And elections are supposed to be a state issue. Didn't stop the Supreme Court from wading in with naked hackery to help Bush steal the 2000 election, though.
That, and attacking fishing ships decimating local fish populations, or illegally dumping waste along the coastline. But for some reason, those particular issues are seldom included in the "piracy" storyline....
Just off the top of my head, not saying for sure that this definitely happens, but: If it's hard to fire an employee once hired, it may be harder to get hired in the first place.
Or that might just be another cop-out, like how businesses will start hiring just as soon as they can be sure that Obama wont impose any new regulations.
The first, second....hundredth reason for hiring or laying off employees is: will it make the business more money. Not the income tax rate that the boss is subjected to, not how many OSHA or FDA inspections he'll need to accommodate, and not how easy or hard it is to fire someone.
Will the business make more money with more or less employees, that's the only thing that matters.
You have to read and interpret such things in their entirety.
So when are you planning on doing that, so you can point out where Al-Awlkai has even been accused of aiding in the 911 attacks, even going by a ludicrous "can of coke" standard?
Just because you repeatedly assert something doesn't make it true. Bushco did that for Saddam and the 911 attacks - didn't work for them, either.
Our nation has been fucking with other countries almost as long as we've been a nation. But a President flatly asserting that he has the right to have even American citizens killed based on nothing more than his say-so - that's new.
Well, uncqual isn't a terrorist, let alone a terrorist recruiter.
And if the President of the United States asserts that you are, and that his assertion alone is a good enough reason to have you assassinated, due process and presumption of innocence be damned?
<Red Herring>Not a relevant comparison</Red Herring>
The Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists (Pub.L. 107-40, 115 Stat. 224, enacted September 18, 2001), one of two resolutions commonly known as "AUMF" (the other being "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002"), was a joint resolution passed by the United States Congress on September 14, 2001, authorizing the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the attacks on September 11, 2001.
Not responsible for the 911 attacks? AUMF doesn't apply.
the (fake) weapons, the (fake) bombs, without which these "crimes" never would have been planned in the first place.
Citation needed. I don't find it at all hard to believe that he could have obtained real weapons had the FBI not been involved from the beginning.
SRSLY. How do you get the weapons charges and plot without the FBI supplying the weapons!!!
"You see your honor, it doesn't matter that our female undercover officer clearly offered to have sex with Billy Bob for money, because he COULD have solicited sex from a REAL prostitute all on his own! So he SHOULD be sentenced to the same penalty, as if our undercover officer was never there!"
Your link is a non sequitur, and the worst on Al-Awlaki is a couple of convictions for prostitution and guilt-by-association attacks. But, I look forward to you supporting a drone strike on Glenn Beck's house for providing the same level of "involvement" with the guy that wanted to shoot up the Tides Foundation.
That it's better for the federal government to be able to make such laws and have it apply to *everyone*?
Don't be obtuse.
If power is devolved to the states, if they come up with laws you don't like, you at least have the option to relocate yourself or have your voice be proportionally louder in trying to change those laws.
Ah, the old "just move" excuse. If you don't like your state enacting laws more draconian than Beck pretends the feds are doing, just move! Who cares about your job, your house, moving your family....just move!
There's a reason for that and it makes your hysterical fake examples irrelevant.
Riiiight. In a country where states had Jim Crow laws, school prayer? In current events where states are passing bans to prevent gays from marrying, and draconian immigration laws? Nah, that would never happen. How do you like restrictive state gun laws, Richy? Those are A-Okay according to Paul, because the Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal Government.
Given that, if al-Awlaki was supposed to have 5th amendment protections in Yemen, then so should every other person/alleged terrorist which we have knocked off on foreign soil through military and CIA action in the last ten years, but no one is trying to claim that -- why not?
No one? Just because they've been largely ignored by the media, doesn't mean there haven't been plenty of people opposing assassinations and drone attacks before this week.
The reason this is all about Al-Awlkai is that he was just the target of a political assassination, and because this is the first time a President has openly asserted the authority to have Americans killed on his say-so while also arguing that any and all evidence must be kept secret for reasons of 'national security'.
On what planet is an agency that heavily relies on the "self regulation" of the industry "big government"? Do you honestly think that food poisonings will be reduced with even that token level of regulation removed?
You know going after Awlaki wasn't some random act like Calley turning his troops loose on Son My.
And the NSA tapping your phone without a warrant wasn't a "random act", either. Does that mean it was legal?
A YEMENITE judge BTW ordered he be captured "dead or alive", so local due process was indeed followed.
So if a Yemenite judge rules that couchslug has violated Sharia law and that he should be stoned to death, does that mean that due process was followed? Or does it mean that you're repeating an irrelevant zombie talking point?
I think it is also relevant that he was a leader in a group that declared war on the U.S.
It's also relevant that neither of those things happens to be true. He wasn't a leader of Al Queda, and Al Queda in Iraq (or in this case Yemen) is not the same thing as Al Queda in Afghanistan.
Second, Congress authorized Operation Enduring Freedom against al-Quaeda on 9/14/01 as S.J. Res 23. Whether or not you support or agree with that action or the current status, it can be argued that this killing would fall under the OEF authorization.
Not unless Al-Awlaki was involved in 911....but neither Bush nor Obama has made that claim.
Awlaki is currently a high level Al-Quada operative (read: terrorist) and has links to 9/11.
And when Obama or one of his successors flatly states that ace37 is a high level Al Queda, and that any and all evidence cannot be disclosed to due "national security", what are you gonna do when a Predator drone targets your house?
Most of the people who claim to support Ron Paul would disappear the moment he was chosen as the Republican nominee.
