The Goat Pen

The Atlantic Article

My takes:

1.Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue.

We do need to GTFO of Afghanistan and that will cut down on the Pakistani drone attacks. I think it is bad policy.

2.Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.

Unless I'm wrong, I thought the Americans assassinated were cats in Yemen who were active Al Qaeda members. My opinion when this topic first hit the masses was that if you declare war on the US and actively participate in opposition to the US via warfare, then you have given up your protections as a citizen. I still feel that way. I did not lose sleep over that Al Alawi (or whatever his name was). He gave up his rights when he trained terrorists and actively participated in the effort to engage in violent jihad against America with foreign enemies.

3.Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.

This is a stretch. WE did provide intel and stationed ships off the coast. We also supplied weapons to the resistance (like we have in Syria and God knows where else). That, to me, is a bit different than "committing forces to war." My issues with Obamaa don't hit on any of these topics...besides point #1.

eCat wrote:I wasn't aware the mormons had a policy on anything other than caffeine and pussy

Oh, you should learn about the proliferation of an action called "floating" among the young LDSers. It will alter your view of how Mormons cope with the realities of life.

is anyone going to lose sleep over a terrorist denouncing America and trying to kill Americans in Yemen just because he was born in Iowa? nope but that doesn't change the reality of due process as granted under the constitution for every citizen.


That Batman killer didn't get a bullet in the head and I suspect his American death count is higher than the Yemen guy. Had the Yemen guy been in Canada, Mexico or Australia he would not have died by drone strike, and while he may have died being brought to justice, the attempt would have been made to bring him in alive.

You don't give up your rights as an American citizen because your location is a bitch to get to - and that is what this boils down to.

I'm not sure that the these rules of "oh you don't like America, you're a terrorist so you no longer have rights" is valid anyways.

If that were true, 80% of Idaho would be labeled non-American

Treason, Traitors, AWOL - we've dealt with this activity before, and while some of these offenses are punishable by death, these people got their day in court.

I thought you gave up your rights to citizenship if you declare war on the US. If a guy joins the Nazi army, lives in Koln and is the architect of fighting forces during WWII, I'm okay with hitting his motorcade with a B-17 strike. He loses his right to due process at that point. The Batman killer is not the same situation.

Anarchists who live in the wilderness of Washington or Montana can be extracted. I don't think that's analogous either. To me, I see it more like a person joined a foreign force, openly and legitimately at war with the US government. He, and all of his enabling combatants in that motorcade, were all taken out like what happens to foreign fighters in every war since God knows when.

Some quick research does tell me that you can lose your US citizenship when participating in foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States, but I still think it has to be filed under a provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act (which will get you to Due Process). Other than that, Al Alawi (or whatever) "has a constitutional right to remain a citizen... unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship." (Supreme Court, Afroyim v Rusk)

I don't know if he officially renounced his citizenship in any of the videos he made (directly, or arguably). But, unless that is the case or that the Obama Administration had him declared stripped of his nationality under that Act, then I guess he was a citizen.

IIRC, Al Awari had not renounced citizenship but had declared his allegence to Allah, jihad, Al Queda whatever. So an argument could be made either way.

The kid from Charlotte that was with him and killed in the attack had not relinquished citizenship. When someone leaves a country joins the army of another country that has officially declared war against the first country, wears the uniform, achieves rank, takes up arms you have an obvious renunciation of citizenship with or without a verbal declaration. Is making a few speeches, going overseas, wearing civilian garb and joining an anti-American organization the same thing? The fact that we aren't fighting a country makes for some very gray areas.

Is making a few speeches, going overseas, wearing civilian garb and joining an anti-American organization the same thing? The fact that we aren't fighting a country makes for some very gray areas.

No, it's not. However, he didn't join a political action group that protests American actions. That's why the law is written to say "participating in foreign armed forces." They don't mention countries until later in the Act. I admit it's a rough line to cross and the more I dig, I think I am altering my opinion on it...slightly.

Bush , McCain (due to his legislation) and by extension, Obama just made the path declaring someone a terrorist with allegiance to Al Qaeda or whatever to being a relinquished ex-citizen paving the way to eliminate due process for them giving the president the right to judge, jury and executioner. They knew they wouldn't get much push back from Americans, just like they didn't get push back for Japanese detainment in WWII.

Its abhorrent to stand up for the rights of someone that has dedicated their life to killing Americans - but I don't think Libertarians view it that way. They believe they are standing up for their rights not being taken away, and at the core of every Libertarian is a little bit of anarchist who believes one day they may have to stand up and fight a corrupt government ready to declare them as enemy of the state , due in part because of the acceptance of acts against American liberty like this.

I'm sure the pro-government side of this is that since Al-Qaeda is not a standard uniformed army but is a known entity that his joining them would count as a denouncing of his citizenship - and I'd accept his death as a casualty of war had he died in a skirmish with US Forces, even in Yemen. But just riding in a car down the road and blown up from the air? That is death of convenience, not situation.

Maybe he was riding in that car on his way to a meeting to plan more attacks on Americans. I have no problem with him being blown to bits.

" but had declared his allegence to Allah, jihad, Al Queda whatever."

That's a mighty expansive "whatever". I'd hardly equate the first pledge of allegiance with the second two...

For the record, also, the literal translation of "jihad" is "struggle." It doesn't always mean violence (and many argue that it was not intended to be interpreted that way by The Prophet). It was meant to highlight the internal battle (the yin and yang, if you will) of man going through his daily toil to live a righteous existence. It was originally interpreted to be an internal, solitary, edifying process...not one of suicide bombers, IEDs and acid in the face of school bound Afghan girls.

The term has been bastardized by a slice of the practitioners. I guess it is what it is now.

Jungle Rat wrote:Maybe he was riding in that car on his way to a meeting to plan more attacks on Americans. I have no problem with him being blown to bits.

I think most Americans would agree with you

hedge wrote:" but had declared his allegence to Allah, jihad, Al Queda whatever."

That's a mighty expansive "whatever". I'd hardly equate the first pledge of allegiance with the second two...

That's kind of the point. We see people pledge their lives to God, jesus, The Mets etc everyday. This is (was) America he has the right to say damn near anything without getting blown up. Did he cross the line when he shook hands with the Al Queada rep at the airport? When he got in the truck on the way to the hideout? Or when Achmed handed him his gun and said "Look at my cool AK"?

"For the record, also, the literal translation of "jihad" is "struggle.""

I prefer fatwa...

You also prefer penis.

I wish they were struggling for their last breath.

Bklyn wrote:For the record, also, the literal translation of "jihad" is "struggle." It doesn't always mean violence (and many argue that it was not intended to be interpreted that way by The Prophet). It was meant to highlight the internal battle (the yin and yang, if you will) of man going through his daily toil to live a righteous existence. It was originally interpreted to be an internal, solitary, edifying process...not one of suicide bombers, IEDs and acid in the face of school bound Afghan girls.

The term has been bastardized by a slice of the practitioners. I guess it is what it is now.

Yeah and the way of the Muslim religion is suppose to be peaceful one also.

So yeah, fuck'em.

The list of peaceful religions is a very short one. Maybe Buddhist. I don't know enough about Taoism.

hedge wrote: I prefer fatwa...

So does DS.

LMAO...