Obama administration authorizes killing US citizen
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism.
The C.I.A. has placed the American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki on a list for killing.
The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy.
To eavesdrop on the terrorism suspect who was added to the target list, the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is hiding in Yemen, intelligence agencies would have to get a court warrant. But designating him for death, as C.I.A. officials did early this year with the approval of the National Security Council, required no judicial review.
“Congress has protected Awlaki’s cellphone calls,” said Vicki Divoll, a former C.I.A. lawyer who now teaches at the United States Naval Academy. “But it has not provided any protections for his life. That makes no sense.”
Administration officials take the view that no legal or constitutional rights can protect Mr. Awlaki, a charismatic preacher who has said it is a religious duty to attack the United States and who the C.I.A. believes is actively plotting violence. The attempted bombing of Times Square on May 1 is the latest of more than a dozen terrorist plots in the West that investigators believe were inspired in part by Mr. Awlaki’s rhetoric. “American citizenship doesn’t give you carte blanche to wage war against your own country,” said a counterterrorism official who discussed the classified program on condition of anonymity. “If you cast your lot with its enemies, you may well share their fate.”
President Obama, who campaigned for the presidency against George W. Bush-era interrogation and detention practices, has implicitly invited moral and legal scrutiny of his own policies.
Link
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Seems he has effectively eliminated all ties to the US, which in my mind basically nullifies his citizenship and protections under US law. I completely agree with this: “American citizenship doesn’t give you carte blanche to wage war against your own country,” said a counterterrorism official who discussed the classified program on condition of anonymity. “If you cast your lot with its enemies, you may well share their fate.” If he actually ACTS to support terrorists who would target the US and its citizens/soldiers then why wouldn't he be up on the chopping block?
Squash him like a bug, just don't do it on US soil.
When (if) he's here, first lock him up... then squash him like a bug.
They need a judicial process of some sort though. You can't just have an Executive Branch Agency compiling lists of people to kill without a separate impartial clearance. We could be headed back into the bad old days of a rogue CIA creating up long term problems, which of course was Cheney's desire but hardly what Obama ran on.
If any US citizen wants to play terrorist or soldier of fortune, out of the country, he/she are on their own. And if they are fighting us, while out of the country, they're the enemy, and fair game. If Anwar al-Awlaki feels he's being unjustly targeted, all he has to do is come home. I suspect he won't.
Nominally a citizen at best.
Your first amendment rights do not extend to promoting terrorism. Sorry.
Especially since the Constitution specifically denotes "levying war" against the US as a definition of treason. They could convict him in absentia if they wanted to go through the motions.
He's just misunderstood by some and persecuted by others. Poor guy.
If he can't be prosecuted, then persecuted is next best... works for me.:thumb:
I wonder if we could trace back to the source, the very first person, who set this whole "politcal correctness" "Let's not hurt anyone's feelings" wheel in motion.
Then we build a time machine, go back in time to when he or she is about to open their piehole and give a good swift kick in that place we don't love them anymore.
Then, maybe we wouldn't have any questions about what to do with numb nuts like him. Of course we'd need to come up with new things to talk about on the cellars.
You can't build a law-abiding society on a series of special instances or "just this once" scenarios. Things need to be defined so that they apply to EVERY POSSIBLE interpretation of the precedent you are setting. That is what makes this a creepy issue--do we want the government to be able to killl YOU or ME with impunity?
I know, I know..."but, but, this is different because" --right. Finish that sentence. You have to define HOW and WHY it is different and WHAT defines that, legally. Then, that needs to be written down and agreed upon by a body of the government that is accountable.
Once you have an official procedure that has been scrutinized and determined to be applicable and not stupidly worded, and it has been agreed upon and approved, then you have a real law. And then you can do something. This is how you do it....unless you are a bunch of dumb ƒucks.
Somehow the President has the authority to wage war without congress. See Vietnam as an example of this.
This is waging a war on terrorism. We're using drones to remotely kill specific individuals (and anyone unlucky enough to be standing near them) in Pakistan. This is exactly the same thing. Whether this sworn enemy of the US is a citizen or not has no relevance.
"waging a war on terrorism"
"sworn enemy of the US"
These are nice emotional catch-phrases but what do they mean, in concrete terms?
