one of the PRIMARY reasons the Founding Fathers declared war on Great Britain

[ixion]

was a lack of due process.

[stevenleser]

1. You are going to need a rocket strapped to your back to make the leap to get where you are going...

along with a time machine to connect the British under King George III to Al Qaeda and the founding fathers to the modern US.

[ixion]

5. no, it's really very simple. I support the 5th amendment in our Bill of Rights.

It's people who support the Bush Doctrine who need mental gymnastics.

[msanthrope]

9. Again, tell us how the 5th was violated. It's simplistic to cite the 5th, but

not be able to state what exactly was due this terrorist.

[ixion]

21. Due process. Period.

[stevenleser]

24. Which doesnt apply to a member of a country or group with whom you are at war nt

[ixion]

47. "All Men are Created Equal"

'nuff said.

[msanthrope]

57. Yes. They ALL get a predator drone if they conspire to blow up planes. nt

[ixion]

61. No, that would be the largest state sponsor of terror in the world

a.k.a. the US Government.

[EFerrari]

54. That's utter bs. The military is not a lawless zone and neither

is the conduct of war.

[stevenleser]

75. Correct. And as I have stated many times, we didnt break the rules of war here. nt

[ixion]

79. well, yeah, we did

[msanthrope]

Name the rule of war we broke. nt

[stevenleser]

90. Look out, you are going to be accused of equaling Bush now. You wont get which rule of course

because we didnt break one.

[EFerrari]

94. You don't know that. You don't even know who died or was injured

in this attack.

[stevenleser]

95. Actually, we do have a pretty good idea from the reports.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/eveningnews/main20114151.shtml

Samir Khan, another American member of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and two passengers were also killed. But Awlaki was the main target. He had narrowly escaped an earlier drone strike the week after the Bin Laden raid, and this time the U.S. was taking no chances.

----------------------
I know you will be disappointed, but there are no apparent war crimes here.

[msanthrope]

51. He got it. In spades. nt

[stevenleser]

10. The 5th amendment didnt get in the way of our fighting the Germans, Japanese, North Koreans, etc.

its war.

[msongs]

13. ww 2 was legally declared war. Korean, Vietnam et al are unconstitutional "wars" nt

[stevenleser]

15. But wars they were, and thats the point. nt

[girl gone mad]

86. We're in a "war on drugs", too.

I guess POTUS can start ordering hits on dealers and crackheads.

[stevenleser]

89. Really? Did the Coca plant declare war on us?

[msanthrope]

6. Personally, I want to see how he gets the 'quartering of soldiers' in. No one expects the 3rd

amendment, but there is is...

[ashling]

68. But its never been incorporated

so there's that.


you'll have to excuse me

- really, you have to -

:rofl:

I'm grading essays on Con. Law

[msanthrope]

92. What did you do in a past life to deserve that? nt

[ashling]

93. I don't know

but it must have been awful:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x9794606

[StarsInHerHair]

2. true

[msanthrope]

3. You starting a revolution because a person designated as belonging to Al-Qaeda by the UN didn't

get what you think is due process????

Okay, let's play. You tell me what you think his 'due' was. After all, the government can take your life, your liberty, and your land after due process. So tell us what he missed out on.

[ixion]

7. I'm stating a simple fact.

It's the people defending the Bush Doctrine that are starting an endless war.

[msanthrope]

11. A simplistic fact. Again, tell us what was his due. Prove your point.

You can cite the 5th all you want.

But tell us how the AUMF of 9/18/2001, the statute under which this was done, is affected by your assertion.

[ixion]

16. Once again, you're referring to the Bush Doctrine

which is the antithesis of the American Revolution.

[stevenleser]

26. No Bush doctrine is needed. They declared war against us so a state of war exists. nt

[ixion]

36. You may not admit it

but it's what you're basing your thesis on.

[stevenleser]

39. I realize that is your fallback when you are on the losing side of an argument, but it wont work

you've still lost.

[ixion]

44. hardly

My thesis is steeped in 200 years of history. Yours is based on a failed businessman scumbag from Connecticut.

[stevenleser]

60. The examples of your use of logical fallacies are all over this thread. You've discredited yourself

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Straw man - Altering our argument to the Bush Doctrine
Ad hominem - Attacking me directly for something
Guilt by association - Equating our opinion with Bush's
Appeal to emotion - Self explanatory

[ixion]

66. No, I've simply stated well-known facts

the illogical premise is coming from you trying to defend a war of abstraction.

[stevenleser]

71. You've spammed this entire OP with the Straw man fallacy that some peoples thoughts = Bush Doctrine

That is a classic straw man and it is basically everything you have

[ixion]

76. I have stuck to my premise.

the spam is all on you trying to justify endless war.

