|
Post by jsquare on Apr 30, 2024 8:48:59 GMT -5
Because of facts and reality. Al-Awlaki's message became overtly supportive of violence, and he condemned the U.S. government's foreign policy towards Muslims. He was linked to Nidal Hasan, the convicted perpetrator of the 2009 Fort Hood shooting, and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who attempted to detonate a bomb on Northwest Airlines Flight 253.[11] The Yemeni government tried al-Awlaki in absentia in November 2010 for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda. A Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".[12][13] U.S. officials said that in 2009, al-Awlaki was promoted to the rank of "regional commander" within al-Qaeda.[14] He repeatedly called for jihad against the United States. You ignored the “who” question. Presumably the commander in chief would have the final say over who is a “clear and present danger”. Oh let me answer the "who" question when it came to Al-Awlaki. EVERYONE
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2024 8:55:48 GMT -5
Ah, the famous "everyone thinks so" exception to the 14th amendment.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 30, 2024 9:17:40 GMT -5
Ah, the famous "everyone thinks so" exception to the 14th amendment. Again, I'll ask, was Al-Awlaki a clear and present danger to this country?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2024 9:32:31 GMT -5
Ah, the famous "everyone thinks so" exception to the 14th amendment. Again, I'll ask, was Al-Awlaki a clear and present danger to this country? Probably not, but even if he were, ordering his murder was still an illegal act.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 30, 2024 9:38:17 GMT -5
Again, I'll ask, was Al-Awlaki a clear and present danger to this country? Probably not, but even if he were, ordering his murder was still an illegal act. Why do you minimize his threat to this country? Do you honestly want to compare Obama ordering a drone strike on Al-Awlaki to Trump attempting to overthrow the 2020 election?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2024 9:51:43 GMT -5
Probably not, but even if he were, ordering his murder was still an illegal act. Why do you minimize his threat to this country? Because I don't think some guy in Yemen was an imminent threat to the United States, even if he was a bad guy. And even if he was, killing him violated his constitutional right to due process. I didn't make that comparison.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 30, 2024 9:59:08 GMT -5
Why do you minimize his threat to this country? Because I don't think some guy in Yemen was an imminent threat to the United States, even if he was a bad guy. And even if he was, killing him violated his constitutional right to due process. I didn't make that comparison. You mean like this guy? After centering his operations in Sudan in the early 1990s, bin Laden began formulating plans to attack the West with an evolving, deadly new brand of jihad. Bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda also began issuing fatwas—rulings on Islamic law—indicating that attacks on the U.S. and its citizens were both proper and necessary. Bin Laden later openly declared war on the United States.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2024 10:02:45 GMT -5
Because I don't think some guy in Yemen was an imminent threat to the United States, even if he was a bad guy. And even if he was, killing him violated his constitutional right to due process. I didn't make that comparison. You mean like this guy? After centering his operations in Sudan in the early 1990s, bin Laden began formulating plans to attack the West with an evolving, deadly new brand of jihad. Bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda also began issuing fatwas—rulings on Islamic law—indicating that attacks on the U.S. and its citizens were both proper and necessary. Bin Laden later openly declared war on the United States. I must have missed the part where bin Laden was an American citizen.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 30, 2024 10:05:14 GMT -5
You mean like this guy? After centering his operations in Sudan in the early 1990s, bin Laden began formulating plans to attack the West with an evolving, deadly new brand of jihad. Bin Laden and other members of al Qaeda also began issuing fatwas—rulings on Islamic law—indicating that attacks on the U.S. and its citizens were both proper and necessary. Bin Laden later openly declared war on the United States. I must have missed the part where bin Laden was an American citizen. Just pointing out that a guy in a different part of the world can be a clear and present danger to this country. Hope that helps.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2024 10:08:45 GMT -5
I must have missed the part where bin Laden was an American citizen. Just pointing out that a guy in a different part of the world can be a clear and present danger to this country. Hope that helps. It doesn't, actually. Bin Laden wasn't an imminent threat when he was killed, either. He was bottled up by the Pakistanis.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 30, 2024 10:10:40 GMT -5
Just pointing out that a guy in a different part of the world can be a clear and present danger to this country. Hope that helps. It doesn't, actually. Bin Laden wasn't an imminent threat when he was killed, either. He was bottled up by the Pakistanis. He certainly was prior to that now wasn't he? Or do you want to minimize the attack on 9/11?
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2024 10:11:48 GMT -5
Also, "clear and present danger" is from Schenck, which is a free speech case that was overturned decades ago because the feds were using the Espionage Act to illegally prosecute socialists for their speech.
This isn't a Tom Clancy novel.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2024 10:13:39 GMT -5
It doesn't, actually. Bin Laden wasn't an imminent threat when he was killed, either. He was bottled up by the Pakistanis. He certainly was prior to that now wasn't he? Or do you want to minimize the attack on 9/11? You are arguing an irrelevant point. I already stipulated that if al-Awlaki was an imminent threat, it was still illegal to assassinate him.
|
|
|
Post by jsquare on Apr 30, 2024 10:17:59 GMT -5
He certainly was prior to that now wasn't he? Or do you want to minimize the attack on 9/11? You are arguing an irrelevant point. I already stipulated that if al-Awlaki was an imminent threat, it was still illegal to assassinate him. It's hardly irrelevant just because you have no response. And it wasn't illegal to order his death. He was a self proclaimed enemy to this country. BUH BYE.
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Apr 30, 2024 10:21:27 GMT -5
You are arguing an irrelevant point. I already stipulated that if al-Awlaki was an imminent threat, it was still illegal to assassinate him. It's hardly irrelevant just because you have no response. And it wasn't illegal to order his death. He was a self proclaimed enemy to this country. BUH BYE. It's interesting to see which civil rights are important to you and which are not.
|
|