That, and realize that Paul doesn't believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. Which means, among other things, that Paul would support state gun control laws, including outright bans.
He's looking for a politician that doesn't believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the states? Meaning that states are perfectly free to mandate a religion, ban guns, and shoot suspect on sight because there is no right to a trial or due process?
Was he shooting at Americans? No. Was he on any battlefield? No. Are you buying propaganda hook, line and sinker on the American government ignoring the 5th Amendment? Yes.
Slashdot Mirror
Wait, are you really throwing out big claims without big evidence to back them up? Nigerian yellow-cake and aluminum tubes ring a bell?
And elections are supposed to be a state issue. Didn't stop the Supreme Court from wading in with naked hackery to help Bush steal the 2000 election, though.
That, and attacking fishing ships decimating local fish populations, or illegally dumping waste along the coastline. But for some reason, those particular issues are seldom included in the "piracy" storyline....
Or that might just be another cop-out, like how businesses will start hiring just as soon as they can be sure that Obama wont impose any new regulations.
The first, second....hundredth reason for hiring or laying off employees is: will it make the business more money. Not the income tax rate that the boss is subjected to, not how many OSHA or FDA inspections he'll need to accommodate, and not how easy or hard it is to fire someone.
Will the business make more money with more or less employees, that's the only thing that matters.
So when are you planning on doing that, so you can point out where Al-Awlkai has even been accused of aiding in the 911 attacks, even going by a ludicrous "can of coke" standard?
Just because you repeatedly assert something doesn't make it true. Bushco did that for Saddam and the 911 attacks - didn't work for them, either.
Our nation has been fucking with other countries almost as long as we've been a nation. But a President flatly asserting that he has the right to have even American citizens killed based on nothing more than his say-so - that's new.
ACLU chief 'disgusted' with Obama You asked?
'
Who's this "you", Willis? Not everybody is an authoritarian or an Obama fanboi.
It is very simple. He was not a combatant. He was not on a battlefield. He was not a military leader. He was not a political leader.
He was a political assassination, with presumption of innocence and due process thrown out the window.
I'll type even slower for the fascist apologists:
War. Was. Never. Declared. Nor. Authorized. For. Yemen.
And if the President of the United States asserts that you are, and that his assertion alone is a good enough reason to have you assassinated, due process and presumption of innocence be damned?
<Red Herring>Not a relevant comparison</Red Herring>
Care to try again?
Your link, first paragraph:
Not responsible for the 911 attacks? AUMF doesn't apply.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong, wrong wrong wrong wrong!
SRSLY. How do you get the weapons charges and plot without the FBI supplying the weapons!!!
"You see your honor, it doesn't matter that our female undercover officer clearly offered to have sex with Billy Bob for money, because he COULD have solicited sex from a REAL prostitute all on his own! So he SHOULD be sentenced to the same penalty, as if our undercover officer was never there!"
Poor critical thinking, because that's a distinction without a difference.
Your link is a non sequitur, and the worst on Al-Awlaki is a couple of convictions for prostitution and guilt-by-association attacks. But, I look forward to you supporting a drone strike on Glenn Beck's house for providing the same level of "involvement" with the guy that wanted to shoot up the Tides Foundation.
It was perfectly clear the first time.
Don't be obtuse.
Ah, the old "just move" excuse. If you don't like your state enacting laws more draconian than Beck pretends the feds are doing, just move! Who cares about your job, your house, moving your family....just move!
Riiiight. In a country where states had Jim Crow laws, school prayer? In current events where states are passing bans to prevent gays from marrying, and draconian immigration laws? Nah, that would never happen. How do you like restrictive state gun laws, Richy? Those are A-Okay according to Paul, because the Bill of Rights only applies to the Federal Government.
No one? Just because they've been largely ignored by the media, doesn't mean there haven't been plenty of people opposing assassinations and drone attacks before this week.
The reason this is all about Al-Awlkai is that he was just the target of a political assassination, and because this is the first time a President has openly asserted the authority to have Americans killed on his say-so while also arguing that any and all evidence must be kept secret for reasons of 'national security'.
On what planet is an agency that heavily relies on the "self regulation" of the industry "big government"? Do you honestly think that food poisonings will be reduced with even that token level of regulation removed?
Morans.
And the NSA tapping your phone without a warrant wasn't a "random act", either. Does that mean it was legal?
So if a Yemenite judge rules that couchslug has violated Sharia law and that he should be stoned to death, does that mean that due process was followed? Or does it mean that you're repeating an irrelevant zombie talking point?
It's also relevant that neither of those things happens to be true. He wasn't a leader of Al Queda, and Al Queda in Iraq (or in this case Yemen) is not the same thing as Al Queda in Afghanistan.
You first.
Not unless Al-Awlaki was involved in 911....but neither Bush nor Obama has made that claim.
And when Obama or one of his successors flatly states that ace37 is a high level Al Queda, and that any and all evidence cannot be disclosed to due "national security", what are you gonna do when a Predator drone targets your house?
That, and realize that Paul doesn't believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the states. Which means, among other things, that Paul would support state gun control laws, including outright bans.
He's looking for a politician that doesn't believe that the Bill of Rights applies to the states? Meaning that states are perfectly free to mandate a religion, ban guns, and shoot suspect on sight because there is no right to a trial or due process?
Was he shooting at Americans? No. Was he on any battlefield? No. Are you buying propaganda hook, line and sinker on the American government ignoring the 5th Amendment? Yes.
Except al-Awlaki wasn't a part of any combat force, and wasn't on any battlefield.
Next apples to oranges analogy?
Word salad.