[stevenleser]

82. The core of your premise is a straw man fallacy taped to a guilt by association fallacy nt

[msanthrope]

30. No--Bush never killed OBL and Al-awlaki. He started WAR as opposed to targeted killings.

Imagine if Bush had targeted OBL in 2001/2002, like Clinton did.

The entire Iraq War might not have happened.

[bluestateguy]

4. Was there ever a declaration of war by the Continental Congress?

I never thought of that one.

[ixion]

12. Yes. It was called the Declaration of Independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_United_States_revolutionary_history_(1760–1789)

[bluestateguy]

19. How was that a declaration of war?

That does not strike me as the same thing.

[stevenleser]

22. It isn't, but that person cannot admit it. nt

[ixion]

29. Tell that to King George the III

because he certainly saw it that way.

[stevenleser]

33. Individuals see things all kinds of ways. Doesnt make it so n/t

[ixion]

23. King George certainly didn't see it that way.

It was, effectively, a declaration of war.

[stevenleser]

28. I see. That document is OK as a declaration, but a video statement + 9/11 isnt. Gotcha

[stevenleser]

20. That is not a declaration of war. It is a declaration of separation and statehood. However...

as I have said, one does not have to declare war to be at war.

[ixion]

27. Great Britain saw it that way

but I guess to people who support the Bush Doctrine, and Neo-barbarianism, it's all a moot point.

[stevenleser]

35. Some people see gremlins. Doesnt make them real. n/t

[ixion]

41. and some people think a war of abstraction is real

but it isn't.

[stevenleser]

52. Not a war of abstraction, war with people who declared it on us. Nice try though nt

[ixion]

58. a war on 'terror' is a war of abstraction.

That is, it is unending by definition, because you will never rid the world of 'terror'.

[stevenleser]

62. Not a war on terror, war on people who have declared war on us. Nice try though nt

[ixion]

67. not even worth a response

[stevenleser]

72. Only because you know it proves you wrong. nt

[ixion]

74. hardly

I'm not the one trying to rationalize endless war.

[joshcryer]

8. Gross revisionism. Magna Carta was well established.

[ixion]

14. not even worthy of a response n/t

[joshcryer]

17. You got nothing.

[ixion]

18. it's amazing how many so-called progressives now support the Bush Doctrine

[joshcryer]

25. I don't. I merely support intellectual integrity.

[ixion]

32. You support the Bush Doctrine. If you don't admit that,

you are intellectually dishonest.

[joshcryer]

34. Quote me. You will be unable to do so.

And I say that with absolute confidence because you are not being honest with your smears.

[stevenleser]

37. When that person is on the losing side of an argument, he equates the other person with Bush

that is their MO

[ixion]

38. I'm not smearing. I'm stating a simple fact.

that you can't accept it is your problem, not mine.

[stevenleser]

40. You wouldnt know a fact if it walked up to you and introduced itself. n/t

[ixion]

42. I know you support endless war

and that's all I need to know about you.

[stevenleser]

48. You are now up to four logical fallacies in this thread. That's all I need to know about you

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Straw man - Altering our argument to the Bush Doctrine
Ad hominem - Attacking me directly for something
Guilt by association - Equating our opinion with Bush's
Appeal to emotion - Self explanatory

[ixion]

70. I am stating well-known facts, nothing more.

[stevenleser]

77. Nope, you've spouted straw man and other fallacies that you substitute for facts. nt

[ixion]

81. The American Revolution was a straw man?

oh please. Give it a rest. Shouldn't you be in a bunker somewhere?

[stevenleser]

84. Another straw man fallacy with an appeal to spite fallacy thrown in nt

[joshcryer]

43. I cannot accept unsubstantiated falsehoods, no. Provide the quote.

Do it. It's simple. Show me where I have supported the Bush doctrine. I haven't. And I never will. I merely had an issue with your gross revisionism. You were caught and unable to provide any substantial response. Typical.

[ixion]

45. If you support what Obama did today

you support the Bush Doctrine. It's that simple.

[stevenleser]

49. Straw man and Guilt by association logical fallacies. Two in one. Good job. nt

[ixion]

53. There's no fallacy at all. It is very, very matter-of-fact

lame try, though.

[stevenleser]

Yes, people who use logical fallacies tend to think they make sense. They dont nt

[ixion]

59. Exactly. Thank you for proving my point.

Incidentally, you're not even using logical fallacies, just low brow, dim-witted and ineffective snark.

[stevenleser]

63. Good job, that is your fifth logical fallacy in this thread. Care to go for a sixth?

[ixion]

73. once again, not even worth my time

[joshcryer]

50. And, yet, you can't provide one quote where I "support what Obama did today."

See, what's going on is all this back and forth false equivalence and nonsense.

[ixion]

56. Well, then, do you?

That seemed to be the under-pinnings of your initial post.

[joshcryer]

64. Why would it "seem to be the under-pinnings of my post"? Are you admitting to dishonest smearing?

I thought you had evidence to suggest I support the Bush doctrine?

