The Truth Is Viral - ACLU: "Obama is now Judge, Jury, and Executioner"

reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com


Ok are the same people saying Obama's the judge, jury and executioner on ATS, that always talk about how the NWO or Illuminati make all the decisions? From what I've seen, the majority of people on this site who engage in the political discussions believe the latter, so what's the point of blaming Obama for anything? I realize that he's part of the whole thing, but this argument just makes it seem that removing the president would solve the problem, and that's not at all true.

The United States has had the same exact foreign policy since WWII. It's what Eisenhower warned us about, what JFK warned us about, I think most people on this site should know this. If you think that the President has any effect on foreign policy, then please read, or at least go to a book store/library and skim, a Noam Chomsky book. I got "The Essential Chomsky" about a year ago, a compilation of a bunch of his works, and it's awesome. He's spelled out the history of our foreign policy along with tons of things that most people have no idea about (ex: our secret war in Cambodia prior to Pol Pot's rise to power, our funding of and concealment from the public of the genocide in East Timor). One thing that he points out numerous times is that our foreign policy of attacking foreign countries and funding wars where we act like we play no part, even funding both sides of wars, to generate money for our country's only export: weapons. Oh, and on top of the war profits we have benefitted greatly by turning the ravaged countries into financial slaves to support our lifestyle.

You've gotta change the entire system to change anything in this world.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

As many many many people pointed out with calls to arrest Bush and Cheney.

Why is it ok to push action against those 2 and not Alawaki?

There's a big difference. The charges voiced against Bush and Cheney were/are public knowledge, you know, transparent. Not to mention, they would have been afforded a fair trial.

I simply think it's a dangerous, dangerous policy to allow our President full discretion to commit assassinations. It's just so disturbing that he can, and has, and that there is a list with dozens of US citizens on it, waiting their turn to be assassinated. We have no idea who they are. No idea why. This is just not how it should be.

The report asks: "Who's next?"

The first thought that comes to my mind, is anyone speaking out against the government. Are we all on a government "watch list" now? When are they coming for us?

I think it's time to add some additions to Lady Liberty since America is no longer free: Re-lock those shackles on her legs, stitch her mouth shut, and have a predator drone flying around her head ready to fire at a moments notice.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

If the ACLU were what it pretends to be, it would be very valuable to us all. Sadly though like any organization it is what it's leadership is.

When has the ACLU pretended to be anything? They are ALWAYS taking on cases of every type.

reply to post by NoAngel2u

It's just so disturbing that he can, and has, and that there is a list with dozens of US citizens on it, waiting their turn to be assassinated.

You care so much, go protest it. If you feel wronged somehow by Obama killing a terrorist leader, dont sit here and complain.

Still waiting for someone to say "I would die so al-Alwaki could have a trial" If those complaining dont say that and mean it, then they are hypocrites.

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
The report asks: "Who's next?"

The first thought that comes to my mind, is anyone speaking out against the government. Are we all on a government "watch list" now? When are they coming for us?

I think it's time to add some additions to Lady Liberty since America is no longer free: Re-lock those shackles on her legs, stitch her mouth shut, and have a predator drone flying around her head ready to fire at a moments notice.

Amen! I totally agree! Anyone that asks questions, anyone that reads will be on the list. Oh I probably will be!

I can see them literally making a big scene w/Lady Liberty. To reinforce the thought that liberty is dead.

Makes we wonder. What did my grandparents think when they saw Lady Liberty-when immigrating to the US?

What will I think of the symbolism of Lady Liberty - if this country continues down this path.

My grandparents saw hope, freedom, a chance to have a good life.

I wonder, from their generation to mine - what Lady Liberty will come to represent?

Makes me sad to think about it.

reply to post by OldCorp


Please mention in your next video how the LFIG (rebels) is labeled a terrorist orginzation by the UN, USA, UK, CFR and more.

I laid out all the sources info in this thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Using their same argument, Alawaki is in the same boat.

Well, it IS a different boat. The boat Alawaki was in was blown up. And that is the problem with this comparison. With Bush/Cheney, there are accusations. It has yet to get to judicial review. With Awalaki, he was killed before anyone even knew his name.

