Town Square

Post a New Topic

Credit to President Obama and our CIA and Military!

Original post made by Gary, Downtown North, on Sep 30, 2011

President Obama gave the order to kill this scumbag in Yemen, today. Good for him. Same for killing UBL. BHO seems to get it, when our enemies are in our crosshairs.

I am not a fan of Obama, but I give him credit, where credit is due. I always try to avoid criticiszing an American president, beyond the water's edge (unlike so many leftists, e.g. GWB), but I reserve the right to praise him, when he gets it right.

Good job, BHO.

Comments (54)

 +   Like this comment
Posted by foreign policy
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Sep 30, 2011 at 5:00 pm

Looks like the President and his ilk are the superior party at national defense. He promised he'd get these guys and he does.

Dude can handle the 3am phone call.

Haven't heard any of the other candidates inspire leadership or faith.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Sep 30, 2011 at 6:12 pm

"Dude can handle the 3am phone call."

Yep, he has settled that question, just as GWB did.

Good for BHO, in this regard. Campaining for Prez, and becoming Prez are two different things. I am happy that BHO followed GWB, with respect to killing our enemies, with no remorse.

Good job, BHO.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Sharon
a resident of Midtown
on Sep 30, 2011 at 6:25 pm



The issue of dual citizenship is of much more concern than religion.

Dual citizenship means dual loyalty.

No dual citizen should have any US security clearance.

That will not stop traitors like Jonathan Pollard– who deserved the death penalty–still does.

Web Link

Israel granted Pollard citizenship in 1995, while publicly denying, until 1998, that he was an Israeli spy.

If any US citizen commits treason in time of war then they deserve the death penalty

–if they do not have dual citizenship then they can run but they cannot hide.

A rule forbidding dual citizenship in the US and specifically excluding any and all dual citizens from all security clearance will save a lot of American lives and interests.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 1, 2011 at 6:53 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by foreign policy
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Oct 1, 2011 at 9:25 am

"Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn."

Walter shouldn't be so disrespectful to George Bush, even if he did put us in useless wars that killed 5,000 Americans while creating thousands of new terrorists in a country that essentially had no AQ presence before we invaded. He did kill Saddam, even though Saddam never attacked the US, even though Saddam's death gave Iran much more power in the region.

All that and trillions of dollars and Walter's "blind pig" never got the top Al Qaeda brass.

Why did Walter's "blind pig" Bush never get bin Ladin? Bush himself explains: Web Link

As you HEARD him say himself on that link, Walter's "blind pig" was basically an un-patriotic chickenhawk ADHD case that didn't have the attention span to get the worst criminal in the world. Bush said so in his OWN WORDS.

No, indeed, this thread is about the successes of President Barack Obama; let's look at the headlines that document Obama's superior efforts:

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Osama Bin Ladin Killed

Drone Targets Yemeni Cleric

U.S. says evidence Taliban chief dead "pretty conclusive"

Air strike kills Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud

Asia's Most Wanted Islamist Militant Dead

U.S. Kills Top Qaeda Militant in Southern Somalia

Al Qaeda Operations Planner Saleh Al-Somali Believed Dead in Drone Strike

Secret Joint Raid Captures Taliban's Top Commander

Taliban confirm wanted terror leader Qari Zafar killed in US airstrike

Al Qaeda figure Hussein al-Yemeni believed to have been killed in U.S. missile strike

Bali bomber mastermind Dulmatin 'killed in shoot-out'

2 Most Wanted Al Qaeda Leaders in Iraq Killed by U.S., Iraqi Forces

Al-Qaeda leader Sheikh Sa'id al-Masri killed in US missile strike

Al Qaeda commander killed in US strike on safehouse in South Waziristan

AQAP confirms deaths of 2 commanders in US airstrike

Death of Harun Fazul - East African al-Qaeda leader

Al-Qaida operations chief in Pakistan killed, US says

Two-Year Manhunt Led to Awlaki Death

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Bush on bin Laden: "truly not that concerned... I don't know where he is, nor do I... " care.

President Barack Obama: "Bin Ladin is DEAD."

Who's got the foreign policy chops and the attentiveness, decisiveness and skills to defend America? President Barack Obama

Who can handle the 3am call? "I don't care about bin Laden anymore, really, I just don't care"

or

"Bin Ladin is DEAD"




 +   Like this comment
Posted by 3am phone call
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 1, 2011 at 9:52 am

Bush had a 9am phone call.

He sat and read My Pet Goat for 7 minutes after being told. "The country is under attack. He froze.

I'll take Obama in an emergency any day over My Pet Goat.