A law-abiding society does not accept "make it up as you go along" as acceptable. If terrorists which present a real threat are using citizenship as a loophole, then we find a legal way to close that loophole and deal with the situation. This procedure should have clearly defined conditions which could cause any US citizen to have their right to exist revoked. If we don't recognize this as a fundamental right, then what the ƒuck. You can't say that being a US citizen has no relevance because that means it NEVER has any relevance.
we kill traitors, don't we?
we kill traitors, don't we?
Yes, and we have a defined procedure for that. A law-abiding society maintains stringently defined legal procedures and definitions.
more concerned about lots of other stuff. like . . . dustbunnies.
Yes, because unthinking, visceral reactions are always better than following things through to their logical conclusion.
We are dealing with an interaction between two entities: the government of a nation and ANY citizen of that nation. Those are the categories. We are also dealing with an extraordinary circumstance. This is the point in the decision making process where you can #1 roll up your shirtsleeves do some hard work, or... you can #2 make a really stupid decision with far-reaching consequences.
Option #2 is easier, and "feels" better.
I'm (mostly) with Clod and Flint.
The British tried a number of Irish terrorists in absentia, many were convicted and sentenced to death. At least one (and probably many) of them remarked "They can hang me in absentia too".
I acknowledge that, in this imperfect world, there are times we need to hunt someone down and catch-or-kill them. So be it; but then we must have and follow a judicial procedure.
Shining light on the hill? Or most heavily-armed gangster? I go for the shining light, with a precise little death-ray laser mounted on it.
A law-abiding society maintains stringently defined legal procedures and definitions.
fuckin A men
We pretty much do for every citizen in the country, and some non-citizens in the country. It's spelled out in mind boggling detail.
Anwar al-Awlaki, however, falls in neither category and as far as I'm concerned has forfeited his citizenship to become a traitor, the enemy.
He's just misunderstood by some and persecuted by others. Poor guy.
:lol: I am sure many a bleeding-heart would agree with that statement.
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, selfappointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny. Were the federal Constitution, therefore, really chargeable with the accumulation of power, or with a mixture of powers, having a dangerous tendency to such an accumulation, no further arguments would be necessary to inspire a universal reprobation of the system. I persuade myself, however, that it will be made apparent to every one, that the charge cannot be supported, and that the maxim on which it relies has been totally misconceived and misapplied. In order to form correct ideas on this important subject, it will be proper to investigate the sense in which the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.
Federalist Paper 47; James Madison politically correct liberal pansy
One of the biggest casualties of the war on terror has been the system of checks and balances that worked so well for so long.
I don't see how this is any different than an undeclared war like Vietnam. I don't particularly like it, but history clearly shows that the President has the power to blow things up and do random violent shit in other countries without Congress declaring war. That's what we are talking about here. How does it matter who is being blown up?
The President isn't supposed to use the military inside the borders of the US, but once you cross that border and step outside, you are fair game.
International law may be another issue, but that only matters if somebody enforces it. Also, if Congress passes a law that says you can't do something specific, like support the Contras, you might get in trouble if you do.
It is more of the same. Terror is a particularly useful enemy for those who would expand Executive power because there will be no surrender. From Truman through Obama it has been a problem, but both parties love a powerful executive, so don't expect a pendulum swing.
It started way before Truman. There has always been threats to the US that the Federal Govenment has had to deal with, the only difference now is we know more about it.
Some people just need killin'.
He does need to be a grease spot, but for example if you could go back to where Iran was back in '53, would you let an Executive agency make that call again knowing where we are today or would you hope for real Congressional oversight? (note to self, read up on that)
It is more of the same. Terror is a particularly useful enemy for those who would expand Executive power because there will be no surrender. From Truman through Obama it has been a problem, but both parties love a powerful executive, so don't expect a pendulum swing.
As a result of CIA excesses from Truman through Nixon, legislation resulting from the
Church Committee restored some level of control and accountability over the CIA.
As a result of presidential actions by Johnson/Nixon in Viet Nam, Congress enacted the
War Powers Act (Resolution).
Since 9/11, those Executive Branch excesses and/or unilateral interpretation of US laws and treaty obligations, have returned.
The Executive Branch alone should not be able to adjudicate on the rights of citizens or what constitutes legal enhanced interrogation as opposed to torture or other abuses we have seen (extraordinary rendition, improper use of National Security Letters by the FBI, warrantless wiretapping, etc.)
