Obama Executes Brown American Without Trial

They were not. Very disappointing. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Incredible. Where was the liberal and media outrage on this? I didn't read that his father had filed suit and the supporting documentation for the execution order was withheld without cause until AFTER the execution.

This makes the Patriot Act look like the Bill of Rights. Thanks for standing up TTH.

Incredible. Where was the liberal and media outrage on this? Originally Posted by turdfly

Turdfly, the kick ass libs are runnin' away from your slimy, whimpy ass! Hell, they are too buzy kickin' OBL's band of scumbags ass, than to fuk around wit whimps lyke you! They got terrorists to kill! ROTFLMAO

As for the terrorist scumbag who got "droned!" Fuk the sum bitch! I don't feel sorry for him, he's a frigging scumbag terrorist who is workin' wif the sorry MOFO's who caused 9/11! We don't owe the MOFO a trial by jury. He's in the friggin' Middle East where we abyde by the law o' th land! Hell, I am glad they took the sum bitch out! I just wish they would have 'droned' the sorry MOFO sooner! But then I was always much harder on OBL and his band of thugs than you were. You would much rather pussy foot aroun' lookin' for friggin' WMD's that no longer exist! It's no sweat off of your shriveled up balls! Damn, I hate Fukin' Whimpz!!!!!

It is tyme for me to go cool off in my go fast boat with an elite blonde sittin' on my lap, while sippin' on a bottomless glass of Crown on th' roks!

Ya gotta luv it when the good guyz are kickin' ass an takin' names!

A couple hundred more and Obama will close the gap to Perry.

A couple hundred more and Obama will close the gap to Perry. Originally Posted by pyramider

It will take "a couple hundred more" coyotes before "Obama will close the gap to Perry."

Look out coyotes, the "drones" have your number!

About friggin' time you admit I am RIGHT and you WRONG! Just like Blowpop didn't listen to me about UTR elite blondes vis-a-vis politics and government. Makes me HAPPY. Cougar education finally pays off. Bust your balls because you were wrong, but just yanking your chain. Mutual green eyed blonde friend says you are ok, so had to play nice. Why you ask? Protectionist sheriffs of this new friggin' payton place watching over new regime Mickey Mouse strip club crowd? Hell, its blind leading blind. Respect the hell out of you because you didn't cut & run like the rest of those candied ass libs. May not always agree but .............




.........sorry, I've lost my touch, due to our dearly departed mutual board arch-enemy's absence. He is indeed missed. Thanks for the reminder of the smiles those no longer amongst us once brought to our faces - Whatever the reason, no matter the basis. Laughs nevertheless. RIP, MRHAPPY!

Hell, I'll bet my little buddy, the lib, gossiping, socializing, pretending-not-spending Ambassador would agree. Maybe he'll finally cowboy up for rodeo this year.

"Pinky wakes up!" That's a friggin' classic. I bet MH got a grin out of that line! RIP MH!

Incredible. Where was the liberal and media outrage on this? I didn't read that his father had filed suit and the supporting documentation for the execution order was withheld without cause until AFTER the execution.

This makes the Patriot Act look like the Bill of Rights. Thanks for standing up TTH. Originally Posted by gnadfly

The suit was brought by his father and the ACLU. If you were a member, you would get regular updates. I can get you an application if you'd like. And I agree that it's outrageous.

Obama has been the biggest disappointment in the area of civil liberties and the so called "war on terror." I actually thought that he would make a big difference here. And while he's certainly been an improvement over Bush and his war criminal cronies, he is well short of acceptable. And there has actually been quite a bit of criticism of him in this regard in the few left leaning publications are are out there -- Mother Jones; Salon.com, especially Glenn Greenwald; etc.

I suspect what you call the "liberal media," I would call the corporate main stream media. They will print a polite article now and then, but they are too bought into the system to ever rock the boat much. Witness the New York Times toothless capitulation to Bush's outright lies leading up to the Iraq war. Judith Miller should be hung, and the editors who allowed her kid glove coverage should be tarred, feathered, run out of town on a rail, and never allowed to hold a journalism job for the rest of their lives.

The suit was brought by his father and the ACLU. If you were a member, you would get regular updates. I can get you an application if you'd like. And I agree that it's outrageous. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

I'd be interested in the ACLU's reaction to the denial of scrutiny to the legal rationale that gives the President authority to unilaterally order executions of US Citizens and their conjecture as to why its classified and what's in the document. Do you have a link to this?

