand? If we can kill a US citizen/terrorist overseas,..... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #98

Anyone who poses a threat to the safety of others and cannot be arrested - see Tennesee v Garner. Donald Ian Rankin Mar 2013 #147

No, it wasn't under the authority of Congress, MadHound Mar 2013 #141

MadHound--the AUMF of 9/18/2001 was passed by Congress, invoking the WPA, and directing msanthrope Mar 2013 #149

AUMF was declared unconstituional by the US District Court, Southern District of New York MadHound Mar 2013 #151

Wrong law, MadHound. Hedges vs. Obama involved the NDAA of 2012. And it was stayed. msanthrope Mar 2013 #152

On January 25, 2010, al-Awlaki's name had already been published as being on the kill list. He must leveymg Mar 2013 #116

Didn't you get the memo? '9/11 changed everything'. Rex Mar 2013 #83

This message was self-deleted by its author moondust Mar 2013 #88

"Expert Advisor" moondust Mar 2013 #90

if we could have bombed Tokyo Rose JCMach1 Mar 2013 #92

He was an American traitor who advocated killing his own people. Fuck him. BlueStater Mar 2013 #96

+1000. nt. OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #104

you could say that about a lot of people Enrique Mar 2013 #135

For the-President-can-do-no-wrong crowd: AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #106

So, Obama is Nixon now? Killing terrorists is the same as spying on political opponents? baldguy Mar 2013 #111

So the best that you have are straw-men and false equivalencies? AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #112

By posting the video you're comparing Obama to Nixon. That's false equivalency - BY DEFINITION. baldguy Mar 2013 #114

The words in the video speak for themselves. AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #126

Nixons stance doesn't apply to this situation. And YOU brought him into this thread, not me. baldguy Mar 2013 #133

You are fabricating what was posted at #106. Anyone can read it for themselves and see that AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #136

I'm thinking you haven't watched the video you've posted. baldguy Mar 2013 #137

The words in the video at #106 speak for themselves and anyone can verify that for themselves. AnotherMcIntosh Mar 2013 #139

... because ... JoePhilly Mar 2013 #107

Now this is a real example of a slippery slope... Taverner Mar 2013 #109

Why? DeSwiss Mar 2013 #118

You ignore the fact baldguy Mar 2013 #122

this is why... DCBob Mar 2013 #124

But of course... 99Forever Mar 2013 #128

That only applies to people who are willing to be treestar Mar 2013 #131

not my tale.. got it from the article. DCBob Mar 2013 #140

He was not executed treestar Mar 2013 #125

It's hard to be tried when you're not actually formally accused of anything. BlueCheese Mar 2013 #154

It's hard to formally accuse someone who will not cooperate with legal processes treestar Mar 2013 #161

You don't need to capture someone in order to indict him. BlueCheese Mar 2013 #162

You do if you are going to try him. treestar Mar 2013 #165

My point is that it's odd to ask someone to turn himself in if he hasn't been indicted. BlueCheese Mar 2013 #166

If we have to make indictments against every terrorist abroad treestar Mar 2013 #189

Your argument for killing someone is that it might be "awkard" to indict them? Are you joking? Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #194

You are very wrong to characterize my argument that way treestar Mar 2013 #201

So because he wouldn't turn himself in, we have a right to murder him? Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #163

If they are a danger to others treestar Mar 2013 #191

You don't earn due process. It is a right. Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #193

Virtually anyone charged with a crime participates in those charges about 0% TheKentuckian Mar 2013 #197

I don't think they did an indictment treestar Mar 2013 #200

He was an Enemy of the State� BlueCheese Mar 2013 #155

way too subtle a parody Enrique Mar 2013 #157

Anwar al-Awlaki was a big boy who knew what he was getting into arely staircase Mar 2013 #158

The same arguments used to justify torture are used to justify drone murders. Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #160

Sorry, not even close... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #168

There is legal precedent for "inhanced interrogation techniques." Doesn't make it right. Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #169

"Legal precedent" for torture? Because Bush Admin lawyers said it was okay to do so?.... OldDem2012 Mar 2013 #178

What I'm saying is that legality does not necessarily dictate ethics. Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #179

He was a shitbag terrorist, that's why. sagat Mar 2013 #167

How do you know he was a "shitbag terrorist?" Gravitycollapse Mar 2013 #170

george w bush is a shitbag terrorist who killed more americans than 911, based on a pack of lies. HiPointDem Mar 2013 #175