He does need to be a grease spot, but for example if you could go back to where Iran was back in '53, would you let an Executive agency make that call again knowing where we are today or would you hope for real Congressional oversight? (note to self, read up on that)
What would we have done differently? Not support the Shah? At the time is served our national interests.
He does need to be a grease spot, but for example if you could go back to where Iran was back in '53, would you let an Executive agency make that call again knowing where we are today or would you hope for real Congressional oversight? (note to self, read up on that)
Right now, I trust the executive branch more than I trust congress, to make rational decisions.
Neither can be trusted, but I would agree that Congress is certainly not trustworthy at all.
Throw the Bums Out.
The President isn't supposed to use the military inside the borders of the US, but once you cross that border and step outside, you are fair game.
For example, if you took your family on vacation, outside US borders? At that point, ANY citizen should be fair game, to be killed for ANY reason? Or should we, maybe, specify exactly what the acceptable parameters are here?
Doing something "just this once" because it "feels right" is a stupid way to make decisions in any area of life, and this is no different. If something seems like a "no brainer" it is because you aren't USING your brain.
For example, if you took your family on vacation, outside US borders? At that point, ANY citizen should be fair game, to be killed for ANY reason?
It's a slippery slope.
[YOUTUBE]qoalDox-B-I[/YOUTUBE]
For example, if you took your family on vacation, outside US borders? At that point, ANY citizen should be fair game, to be killed for ANY reason?
Patriots have no reason to leave the country, unless of course they're in the military going to do god's work. Anybody else, snuff 'em... and their children... and their cats.
It's a slippery slope.
It's an immediate precipice.
No one killed Jim and I when we left the country, can't be that immediate.
But if that did happen, you would be cool with it?
It didn't. Not by chance - but because we aren't traitors, hanging out with known terrorists, planning to do destructive shit or overthrow the government.
At that point, ANY citizen should be fair game, to be killed for ANY reason?
But it
is for a reason and with a purpose. Whether it is right or wrong is another question. But it certainly has purpose.
I'm not an idiot. I'm saying that when something needs to be done, it needs to be done RIGHT. In other words, don't shoot yourself in the foot.
I'm not an idiot. I'm saying that when something needs to be done, it needs to be done RIGHT. In other words, don't shoot yourself in the foot.
I never meant to imply you were an idiot. The disagrement I suspect is the definition of what is "RIGHT".
I would have to be an idiot not to know there is a reason/purpose that applies in this limited instance. I would REALLY have to be an idiot not to know why there is a difference between this guy and jinx/lj. Congratulations to jinx on the Captain Obvious award--you win!
I don't disagree with what needs to be done, or whether it is "right" or not. I mean nothing more an nothing less than exactly what I've said. What is at issue is HOW we do this. IF: there is no procedure to separate this guy into a different category from other citizens THEN: what happens to this guy applies to EVERY citizen. This is not rocket science. What seems like a good idea "just this once" usually isn't a good basis for decision making.
I understand your point.
But on the otherhand. If you step off.... and do your own thing, outside the protection of the reach of the protections of the Consitution, then you may be taking a chance that someone who disagrees with you may reach out and touch you. I would suggest you reconsider. Hey, but make no mistake, I am fully supporting of sending the guy a Airborne Express message of our sentiment.
If you step off.... and do your own thing, outside the protection of the reach of the protections of the Consitution, ...
I want to see this defined, i.e.
exactly what constitutes this scenario. NOT by way of vague but colorful anecdotes; NOT by way of ominous but generally convincing news blurbs; but something substantive and more respectful of the RULE OF LAW in a civilized nation. For ƒuck's sake, folks.
Congratulations to jinx on the Captain Obvious award--you win!
I don't disagree with what needs to be done, or whether it is "right" or not. I mean nothing more an nothing less than exactly what I've said.
Don't get shitty with me for being glib - because you're not really saying anything at all.
You want every possible way you can be a traitor spelled out somewhere? What the hell good does that do, next year it won't be relevant because times changes and the way people betray the country changes. Today it's islamic terrorists, but in 20 years, who the fuck knows?
That this list doesn't exist is not a good enough reason to sit around with your thumb up your ass waiting to get blown up.
So, if doing things right is hard, just give up and half-ass it. Good plan. That has longevity written all over it.
What's your plan Einstein? Try to actually say something... an actual plan I mean.
If the guy is guilty of committing treason, and no one here has suggested that he has not committed treason, he should be indicted and tried in federal courts, in absentia if necessary....after which he is found guilty, he is subject to death.