Dude's a real Leader.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 1, 2011 at 11:31 am

It's good to hear from the left that they like to kill our enemies. Oftentimes, they are whining about using harsh measures (e.g. waterboarding) on the thugs, or demanding criminal trials for enemy combatants (e.g. KSM). BHO has learned quite a bit from GWB's example...maybe he has already signed a presidential directive to assasinate our enemies, instead of wasting a bunch of time and money and effort to capture them (then what,another criminal trial farce?). It's good to see that BHO has grown into a man.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by foreign policy
a resident of Greendell/Walnut Grove
on Oct 1, 2011 at 11:56 am

"It's good to see that BHO has grown into a man."

How crass and pitiful a statement from what appears to be a sad, bitter partisan hack.

Barack Obama is clearly more of a man than any weakling who would utter such a statement.

Americans agreed in a landslide election over his opponent, when McCain obviously didn't have a clue about the MAN he was running against:

"McCain said of his rival for the White House: "But the question is whether this is a man who has what it takes to protect America from Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda, and other grave threats in the world. And he has given you no reason to answer in the affirmative." " Oct 29, 2008

The President clearly has always had "what it takes." He promised Americans in 2008 he would get Osama and he did.

Too bad cheap partisan hacks didn't have the brains nor intestinal fortitude to recognize reality back then, nor do they seem to understand it now. Look at the list of successes the President has had.

"It's good to see that BHO has grown into a man."

An utterly contemptible, disgusting statement, even more so than Walter's "blind pig" statement.

Weak partisans who like backhanded insults, perhaps because (one imagines) they feel vaguely threatened by the President's strengths, or perhaps some other attribute.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 1, 2011 at 12:56 pm

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

"Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn."
What a sad, pathetic, insulting statement. But not unexpected given the nature of the poster. Instead of celebrating the achievement of our commander in chief--a so-called veteran makes this kind of statement. I guess he cannot stand when a person of color (i..e not an old white man who constantly reminisces about the good old days, when gays,w omen, minorities all knew their place) accomplishes something that he would be too afraid to attempt. We all know who the real pig is.

"It's good to see that BHO has grown into a man."
[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
What "gary" should be asking is did the republicans have anything to do with the times that we narrowly missed this guy, by leaking intel to the other side. After all, the republicans have gone on record as making defeating Obama their main goal. How better to do it than by preventing him from knocking off enemies of the state--then they could bash him for being weak on terror.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 1, 2011 at 12:56 pm

foreign,

I am complimenting BHO, for growing some chest hair, compared to his campaign suggesions and promises. Many new presidents need to come to terms with reality. BHO is showing some hair. Good for him.

The more interesting question is whether the left will stick with him, as he assassinates more and more of our enemies, or will they go ACLU on him? How 'bout you, foreign...you for killing our enemies, instead of arresting them?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by 3am phone call
a resident of Adobe-Meadows
on Oct 1, 2011 at 1:12 pm

oh my did he just say that about our first black president?

grow into a man

grow some hair

"Man"?

Dude, you did everything but call him "b**"


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 1, 2011 at 2:00 pm

"oh my did he just say that about our first black president?"

Typical leftist obfuscation...turn a complimentary comment into a racist attack, in order to avoid substantive issues.

Once again, I ask: Does the left agree with BHO's policy of assassination of our enemies, or not? BHO has grown some hair, but has the left?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 1, 2011 at 2:40 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Thank God that Obama invented the SEALS and the infrastructure to track and locate those enemies. Thank God that Obama set up, in just three years, all the agencies that have produced, in spite of the left wing sniping, all our recent successes. Thank God for God, too. Obama invented him also, didn't he?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 1, 2011 at 2:49 pm

svatoid is a registered user.

"Thank God that Obama invented the SEALS and the infrastructure to track and locate those enemies. Thank God that Obama set up, in just three years, all the agencies that have produced, in spite of the left wing sniping, all our recent successes. Thank God for God, too. Obama invented him also, didn't he?"

Instead of being happy that we got this guy. You choose to denigrate our commander in chief. No one said that Obama invented the SEALS or the agencies. What you refuse to acknowledge is that Obama got Bin Laden and he got this guy [portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
You should be ashamed of yourself.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 1, 2011 at 3:28 pm

Leon Panetta, as CIA head, stated that enhanced interrogation methods (specifically including waterboarding) was an important element in getting UBL. BHO relied upon this intelligence to send in the SEALS. As a candidate, BHO promised to end such methods. It would seem that he has learned a lot, in three years as the Prez. He has given up on shutting down Guantonimo, and providing Miranda rights to enemy combatant detainees. BHO is on a mission to kill our enemies, no capture, no trials, and GOOD FOR HIM!

Now the question is whether the left agrees with him, or not?