I found this Salon article while searching for the ACLU reaction. This is classic from our "constitutional scholar" President. From Salon:
http://politics.salon.com/2010/08/03/awlaki/

A major legal challenge to one of the Obama administration’s most radical assertions of executive power began this morning in a federal courthouse in Washington, DC. Early last month, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights were retained by Nasser al-Awlaki, the father of Obama assassination target (and U.S. citizen) Anwar al-Awlaki, to seek a federal court order restraining the Obama administration from killing his son without due process of law. But then, a significant and extraordinary problem arose: regulations promulgated several years ago by the Treasury Department prohibit U.S. persons from engaging in any transactions with individuals labeled by the Government as a ”Specially Designated Global Terrorist,” and those regulations specifically bar lawyers from providing legal services to such individuals without a special “license” from the Treasury Department specifically allowing such representation.
On July 16 — roughly two weeks after Awlaki’s father retained the ACLU and CCR to file suit — the Treasury Department slapped that label on Awlaki. That action would have made it a criminal offense for those organizations to file suit on behalf of Awlaki or otherwise provide legal representation to him without express permission from the U.S. Government. On July 23, the two groups submitted a request for such a license with the Treasury Department, and when doing so, conveyed the extreme time-urgency involved: namely, that there is an ongoing governmental effort to kill Awlaki and any delay in granting this “license” could cause him to be killed without these claims being heard by a court. Despite that, the Treasury Department failed even to respond to the request.


later in the article...


UPDATE: Politico‘s Josh Gerstein reports that the administration has magnanimously deigned to grant permission to the ACLU and CCR to represent Awlaki’s father (and Awlaki’s interests). The primary effects of this decision are two-fold: it (1) moots the ACLU/CCR’s legal challenge to the administration’s licensing scheme, thus enabling them to avoid this legal challenge (and thus continue to wield this asserted power until someone else challenges its legality)....

Just another dead raghead........whats the big deal?

Oh TG and BT, just like the old days. Miss the old Cougroid.

We have not had a well defined enemy in uniform, a flag and pronounced boundaries since the USSR went Russia and Co. We probably never will have an arch rival again. Why share the expences , and for what. The expences are making us weaker so why would they fight it. They won't .
We have not been the world's policeman for a very long time. More like world's fireman, putting out fires wherever it arises , with today in mind and today only , not really affording to look passed our noses and hoping the supplies won't run out and our fire fighters won't be exhausted before the next fire.
Tomorrow, rinse and repeat.
Now China is the next big fear to feed the paranoia . Pentagon has to keep the budget growing.

Oh TG and BT, just like the old days. Miss the old Cougroid. Originally Posted by Htowner

HT, welcome to Turdfly's office. He is now the Mayor of Whimpville! Population 1.

I'd be interested in the ACLU's reaction to the denial of scrutiny to the legal rationale that gives the President authority to unilaterally order executions of US Citizens and their conjecture as to why its classified and what's in the document. Do you have a link to this?

I found this Salon article while searching for the ACLU reaction. This is classic from our "constitutional scholar" President. From Salon:
http://politics.salon.com/2010/08/03/awlaki/ Originally Posted by gnadfly

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-se...dicial-process

The article you have found is from Glen Greenwald. Greenwald has been one of Obama's most persistent and solid critics from the left. I like Glen and I think he's raised some great points over the past three years. I'm proud to count him as a friend and colleague. He doesn't know about my little hobby, or I would be tickled to show him that he has fans on the right wing as well as the left.

TTH, is it possible we have found some common ground?

As a practical matter, I'm not terribly concerned with whether Awlaki is a bad actor. He likely is. But once you establish a precedent, it has to be one that can be used no matter how well intentioned or badly intentioned the office holder at the time may be. And it does very much give me indigestion that one man (the President) can make a decision to have a targeted killing of some American, somewhere, with the simple stroke of a pen.

If that's going to be the law, how do you distinguish this situation from the President having a political opponent gunned down while eating breakfast at the Four Seasons. One answer is obviously that practical outrage accompanies one act and not the other. But one can certainly imagine that many killings that would not be lawful might be either 1) popular; or 2) able to be made anonymously; or 3) with out being discovered. And that give me indigestion. Our system is one that inherently has checks and balances. And I really don't see any checks and balance in this context.

Could Congress pass a law outlining a procedure where the President could Constitutionally authorize a procedure where the President could get the equivalent of a warrant from some national security court and accomplish the same thing? I'm not sure, but I would rest somewhat easier with that sort of procedure in place provided that the hurdles to overcome were high and limited to citizens outside the country and actively engaged in substantial hostile acts against the country and in a situation where they could not be otherwise brought to justice. At least we'd have a debate about what circumstances would have to exist first, outline the extreme case that would have to be made, and figure out a way to put some reasonable checks on unilateral action by the executive that would still allow us to defend ourselves in unusual cases, but wouldn't grant carte blanche to the President to go hog wild.

Just another dead raghead........whats the big deal? Originally Posted by dearhunter

Its about taint...he taint a foreigner...ergo not "just another dead raghead."