That is how the law works in a nation of laws.
I agree, redux. But if he gets killed in the melee of killing terrorists, even specifically targeted because he's a particularly nasty terrorist - well that's fine too.
I want to see this defined, i.e. exactly what constitutes this scenario. NOT by way of vague but colorful anecdotes; NOT by way of ominous but generally convincing news blurbs; but something substantive and more respectful of the RULE OF LAW in a civilized nation. For ƒuck's sake, folks.
The rule of law is very simple. We elect a President who makes those decisions. Let's hope we always choose wisely.
I want to see this defined, i.e. exactly what constitutes this scenario. NOT by way of vague but colorful anecdotes; NOT by way of ominous but generally convincing news blurbs; but something substantive and more respectful of the RULE OF LAW in a civilized nation. For ƒuck's sake, folks.
"Rule of the Law" should go out the window when they changed the rules. Period.
Fight them on the same plane or perish.
As long as there are those who believe the Constitution is a " living document," then any behavior by government fiat will happen. How many Americans have been killed sice Roe VS Wade?
What's your plan Einstein? Try to actually say something... an actual plan I mean.
Oh no you did not just drop an Einstein bomb on me,
Buns Of Steel. And now I have to come up with a plan--what am I, an expert on this stuff? Jesus, have some kind of military tribunal and say he isn't required to appear because he is in contempt of court or something. How the hell should I know how you do it?
I'm more concerned about where we're heading as a nation if we don't even consider this a serious issue that should have a little thought applied to it. Should we just write the government a blank check on this one?
"Rule of the Law" should go out the window when they changed the rules. Period.
Dude, the rule of law I'm talking about is here to protect YOU and ME and the integrity of our whole system, NOT to coddle criminals or terrorists--you've got it completely backwards (or else you're just trying to read "code talk" into my posts). Do you not understand that a stable society with an accountable system of justice is a fragile luxury that we should cherish, and seek to protect? The privileges we have didn't just fall into our lap.
Those are exactly the rules and procedures that thwart our government from reacting to terrorist threats, as they arise.
Captain, were got three of them in our sights, permission to shoot?
No, one of they is Anwar al-Awlaki, and he hasn't been tried yet.
I would agree partially with both sides of this argument.
If the person is a U.S. citizen and is arrested in the U.S. (or can be arrested abroad and brought back), they should be tried in this country in the federal justice system. As much as I don't like trying (alleged) terrorists in our courts...if they are citizens, they should be afforded all rights. If they are convicted of treason, they should be executed as is spelled out by the law after all appeals are exhausted.
If the person is NOT a U.S. citizen and is caught IN the U.S., they should be turned over to the military or intelligence agency. They should then be tried in a military tribunal and, if found guilty, executed after any and all appeals are exhausted. However, they should NOT be afforded the same rights as would a citizen.
If the person is NOT a U.S. citizen and cannot be apprehended without great risk to others, they should be taken out by any means necessary. Whether it is a sniper shot to the head from 1000 yards, a missile from a Predator drone or a 1000 lb bomb. Before that point, however, all information against the potential dead guy should be presented to a special panel who must vote unanimously that the guy has to cease to exist for the sake of national security. Who sits on that panel would need to be worked on. Should it be members of the military? Senators? Intelligence Operatives? Citizens? I don't know.
Add: After thinking about my response...I don't think I hit on the MAIN conflict...the killing of someone who IS a U.S. citizen. I covered the situation wherein they are inside of the U.S. and can be apprehended. If the person is located outside of the U.S. and cannot be apprehended safely...see the solution provided for in the above paragraph.
Those are exactly the rules and procedures that thwart our government from reacting to terrorist threats, as they arise.
Captain, were got three of them in our sights, permission to shoot?
No, one of they is Anwar al-Awlaki, and he hasn't been tried yet.
Just bomb the area and call al-Awlaki's death collateral damage.
As long as there are those who believe the Constitution is a " living document," then any behavior by government fiat will happen. How many Americans have been killed sice Roe VS Wade?
[threadjack]
How about the many American women who have
not died due to horrible medical conditions in illegal abortions? Abortion happens whether it is legal or not, in legal countries it is no more prevalent. In countries where it is illegal the death rate due to abortion is deplorable. Most abortions are not just a simple choice, they are due to extenuating circumstances. Such as rape, incest, young age or poverty.