When a person looks at you and says im going to kill you, you dont have to wait for that person to pull the gun and get a round off before you can act. The intent was established when the comment was made, and is part of US law when it comes to justifiable defense and a justified homocide.

The US and the individual are different. You cannot, literally, point a gun at the US. What you CAN do it point thousands of ballistic missiles at us. And we see how that was resolved: diplomacy. The shotgun diplomacy deployed by our presidents is nothing like that. What passes for diplomacy now is a UAV loaded with a missile.

Awalaki was an individual. Individuals are brought to justice before being killed unless they are killed while being brought to justice. A UAV is not an attemnpt to bring justice, but rather an attempt to subvert it by denying due process to another human being. On a side note, i vehemently oppose the death penalty as well (due to Cameron Todd Willingham), but that is a different debate.

We are already there and the US is heading towards the slope. However, on the other side the system they use accepts the eye for an eye mentality. When the rules that govern us dont account for that setup, we have a problem.

And what is this problem? That we have the moral dilemma of either having to concede some of the demands and develop diplomatic ties with the region, and not the regions dictator/puppets, or we are going to have to stoop to a lower level and sacrifice our morals and ethics as a nation? Is that a problem?

Character is what you do when no one is looking, it is often said. What then can be said about this behavior in full view of the entire world? We presume to have "interests" in their lands, because their leaders that we have bought and paid for say we do. The people seem to disagree. As an American, that means something to me. The People are the highest form of government. That is, if i try to view this objectively, away from the influence of western media.

Because the argument people are using is that the attack on him was unconstitutional because he was a US citizen. My response was he can associate with whomever he wants. In this case he chose a group is is actively at war with the US. Under US immigration laws, the moment he took that route, he himself gave up his citizenship through his actions, which are spelled out and clear.

Ahh. and this may explain it.

My argument has nothing to do with citizenship. Ben Franklin once said, "Where there is liberty, there is my country." Besides me being a nationless man, I also believe all humans have the same rights as us to due process. Citizenship is a moot point for me.

Being arrested in a foreign country for a crime committed in the US, and during that custody you talk to the foreign police, you cant claim that your miranda rights were violated. If your going to plays stickball in brooiklynn, you better know the rules.

I would still assume habeus corpus and due process to be the rights of all humans. Awalaki received neither. No one even knew him before this.

No idea.. maybe they should act like cowards and hide behind civilian populations where they know full well any atack on them will result in civilian casualties. I get what your saying, however it doesnt excuse terrorist tactics.

No, but it makes the US a terrorist organization, only with bigger and more expensive bombs. Would you accept the above logic if it were your family that were innocent and killed in the line of reckless fire.

[
I agree however if a US citizen is going to cross over and take up arms against the United States, regardless if its for religious, personal, terrorist, etc reasons, the fact remains they established their loyalty.

loyalty to humanity comes before loyalty to country. Violating rights is an atrocity of government.

As many many many people pointed out with calls to arrest Bush and Cheney.

Why is it ok to push action against those 2 and not alawaki?

Are Bush and Cheney still alive?

Then what is your point?

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

Originally posted by Blaine91555
reply to post by TDawgRex

 

If the ACLU were what it pretends to be, it would be very valuable to us all. Sadly though like any organization it is what it's leadership is.

Or what its name says it is: American Civil Liberties Union. It is in their focus on "civil liberties" that makes them so damned annoying, and even at times flat out dangerous. This is the organization that - in spite of recent SCOTUS rulings - maintains that the 2nd Amendment is a "collective right" and not an individual one.

The ACLU, tragically, is far too much what they pretend to be, and not nearly enough advocates of individual unalienable rights.

There is another organization that I have been donating to for a few years, called the Institute for Justice. It does what most people "think" the ACLU does, which is defend people's rights from our government. If you want tocheck it out.....

www.ij.org...

Is there a difference anymore between the President and the King? This country is turning more and more into the Great Britain which our founding fathers fought against.

Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Still waiting for someone to say "I would die so al-Alwaki could have a trial" If those complaining dont say that and mean it, then they are hypocrites.

You, my friend, are an "in getter".

reply to post by AboveTopSecret.com


This is easy, y'all.

