Confirmed: Obama authorizes assassination of U.S. citizen

Originally posted by Pajjikor
reply to post by Miraj

 

Do you have any idea the downward spiral this country has gone down since we first became a country? How little freedom we now have?

I would love to hear some of your thoughts, not points said for the sake of an argument.

I think you see things in a different light than I. You see, in the past; People weren't entittled to the same rights that were guaranteed for all. Women couldn't vote. Slavery was legal (Many ethnic groups here). But things have gotten better. Back in World War One, people were jailed for speaking their minds of the war. I could rant on and on.

Nothing is ever going to be perfect. Deal with that fact. But we can always try to make it perfect.

reply to post by Miraj

Originally posted by Miraj

I think you see things in a different light than I. You see, in the past; People weren't entittled to the same rights that were guaranteed for all. Women couldn't vote. Slavery was legal (Many ethnic groups here). But things have gotten better. Back in World War One, people were jailed for speaking their minds of the war. I could rant on and on.

Nothing is ever going to be perfect. Deal with that fact. But we can always try to make it perfect.

I apologize for jumping in. I am one who certainly does see things differently than you.

You are correct about the historical facts here. You are also correct in the 'there is no perfect society' sentiment, and that to a point, we must well... 'Deal with it'. (I believe that is ultimately what you were saying. Forgive me if I am wrong, or putting words in your mouth. and feel free to correct me.)

However, you failed to mention or factor in, that societies tend to adjust due to circumstances. Sometimes with extraordinary measures, usually in extraordinary circumstances... Such as war. Sometimes those measures are altered or even reversed in different circumstances, but sometimes such measures can contribute to an overall societal evolution. In short, you begin a trend, and you don't go back... And sometimes, not only do you not go back, but a precedent allows a government to take a little more... and a little more... etc.

In terms of establishing a gradual tyrrany, this is also historically accurate. This is the 'slippery slope' perspective if you will... That a government begins to chip away systematically at what we now call 'civil liberties'. (Please refer to 'how to catch a wild pig' metaphor.) And in the terms of our own legal system 'precedent' is key, and very vulnerable to abuse and manipulation in terms of changing how the law is perceived and interpreted.

That is what people people (including myself) fear here. The 'Right To A Trial' is an enormous factor in maintaining our rights overall. It's part of that (usually) tacit social contract between (American) citizens and their government. It is culturally defining.

Also, regardless of your historical points, it doesn't excuse the government from abandoning the Right to a Trial before a jury of ones peers to determine guilt. No one... Not even the President gets to say 'Wow, that really looks bad, and he/her probably did it, so kill him/her', arbitrarily. There must be a trial or a military tribunal to determine if this person did indeed engage in the alleged activities that they may be put to death for. That's the point.

I would also wager that no matter what historical illucidation you reference of our injustices and trampling of civil liberties throughout our own history, they can be held up against the social acceptances, and/or extreme circumstances that would justify them (this is important) for that time.

Right now, we are not at war (the 'war on terror' is a boogey man, not an armed conflict. There are characteristics of war. It doesn't qualify.) There are no social circumstances currently that are extreme enough to justify waiving the right to a trial. None. The only thing that I can think of is that the established authority is so insecure in it's power base that they are now embarking on establishing a precedent that will allow them to intimidate, and/or execute even their own citizens that they perceive as a threat to said power base. There is little to no social pressure prompting this, so I smell a power play. Period.

On another note, those injustices were largely rectified (like slavery), and are no longer applicable once the circumstances changed.

Apathy does nothing for the continual effort of making a perfect society. I won't accept this. It's a step away from the ideal.

I thought that since traffic is being redirected to this thread, this video might as well be over here.

So, our government now is in the business of cold blooded murder? That's it, I give up.

[edit on 11-4-2010 by warpcrafter]

Originally posted by boondock-saint

It is time for all to seek God

Or Allah?

Bang you're dead.

This is what the US constitution says,

U.S.C. 1481 states:
"A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality...committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction."

So it states that there must be either a court martial or some other court that is competent, it doesn't say particularly whether there should a trial by jury. On the other hand, it seems to say that an American citizen that should be intending to relinquish his citizenship in the first instance. Al-Awlaki hasn't done this. It could be argued that the wording means that by treason or the other acts, that is showing intent to relinquish US citizenship, but it doesn't actually say that, and in any case Dennis Blair is talking about current US citizens, so they are acting illegally according to the US constitution.

Originally posted by Matthew Dark

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan

i am perfectly fine voting in other people....but this two party thing has to stop.

But if we manage to finally put independants into office, and they keep pulling the same crap then we can talk "revolution".

Well...we have quite a few smart people up here on ATS.
Why not try to form a brand new party?
I'm sure that resources are available if sought and we do have some politically savvy peers.
What's the harm in trying?

I heard someone once say (on a TY video) the USA has the most complicated rules / laws on earth for 3rd parties to establish themselves.. I believe every state has it's own specific hoops to jump through which results in 2-party US congressmen enjoying a better re-election rate than soviet politicians. Maybe not 100% true, but probably accurate.

Besides laws / rules created to protect the DC mafias power sharing, the corporate media ignores and or lumps 3rd party candidates in with fringe militia.. along with various other forms of "spin" to marginalize... you all know the drill.

"The man" (party leaders / media / banker gangsters) pretty much own the political party arena.. honestly IMO it's a near hopeless endeavor to save the USS titanic from sinking.. especially considering each party has armies of loyal brain washed cultists who practically see their party leaders as rock star royalty incapable of making bad decisions.

The kinks in their armor, IMO, are petitions and or referendums.. which could be used to put forward all kinds of measures on the ballot.. maybe to outlaw or abolish political partys.. or require 50% of all state 'officials' be non affiliated 'citizen statesmen' drafted into limited time service like jurors...

I'm not familiar enough with the legalities / process to opine if these "off the top of my head" ideas would be valid. One thing I do know.. we here in Calif defeated the mans propaganda / political spin campaign to limit our choices of medicine by voting prop 215 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996) into law... the same approach could be used to challenge 2-party mafia rule..

There's no "gray" area here. And I don't care where he/she from, as a terrorist, coward, combatant and idiot as soon as he declared himself "an enemy of the USA" IMO he signed his own death warrant. And I'd be more than happy to collect on that warrant, anywhere in the world.