Why then, do you have to lie and claim I think he is innocent?

Because you keep insinuating that he was assassinated and that he was a non-combatant?

Unless you are saying that you agree with assassinating non-combatants then how can you say that it was legitimate?

We have killed civilians, even our own, conducting military operations.

Terrorists target civilians, even their own, conducting operations.

You see the United States as a terrorist force?

We’re talking about the governmental process which resulted in his condemnation.

Awlaki said he was Al-Qaeda so why the hand wringing?

But you don’t like to have that discussion because it’s quite a bit murkier than the clear-cut fact that al-Awlaki deserved to die.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 3:11 PM

What’s murky about it?

Al-Qaeda attacked on 911.
War began.
It had congressional approval.
Awlaki was Al-Qaeda.

Awlaki was killed.

No there isn’t. You see Awlaki as an innocent victim and I see him as the terrorist he in fact is.

sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Put away your straw man.

How many times, in this thread and others, have I expressed support for the death of al-Awlaki? Why then, do you have to lie and claim I think he is innocent?

You’re being intentionally obtuse. We aren’t – for the eleventh time – talking about al-Awlaki. We’re talking about the governmental process which resulted in his condemnation.

But you don’t like to have that discussion because it’s quite a bit murkier than the clear-cut fact that al-Awlaki deserved to die.

Washington put down an armed rebellion – apples to oranges.

Al-Qaeda is armed I assure you.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/65/September_11_Photo_Montage.jpg

We have killed civilians, even our own, conducting military operations.

Terrorists target civilians, even their own, conducting operations.

You see the United States as a terrorist force?

If you can’t see the difference, I’m not sure there’s any middle ground between us.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 12:58 PM

No there isn’t. You see Awlaki as an innocent victim and I see him as the terrorist he in fact is.

sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 12:22 PM

No, no and no again.

Washington put down an armed rebellion – apples to oranges.
Hamilton and Adams are thus removed from your list.

Madison opened fire on British warships which held American citizens. That’s quite different from what you said.

We have killed civilians, even our own, conducting military operations.

Terrorists target civilians, even their own, conducting operations.

If you can’t see the difference, I’m not sure there’s any middle ground between us.

We’re a nation of laws, not of men. That’s why the founding fathers gave us checks and balances like the courts and laws governing the prosecution of American citizens accused of treason.

George Washington send troops to kill American citizens in the Whiskey rebellion.

Alexander Hamilton served with Washington during the Whiskey Rebellion.

John Adams was Washington’s Vice President at this time.

James Madison opened fire on American citizens held on British ships.

None of these men had a problem with troops killing American citizens without those citizens first being convicted of treason.

You are arguing that we should be a nation of “legitimate” men, not laws.

FloatingRock on February 15, 2013 at 12:10 PM

I said exactly the opposite of this.

Every president in history has had this power and now Obama does.

sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 11:03 AM

You are the one arguing for unconstitutional interpretations that historically never existed based on current political flavors.

I think what it comes down to is that this is a legitimate power of government, but this isn’t a legitimate group of people in power.

sharrukin on February 15, 2013 at 10:42 AM

We’re a nation of laws, not of men. That’s why the founding fathers gave us checks and balances like the courts and laws governing the prosecution of American citizens accused of treason. You are arguing that we should be a nation of “legitimate” men, not laws. The Democrats think Obama is “legitimate”, the Brits thought King George was legit, but conservatives traditionally believed that absolute power corrupts absolutely and that all men, even supposedly “legitimate” ones, need to have their power kept in check and remain subject to the law.

Indeed – when you’re good, you’re damn good!

That’s actually EXACTLY how it’s working over there.

Fire on US troops, drop your weapon, walk away. We can’t shoot them.

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 11:40 AM

That isn’t what is found in the laws of war, that is what an incompetent military and a politicized leadership is forcing on the soldier.

What about the KKK? They’ve killed thousands of Americans. Can we drop a Hellfire on their members?

Washington Nearsider on February 15, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Without a congressional authorization of military force?

No.

It would be a police matter.