[ixion]

69. I asked you a simple question. Answer please.

[joshcryer]

78. No.

That is my answer. No. I do not support targeted killing. Under any circumstances. Period.

Does this mean I think Obama operated illegally? Not sure, it's unclear. I've not been convinced that he operated illegally that's for damn sure.

Does my inability to be clear that Obama acted legally mean that "I support what Obama did today"? No, it doesn't.

[ixion]

83. Then to you, I apologize.

for any misunderstanding. As you can see, there are a couple people on this thread who did indeed support it.

[joshcryer]

88. Targeted killing is immoral. Whether it is legal or not is a discussion that DU isn't able to have.

It'd be interesting to have such a discussion, but most people here are too caught up in one liners and insults to have said discussion.

[stevenleser]

91. And I would agree with that. But the entire practice of war is immoral. nt

[stevenleser]

80. Don't answer him, you will only get a straw man or other fallacy in response. nt

[ixion]

85. I'm done listening to you talk rubbish.

[ElboRuum]

99. Wow...

Begging the question screwed into ad hominem duct taped to guilt by association.

Difficulty: 3.9

[TomClash]

46. Not in the colonies

Ixion is right.

And Magna Carta had a checkered history of implementation in England, let alone America, by the mid-18th Century.

Read the Declaration of Independence. It reeks with complaints of lack of due process.

That said, Obama had no choice in the matter. He had to kill Awlaki - there's more than one reason for the endless and nutty "Obama is really a Muslim traitor" campaign. You're not President long if you don't carry water for the National Security State.

[joshcryer]

65. Magna Carta and Due Process were effectively tacked on ideas that to this day have not...

...been shaken down and worked out perfectly. While I will give you that the Declaration of Independence did have a bit about due process, it was more about Republicanism than it was about the Founding Fathers wanting Equality for All.

[TomClash]

97. Here's some of what Jefferson wrote - many of the Crown's offenses were about legal process

He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:

For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:

For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:

For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:

He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.

. . .

Not much Magna Carta in the colonies.

[AngkorWot]

31. The framers would have had no problem with Obama killing the terrorist.

They shot plenty of British regulars without ever giving them due process.

[TomClash]

55. Alwaki never killed anyone

He was a propagandist and he was full of shit. He was also a US citizen.

But he was not operational. Your analogy doesn't work.

[msanthrope]

87. Not only was he operational, he had been convicted of incitement to murder.

He was convicted and sentenced to 10 years on this charge--he never showed...

Awlaki is being tried in absentia in Yemen for his alleged role in the kidnapping and murder of a French national. On Saturday, Judge Moshen Allwan ordered him "arrested by force, dead or alive" when he failed to appear.
© 2010 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Any reproduction, republication, redistribution and/or modification of any UPI content

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2010/11/08/Cleric-says-American-devils-must-die/UPI-61991289245343/#ixzz1ZURHnkaY


Further, here is a link to his emails with convicted bomb-plotter Rajib Karim--where he directs the blowing up of a plane.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/03/anwar_al_awlakis_ema.php



Not only operational, but convicted.

[TomClash]

96. Good find but . . .

Jocelyn is a right wing source.

His sources are unidentified.

[TomClash]

98. Also see below

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/opinion/20johnsen.html

He is far from the terrorist kingpin that the West has made him out to be. In fact, he isn’t even the head of his own organization, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That would be Nasir al-Wuhayshi, who was Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary for four years in Afghanistan.

Nor is Mr. Awlaki the deputy commander, a position held by Said Ali al-Shihri, a former detainee at Guantánamo Bay who was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and put in a “terrorist rehabilitation” program. (The treatment, clearly, did not take.)

Mr. Awlaki isn’t the group’s top religious scholar (Adil al-Abab), its chief of military operations (Qassim al-Raymi), its bomb maker (Ibrahim Hassan Asiri) or even its leading ideologue (Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaysh).

Rather, he is a midlevel religious functionary who happens to have American citizenship and speak English. This makes him a propaganda threat, but not one whose elimination would do anything to limit the reach of the Qaeda branch.

He’s not even particularly good at what he does: Mr. Awlaki is a decidedly unoriginal thinker in Arabic and isn’t that well known in Yemen. His most famous production is a lengthy sermon-lecture series called “Constants on the Path of Jihad,” which emphasizes the global nature of holy war: “If a particular people or nation is classified as ... ‘the people of war’ in the Shariah, that classification applies to them all over the earth.” But “Constants” isn’t really his own creation; it’s an adaptation of a work written by a Saudi militant killed in 2003. At most, Mr. Awlaki is a popularizer, someone who takes the work of others and makes it his own.

[tabasco]

100. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You need to take your act to Vegas.

:rofl:

[dionysus]

101. you should go downtown and wear a sandwich board protesting his death. march around a bit.

:rofl: