Hey, kids! Who's heard of the Constitution? Barack Obama has, he said so in 2007: "Unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution." Haha, that was a weird sick joke, what Obama actually meant -- if you read carefully -- was that he is
Really, couldn't there have been some "due process" conducted out of sight in a back room in the Pentagon or the White House? And hey, didn't I hear somewhere that this guy was an asshole? And besides, does it really matter so much if our government kills people who aren't guilty? It's been going on forever, and we're doing fine, right?
You have to remember that "factually innocent" doesn't mean what you think it means. Scalia can start with the factual FACT that Willingham was convicted, and easily take it from there. It's the "Conservapedia" approach to reality, applied to the adminstration of justice.
Facts, to a Republican, are malleable things, and it's today's harder facts that have them calling for bigger hammers.
No doubt, the argument is that Awlaki got his Constitutionally-mandated &quot;due process&quot; in secret (formal approval from the DOJ was in fact obtained.) I&#039;d be inclined to agree, if they&#039;d had hearings in public: Awlaki would have been free to challenge the statements and evidence against him. Even if it were not done in public, it&#039;s hard to believe they&#039;d have lost a jury trial <i>in absentia</i>, but apparently they didn&#039;t want to take even that miniscule risk.
The attitude of the government here reminds me of the public reaction to the Nuremburg trials, which a lot of Americans thought was a waste of time and money, and vastly more courtesy than the bastards deserved. Very few people seem to know this, but a couple of the Nazis were found NOT guilty, which perfectly illustrates why we took the trouble.
Legal niceties aside, there&#039;s something appropriate about fighting bomb-planting, civilian-targeting terrorists with Predator drones, which if you think about it are themselves first-class terror weapons. Al Quaeda honchos think they&#039;re safe, on friendly ground, on a nice sunny day, and BOOM ... precisely what their terrorism is supposed to make <u>us</u> worry about.
&quot;sounds like an awful lot of work.&quot;
If its reason enough for Texas to blow off death penalty appeals, it&#039;s good enough for the rest of us.
well i don&#039;t know about shoot him, but he certainly would have posed with a gun.
What&#039;s point of having principles if you can&#039;t ignore them when it is convenient?
Really, couldn&#039;t there have been some &quot;due process&quot; conducted out of sight in a back room in the Pentagon or the White House? And hey, didn&#039;t I hear somewhere that this guy was an asshole? And besides, does it really matter so much if our government kills people who aren&#039;t guilty? It&#039;s been going on forever, and we&#039;re doing fine, right?
Of course we ask a question: &quot;He&#039;s dead. Any questions?&quot;
Admittedly, I haven&#039;t actually asked Aetna this ... but think being on the CIA&#039;s hit list would be a pre-existing condition.
They hire drones.
You have to remember that &quot;factually innocent&quot; doesn&#039;t mean what you think it means. Scalia can start with the factual FACT that Willingham was convicted, and easily take it from there. It&#039;s the &quot;Conservapedia&quot; approach to reality, applied to the adminstration of justice.
Facts, to a Republican, are malleable things, and it&#039;s today&#039;s harder facts that have them calling for bigger hammers.
No doubt, the argument is that Awlaki got his Constitutionally-mandated &quot;due process&quot; in secret (formal approval from the DOJ was in fact obtained.) I&#039;d be inclined to agree, if they&#039;d had hearings in public: Awlaki would have been free to challenge the statements and evidence against him. Even if it were not done in public, it&#039;s hard to believe they&#039;d have lost a jury trial <i>in absentia</i>, but apparently they didn&#039;t want to take even that miniscule risk.
The attitude of the government here reminds me of the public reaction to the Nuremburg trials, which a lot of Americans thought was a waste of time and money, and vastly more courtesy than the bastards deserved. Very few people seem to know this, but a couple of the Nazis were found NOT guilty, which perfectly illustrates why we took the trouble.
She&#039;s gonna have to choose between bashing Obama and bashing Ron Paul? Exploding head in 3, 2, 1...
Legal niceties aside, there&#039;s something appropriate about fighting bomb-planting, civilian-targeting terrorists with Predator drones, which if you think about it are themselves first-class terror weapons. Al Quaeda honchos think they&#039;re safe, on friendly ground, on a nice sunny day, and BOOM ... precisely what their terrorism is supposed to make <u>us</u> worry about.
Why can&#039;t Ron Paul understand that flying death robots are American innovation and industry at its best?
Just thought of this...NYPD is on heightened alert for Al-Awlaki revenge attacks AND the city is full of protesters. Fuck.
Ya&#039;ll be careful, ya hear?
that would be fun to watch because given all of his faults, RP would rip Michele a new asshole.
Rick Perry would have shot him personally.
It&#039;s called trial by assassination Ron. USA USA USA!