BHO has learned a lot from GWB, but has the left?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Perspective
a resident of Meadow Park
on Oct 1, 2011 at 4:51 pm

I have to admit, I am surprised Obama gave the kill order for both these 2 guys and Osama Bin Laden. Gotta give him credit for doing the right thing.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by R
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Oct 1, 2011 at 5:18 pm

Our President is a President and not a King, and certainly not a God. He should not be playing God.

There seem to be no checks or balances on his decision to kill an American citizen. He just needs to get some hack lawyer to right an opinion supporting it, and then both he and the lawyer are free of any accountability.

This is a really scary direction for our country to be heading in.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Gary
a resident of Downtown North
on Oct 1, 2011 at 5:35 pm

"This is a really scary direction for our country to be heading in."

No, it is exactly the right direction. BHO is, finally, getting it...kill our enemies, before they kill us. Good for him.

I am still waiting for the left to come to the defense of BHO's killer offense.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 1, 2011 at 8:11 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 1, 2011 at 9:35 pm

Svatoid is a registered user.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 2, 2011 at 8:51 am

svatoid is a registered user.

Not sure why the editor has twice removed my criticism of Sharon's post. The thread is about the killing of Al-Awaki. Not sure why Sharon has chosen this thread to unleash another broadside against ISrael. What does security clearance or Israel have to with the killing of al-awaki?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 2, 2011 at 11:01 am

That User Name is already is a registered user.

Those two were enemies that we killed. No one is crying for them.

Many are crying for our country and the lack of due process.

We just killed Americans without a trial. We killed Americans that were never even indicted. We killed Americans without even a court hearing and presentation of evidence.

They were killed on orders alone without due process. If Iran or N Korea did the same, we would object.

A fair number of conservatives , liberals and civil libertarians are asking why we broke our laws. Ron Paul, for one. The ACLU for another. Ronald Reagan would have objected because it violated his executive orders banning CIA assassination.

"Ron Paul Doubles Down: 'Very Dangerous' To Celebrate Assassination Of Anwar al-Awlaki"

Straight up, "capital "C" conservative? How about American Conservative contributor Michael Brendan Dougherty?

After viewing a clip of:

"...Newt Gingrich, who argued that Al-Awlaki had received due process through being put on an assassination list.

"Is that a good conservative response?" Hayes asked.

That Dougherty did not agree with Gingrich is an understatement. Emphasizing how "unserious, ridiculous, and morally disgusting that response is," Dougherty proposed a parallel in which American played the role of Yemen in this situation: "Imagine if King [Juan] Carlos of Spain said 'Well, there is a pro-Basque separatist blogger in New Hampshire. I'm sending in a drone to drop a missile on the United States right now, and I signed an order, so its fine'!"

He went on to call such an incentive "ridiculous" and, to widen the cap in response to President Obama versus a foreign leader, name-dropped the Duke of Luxembourg, which got its own share of laughs. "So it's really obscure monarchic entities that American object to," Hayes joked.

Following that thread to its logical conclusion, however, Dougherty proposed that the President was, in fact, behaving as "a kind of monarchical entity when it comes to the War on Terror," given the unilateral nature of the attacks and the fact that Congressional war authority was almost completely overlooked.

Dougherty added that he found this "appalling" and that it was precisely why President Reagan signed a ban on assassinations, to keep the CIA in check. He did not entirely object to the conservative reaction to the killing, however, noting that libertarians– Rep. Ron Paul in particular– had stood up against this action."

Obama is not a monarch. He must obey our laws and the Constitution. Capture the evildoers, put them on trial and convict, toss in jail or snuff them within due process.

To suggest otherwise is un-American.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 2, 2011 at 11:35 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

War is not a crime, it is a war. Each is entitled to its own, separate rules and laws. Had Awlaki come into our hands alive, he would have been entitled to food, shelter, medical aid and internment until his war was over or he was otherwise bartered for. He could of course be tried for war crimes while in our custody, but not for ordinary, mission related acts.
As long as we prosecute terrorists as criminals, we have lost the war.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 2, 2011 at 12:04 pm

That User Name is already is a registered user.

WW - you are talking about foreign nationals.

We assassinated an American Citizen without due process.

Where is the line that keeps our government from messing with American citizens now? That line just moved dramatically.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 3, 2011 at 4:43 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I am talking about members of an armed insurrection actively waring against the United States.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 3, 2011 at 8:54 am

That User Name is already is a registered user.

"I am talking about members of an armed insurrection actively waring against the United States."

And I am talking about the Constitution, due process and the rule of law.

In short: our American values.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 4, 2011 at 11:23 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

He received due process. His declaration of war against the United States invalidated his citizenship.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 4, 2011 at 12:25 pm

That User Name is already is a registered user.