The under-current of the discussion is that instead of a killing war, we charge enemies with crimes.

"Send in a bunch of Marines to capture the enemy and bring him to trial!" Are you kidding me?

It is a naive belief that the world works in a way that does not require bloodshed. Most people grow out of that extreme naivete in their first fist-fight in first grade.

If a person is a member of al-Qaeda, that person IS an enemy of the United States. Whether, firing an RPG at a Blackhawk, or passing tactical plans via cell phone against Americans or allies, he is not a "criminal"-- such a person is a valid military target as an enemy of the United States of America.

* Anti-war ideals rightly despised "collateral damage" when legitimate military targets were bombed and civilians were killed; and so the US developed "smart bomb" technology.
* Anti-war ideals rightly despised sending American soldiers into harms way; and so the US developed drones.
* Combining those technology they were used against Anwar al-Awlaki, so...
* Anti-war ideals, now, despise killing an enemy of the United States because we should arrest them and charge them with a crime?

No. That is not the same as "murder." That does not give Americans cause to need to "look over our shoulders" to see if we are next.

That rhetoric probably sounds good amongst certain gatherings of like-minded person who do not, by nature, look for logic-flaws if the statement expresses an emotionally based ideal; but that does not alter the fact that the statement is ridiculously corrupted by a fantasy that no one really intends to harm anyone else (except, maybe, the United States).

You can discuss the need for "Congressional oversight" in deciding whether or not an enemy can be killed and even do so with a straight face; but the argument is still absurdly misconceived.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan



thanks for your posts texan, it makes me happy and want to speak out again for humanity I regrettably have stopped trying to speak out for the good of all humans and living things, and just tried to live my life as a good man.


its good to know there are a few people out there who believe in values and morals as our founding fathers once did.


Xcath I agree with you to a point, no offense intended but i think you are lawyer-ing this up a bit too much, just because we send our american forces or resources such as a UAV across a border does not mean we can just disregard our laws back home, and excusing/ignoring these action based on the argument that they were terrorists out to kill every american and were an imminent threat is just childish, weather you believe the Gov. story or not it is all just a story with NO evidence, just as the winners of war tell the story - the dead cannot tell their tale.

I like the texans analogy of our actions when we are alone show who we truly are as a human.
this man may not have been a US citizen and not agreed with the US Gov. but he was not on our soil and as far as anyone can prove right now he harmed nobody.

most people in america dont agree with what our Gov. is doing yet we are still here supporting/funding it all with our taxes we are just as much to blame for the wars and deaths overseas as the ones giving the orders to those flying the drones.

I am ashamed to say I am ashamed of my country, what are we coming to when we are once again burning witches and rejoicing at public hangings/beheadings.

Originally posted by -W1LL
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

I regrettably have stopped trying to speak out for the good of all humans and living things, and just tried to live my life as a good man.

Brother, please listen to me very carefully. I know it's frustrating trying to keep the human race from devolving into a bunch of animals ruled by base instincts. It may seem like a losing battle, but if we all just give up then they win. I won't allow that to happen, not on my watch. As long as I have breath in my body I carry the message.

Xcath I agree with you to a point, no offense intended but i think you are lawyer-ing this up a bit too much,

I disagree. I haven't gotten into a lengthy discussion on this because I'm hip deep in the post-production of the Libya report. I would say that Xcath's post would be more like "copping up." Just like many other police officers, he thinks he knows the law better than a team of lawyers that have a hundred years before the bar between them.

The 5th Amendment is is QUITE clear on this subject; "NO PERSON shall be deprived of life liberty, or property without due process of law." The Founders worded it this way specifically to prevent another king with the power over life and death from rising to power in the US.

Someone above asked if anyone were willing to die for al-Awlaki's right to have a trial; well they can count me in that number. I wouldn't throw my life away in the name of that scumbag, but I would sacrifice it for the Constitution. Who knows, if it happened, they might name a high school after me some day.

I like the texans analogy of our actions when we are alone show who we truly are as a human. this man may not have been a US citizen and not agreed with the US Gov. but he was not on our soil and as far as anyone can prove right now he harmed nobody.