If you really want to work against abortion, the legality of the procedure is not the problem. Comprehensive sex education and access to low cost birth control are the most responsible way to reduce the number of elective abortions.
The public needs choice about their procreation, not condemnation.
[/threadjack]
Now as you were....
[threadjack]
The public needs choice about their procreation, not condemnation.
[/threadjack]
Now as you were....
I favor Choice. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If abortion is immoral, then (insert your chosen deity here) will deal with the immoral when the time comes.
PS: Being gay is the surest way to avoid pregnancy, yet that is bad, too, for those who oppose abortion, generally speaking.
Removing options for women to determine whether or not they wish to give birth is Patriocracy. If women had been the dominant gender for the last 3000 years, there wouldn't even be a discussion.
...nor a population problem
So if women think it's safer for them to kill any man at will, then they can trump the constitution's bill of rights?
That is not even close to the same subject.
If the man is causing her bodily harm then she has every right to get him out of her life as soon as possible. That includes emotional or physical harm.
What if "he" just continually threatens or writes blogs about how to do it? Does that change the dynamic MTP?
In other words, don't shoot yourself in the foot.
Or the Nut for that matter.
What if "he" just continually threatens or writes blogs about how to do it? Does that change the dynamic MTP?
Counts as emotional harm, she has a right to separate herself from him as soon as possible. There is no "just threatens or writes blogs" though, most likely it is going to escalate to real violence. I never told spud she has the right to outright kill him just because she scared. She can have him arrested if he has really done her harm, get a court order against him, move, ect.
Like I've said, this is not the same issue as abortion. Having a child has consequences physically and emotionally no matter what, every time. The soonest way for a woman to separate herself from an unwanted pregnancy is abortion.
Its the woman's choice to make individually because every case is going to be different with different outcomes for both the fetus and mother. I cannot judge how one woman's pregnancy is going to affect her, either negatively or positively. I cannot force my ideals on her knowing how emotionally and physically traumatic a pregnancy (wanted or unwanted) can be. The unborn fetus is not traumatized if it is aborted, it was not conscience of having life. The mother is the one who is fully aware through the process and can be severely traumatized depending on the circumstances of the pregnancy.
I was not talking about a pregnancy I as trying to relate your example to the discussion at hand of killing an American citizen because he is apparently a terrorist.
Sorry if I read too much into your post.
Back to killing terrorists...
At the end of the day, high treason is still punishable by death, even in the United States. Doesn't count for much to me if such death comes in the process of prosecuting a war. Would there have been any handwringing if a B-29 raid had killed Tokyo Rose -- any of the several?
Now if the good cleric were to find himself forcibly ductaped to Jeremiah Wright... he may beg for a quick coup de grâce. Especially if either takes to chewing on the other.
Having a child has consequences physically and emotionally no matter what, every time. The soonest way for a woman to separate herself from an unwanted pregnancy is abortion.
And that too has consequences, including upon the father. I know.
It's not a lightly-done thing.
The point wasn't about choice, it is about not being able to kill a known terrorist who has committed treason without judicial review, but being able to kill a baby any time it's inconvenient. Don't bring the back alley abortionist spin into this, or I'll bring in the argument about back alley car dealers causing thousands of deaths, or barbers or musicians.
The constitution provides protection against meaningless killing. Protect the terrorist, but not the innocent baby. Protect eagle eggs, but not human embryos. The Bill of Rights, and the Constitution as a whole prohibits murder. It doesn't prohibit execution of traitors!
I find myself appalled. I'm with Flint on this one. There's no reason to put names on a death list without due process. They say he's a dick traitor. But how in the hell would we KNOW...
The point wasn't about choice, it is about not being able to kill a known terrorist who has committed treason without judicial review, but being able to kill a baby any time it's inconvenient.
I very much doubt it is legal in the US to kill any baby any time.
Aborting a foetus is not killing a baby, it is removing a collection of cells incapable of life.
Sorry Sundae, but a good friend of mine is one of those " collection of cells incapable of life." I'll wager she's glad you weren't in charge of things back then. She's 60 years old now. I wonder how many people who would have been born after liberalization of abortion laws are not here now, solving the problems they were destined to solve?
But we digress. Liberals have been trying to marginalize our constitution here for years, taking away rights they don't like and adding rights that aren't there. The topic is Obama killing an American citizen. My point is, liberals have been commiting mass murder of Americans for decades, while wringing their hands about the rights of their fellow mass murderers.
not here now, solving the problems they were destined to solve?