In case you were under a mistaken impression, al-Awlaki was an American citizen, born in New Mexico; but you are quite right observing that he had never been proven to have harmed anyone. The only thing I have seen in way of evidence are his own videos where he calls for Jihad, but all that proves is that he has a big mouth and an unpopular opinion.

ALL I ask is that an American citizen accused of a crime have at least some type of trial before the President can order his death. I would even be on board with a military tribunal or a FISA court. At least then, the sole discretion to kill an American citizen does not rest in the hands of one man. When a person has that ultimate authority over life and death, they are no longer the leader of a Constitutional Republic; they are a dictator.

I am ashamed to say I am ashamed of my country, what are we coming to when we are once again burning witches and rejoicing at public hangings/beheadings.

Wait until you see the Libya report. If you think you are ashamed now, wait until you see what has been done in our name in Libya. We've been lied to from the start on this one folks, and I guarantee you won't see the facts I've uncovered presented in the MSM.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
With Awalaki, he was killed before anyone even knew his name.

Are you sure of that?

Now, you insist on due process. However, the conflict between the US and AQ and its various associates in many countries isn't either a war or peace, it really is a grey area. AQ attack US troops and civilians. It's a tough legal question, but you can't clearly state that active members of AQ are civilians themselves. I guess the rest of the logic follows.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
With Awalaki, he was killed before anyone even knew his name.

Are you sure of that?

Now, you insist on due process. However, the conflict between the US and AQ and its various associates in many countries isn't either a war or peace, it really is a grey area. AQ attack US troops and civilians. It's a tough legal question, but you can't clearly state that active members of AQ are civilians themselves. I guess the rest of the logic follows.

American members of AQ are so few in number as to be statistically insignificant. I think we can make an exception for killing them on sight if it preserves our Constitution. The government had al-Awlaki under surveillance for EIGHT WEEKS. If Obama had wanted, he could have been extracted and returned to the US for trial. FFS, even the Yemeni's gave him a trial; what does that say about OUR legal system?

Originally posted by OldCorp
If Obama had wanted, he could have been extracted and returned to the US for trial.

I don't buy that. Indigenous Yemeni army has problems operating in the tribal areas of that country. Any attempt to capture this individual would have resulted in collateral deaths and potentially in loss of life among the US forces.

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by OldCorp
If Obama had wanted, he could have been extracted and returned to the US for trial.

I don't buy that. Indigenous Yemeni army has problems operating in the tribal areas of that country. Any attempt to capture this individual would have resulted in collateral deaths and potentially in loss of life among the US forces.

I'd put a company of Marines against the entire Yemeni army any day of the week, and be home in time to watch the evening news.

A mission to capture al-Awlaki could have resulted in casualties, that is true; but the oath we take is to defend the CONSTITUTION. Seeing as how this order to kill al-Awlaki raped that Constitution, I don't think any Marine or SEAL would have a problem giving his life to see that it is properly upheld.

Originally posted by OldCorp
I'd put a company of Marines against the entire Yemeni army any day of the week, and be home in time to watch the evening news.

That's what they thought about Afghanistan, I'm sure.

A mission to capture al-Awlaki could have resulted in casualties, that is true; but the oath we take is to defend the CONSTITUTION. Seeing as how this order to kill al-Awlaki raped that Constitution, I don't think any Marine or SEAL would have a problem giving his life to see that it is properly upheld.

I don't have the honor of currently knowing any Marines or SEALs in person, so can't comment. What's more important, I don't see the assassination of al-Awlaki as any sort of "rape" of Constitution, phew, what a word. The guy has enlisted with the enemy. If he was attacking a position held by US Marines and was struck by a 30mm round from a gunship, the reason and the result of such event would have been the same. The fact that he was not a foot soldier is quite irrelevant.

You can dig up any number of videos on YouTube about that bank hold-up (in Colorado, I believe) where the criminals were eventually gunned down by the police. And these were US citizens to be sure. Of course, with lots more effort and risk for LEA, they could have being incapacitated, or let to escape and then re-captured and what not, just in order for them to have due process instead of a new hole in the cranium. Do you believe that would have been a better course of action?