Maybe they were put here to solve overpopulation and unwanted children.
I don't think you should believe in both anti-abortion and predestination though. That person lived the life they were destined to live, right? Brevity is not part of the question, especially if you believe in an eternal soul. The soul in that mass of cells is certainly in heaven now. Good job well done, don'tcha think?
Sorry Sundae, but a good friend of mine is one of those " collection of cells incapable of life."
No she isn't.
... My point is, liberals have been commiting mass murder of Americans for decades, while wringing their hands about the rights of their fellow mass murderers.
Not exactly. Liberals have been allowing individuals the choice to keep or abort an embryo. I think you are mistaken if you think conservatives don't get abortions.
I don't think all conservatives are conservative due to religious beliefs either. In fact, most of the conservatives I know are what they are for financial gain rather than religious beliefs.
No she isn't.
Do not speak about events you know nothing about. Stick to your theories.
Maybe they were put here to solve overpopulation and unwanted children.
I don't think you should believe in both anti-abortion and predestination though. That person lived the life they were destined to live, right? Brevity is not part of the question, especially if you believe in an eternal soul. The soul in that mass of cells is certainly in heaven now. Good job well done, don'tcha think?
The only overpopulation problem we have in the US is from illegal aliens. We actually have an
underpopulation problem.
I'm not positive, but i'm pretty sure HM meant that clearly your friend is not a collection of useless cells simply by the virtue of having a worthwhile life (or at least it seems that that was what you were alluding to spud).
I don't think all conservatives are conservative due to religious beliefs either. In fact, most of the conservatives I know are what they are for financial gain rather than religious beliefs.
There is a lot of truth in that statement.
Do not speak about events you know nothing about. Stick to your theories.
From the stated data that she is 60, and your friend, I concluded she isn't a blastocyst. I don't think my "theory" is on shaky ground.
I don't think all conservatives are conservative due to religious beliefs either. In fact, most of the conservatives I know are what they are for financial gain rather than religious beliefs.
In the larger context of conservatism, that may be the case.
In the US, the conservative movement is dominated by those whose guiding principles are the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, the sanctity of guns and the sanctity of Jesus Christ.
Any deviation from any of the above puts you at odds with the hard core American conservatives.
Well that leaves me out.
Yep.
And, IMO, i think it is why the social conservatives who currently dominate the Republican party and the Tea Party advocates (fiscal conservatives/libertarians) will find it very difficult to co-exist under one banner....there is a fundamental clash of priorities.
In the larger context of conservatism, that may be the case.
In the US, the conservative movement is dominated by those whose guiding principles are the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, the sanctity of guns and the sanctity of Jesus Christ.
Any deviation from any of the above puts you at odds with the hard core American conservatives.
You forgot the sanctity of the constitution and the rule of law.
Yep.
And, IMO, i think it is why the social conservatives who currently dominate the Republican party and the Tea Party advocates (fiscal conservatives/libertarians) will find it very difficult to co-exist under one banner....there is a fundamental clash of priorities.
You're right. Co-existance under one banner with conservatives and libertarians would be impossible. Different philosophies.
You forgot the sanctity of the constitution and the rule of law.
The rule of law says first trimester abortion is legal and Jesus Christ doesnt belong in the classroom and gays and lesbians have some level of civil rights.
What, no conservative Jews, muslims, Atheists?
What, no conservative Jews, muslims, Atheists?
Of course there are.
What I said was that conservatism in the US is
dominated by those whose guiding principles are the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage (and heterosexuality), and the sanctity of Jesus Christ.....ie, evangelicals and Christian conservatives.
In the larger context of conservatism, that may be the case.
In the US, the conservative movement is dominated by those whose guiding principles are the sanctity of life, the sanctity of marriage, the sanctity of guns and the sanctity of Jesus Christ.
Any deviation from any of the above puts you at odds with the hard core American conservatives.
Religion is not on the same level over here as it is in the US, which is why the whole god argument isn't very effective (and rarely used) in anything to do with politics here.
That being said though, our current opposition leader is quite a long way to the right and is quite religious. Who knows what will happen next year if his party wins.
Here is an example.
The Texas Republican Party just adopted its platform for the 2010 elections....including re-criminalizing sodomy (despite a Supreme Court decision declaring the previous Texas sodomy law - up to 5 - 15 years in jail - unconstitutional), denying any legal rights to gay partners, and restoring organized prayer in school.
Remind me not to get too kinky in Texas next time I'm there!
Remind me not to get too kinky in Texas next time I'm there!
Or vote for
Kinky Friedman.
He is "not pro-life, and I'm not pro-choice. I'm pro-football" and "supports gay marriage. I believe they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."
He seems to be a bit all over the shop according to the bit of info about him on Wiki.
Well, they just don't make Jews like Jesus anymore. ;)
Kinky fucking rocks man!
Love the Friedman :)
[eta] might have to dig out the books and read 'em again!
Tea Party advocates (fiscal conservatives/libertarians)
Your definition. Not the view of the three groups independently, Tea Party supporters, conservatives, libertarians...
I agree with DanaC, Friedman is great. He has a few kooky ideas but I like his style, and given many of the choices in the recent elections I might just vote for him over the other choices if I lived in Texas. :D
Obama Administration Expanding "Secret War"
the Obama administration has significantly expanded a largely secret U.S. war against al-Qaeda and other radical groups, according to senior military and administration officials.
Special Operations forces have grown both in number and budget, and are deployed in 75 countries, compared with about 60 at the beginning of last year. In addition to units that have spent years in the Philippines and Colombia, teams are operating in Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East, Africa and Central Asia.
Commanders are developing plans for increasing the use of such forces in Somalia, where a Special Operations raid last year killed the alleged head of al-Qaeda in East Africa. Plans exist for preemptive or retaliatory strikes in numerous places around the world, meant to be put into action when a plot has been identified, or after an attack linked to a specific group.
One advantage of using "secret" forces for such missions is that they rarely discuss their operations in public. For a Democratic president such as Obama, who is criticized from either side of the political spectrum for too much or too little aggression, the unacknowledged CIA drone attacks in Pakistan, along with unilateral U.S. raids in Somalia and joint operations in Yemen, provide politically useful tools.
Obama, one senior military official said, has allowed "things that the previous administration did not."
The clearest public description of the secret-war aspects of the doctrine came from White House counterterrorism director John O. Brennan. He said last week that the United States "will not merely respond after the fact" of a terrorist attack but will "take the fight to al-Qaeda and its extremist affiliates whether they plot and train in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and beyond."
That rhetoric is not much different than Bush's pledge to "take the battle to the enemy . . . and confront the worst threats before they emerge." The elite Special Operations units, drawn from all four branches of the armed forces, became a frontline counterterrorism weapon for the United States after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
But Obama has made such forces a far more integrated part of his global security strategy. He has asked for a 5.7 percent increase in the Special Operations budget for fiscal 2011, for a total of $6.3 billion, plus an additional $3.5 billion in 2010 contingency funding.
The Obama administration has rejected the constitutional executive authority claimed by Bush and has based its lethal operations on the authority Congress gave the president in 2001 to use "all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons" he determines "planned, authorized, committed, or aided" the Sept. 11 attacks.
Many of those currently being targeted, Bellinger said, "particularly in places outside Afghanistan," had nothing to do with the 2001 attacks.
Link
I'm certain this makes some of you uncomfortable, but this is probably the only way to fight this war.
I am quite comfortable with it. And in fact Obama should be applauded for it.
Obama Administration Expanding "Secret War"
Link
I'm certain this makes some of you uncomfortable, but this is probably the only way to fight this war.
Yup. War strategies have always evolved over the years and history almost always suggests that the side that has learned and grown from the past will be victorious. The current guerrilla style fighting is a response to the United States overwhelming firepower and [insert group]'s lack of it. If [insert group] fought like we did, they would be wiped out quicker than the Iraqi army. So, in response, to fight these new groups, the US will need to change strategies.
Right now the people the US are fighting are hiding from them. So they need to figure out a way to find them.
I am quite comfortable with it. And in fact Obama should be applauded for it.
Careful that was
almost a compliment. :right:
Right now the people the US are fighting are hiding from them. So they need to figure out a way to find them.
Absolutely. Finding and eliminating them 1 by 1 or 2 by 2 is an extremely slow and arduous process. Americans do not have the patience for that. Nor do I think it will ultimately be effective.
ANY American citizens we want? 'Cause, like, I have this list, see.
And if they are fighting us, while out of the country, they're the enemy, and fair game.
Every war has turncoats and they frequently end up dead.