"He received due process."

Blithe comments may be good fun for the misinformed, but reality has a different view.

Our government assassinated an American citizen without due process. Never held a hearing. Never presented evidence.

Our founders are rolling over in their graves.

"The problem with declaring al-`Awlaqi an "outlaw" by virtue of being a traitor or a terrorist is that this whole idea was abolished by the US constitution. Its framers insisted that you couldn't just hang someone out to dry by decree. Rather, a person who was alleged to have committed a crime such as treason or terrorism had to be captured, brought to court, tried, and sentenced in accordance with a specific statute, and then punished by the state. If someone is arrested, they have the right to demand to be produced in court before a judge, a right known as habeas corpus..."

I have little concern over Awlaqi's rights.

I am greatly concerned over OUR rights.

I do not understand Mr Wallis' lack of concern over the constitution that so many have defended over the years.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 4, 2011 at 8:06 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

That, you are confused. There are a great many circumstances when someone can shoot someone else without a trial. That is why cops carry guns. You could well be concerned about your rights should you ever engage in war against the US. In sum, you LEGALLY lose your rights and your citizenship just by serving in an enemy army. This was not an assassination, it was a military strike against an enemy. [Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 5, 2011 at 6:18 am

svatoid is a registered user.

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 5, 2011 at 8:31 am

That User Name is already is a registered user.

"In sum, you LEGALLY lose your rights and your citizenship just by serving in an enemy army."

Where does it say that he loses citizenship in the constitution?

In civil code?

In the UCMJ?

Or does it just occur in the Uniform Code of Wallis "Justice"?

I do not understand Mr Wallis' lack of concern over the constitution that so many have defended over the years.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 5, 2011 at 8:41 am

svatoid is a registered user.

"I do not understand Mr Wallis' lack of concern over the constitution that so many have defended over the years."

Walter claims to be a patriot. Yet, he has so little regard for the Constitution. I guess he feels that the Constitution can be ignored when it does not fit his right-wing agenda.

By the way, That User Name is already, good one about the Uniform Code of Wallis "Justice"!!


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 5, 2011 at 6:09 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

So you would disarm the cops?
Close down the army and hire more lawyers?
Design all guns to first give the Miranda warning?
Besides, why all of a sudden the lives of Americans become more valuable than those of foreigners?
That loss of citizenship is somewhere other than in my imagination.
But a war is still different from a crime.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 6, 2011 at 10:27 am

That User Name is already is a registered user.

Mr Willis is desperate to change the tone of the debate to police defending themselves in a deadly force situation because he lost his other point.

WW: "That loss of citizenship is somewhere other than in my imagination."

WW: "In sum, you LEGALLY lose your rights and your citizenship just by serving in an enemy army." So...

Where does it say that he loses citizenship in the constitution?

In civil code?

In the UCMJ?

Mr Wallis doesn't seem to understand the constitution protects us as American citizens from big government making decisions without due process.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 7, 2011 at 1:48 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Mr.That user does not seem to understand due process. In times of war, due process can take seconds.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 7, 2011 at 9:50 am

That User Name is already is a registered user.

WW: "In times of war, due process can take seconds." Much like how a bar fight can turn into murder in a couple seconds. Speed does not make it legally correct. Nor does war legally allow criminality by our American government.

WW: "In times of war, due process can take seconds." Not with an American citizen, while upholding the constitution.

WW: "That loss of citizenship is somewhere other than in my imagination."

WW: "In sum, you LEGALLY lose your rights and your citizenship just by serving in an enemy army." So...

Where does it say that he loses citizenship in the constitution?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 7, 2011 at 12:33 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

"U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only "in time of war");
Conviction for an act of treason."

GOOD ENOUGH FOR YOU?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 7, 2011 at 1:41 pm

That User Name is already is a registered user.

Would like a link to your source.

Even so, did any of the above occur?

WW: "U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:..."

Was his citizenship revoked? No.

The government murdered an American citizen without due process.

You seem to be a small government libertarian type.

What don't you get about the constitution? or is the constitution just a sign of too much "big government" to you?


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 7, 2011 at 5:18 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I Googled it. Anybody else can, too.
The Constitution is the foundation of our law, not the totality of it.
If you, Mr. That User Name, should ever go riding with some traitor, you risk becoming collateral damage, deservedly so. Citizenship is a two way street.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 7, 2011 at 5:30 pm

That User Name is already is a registered user.

I did google it, saw some parts of that your post, but not in entirety in that form - that's why I'd love to see your source.

Even so - you continue to ignore the reality of the situation, as well as the gravity.

"Was his citizenship revoked? No.

The government murdered an American citizen without due process."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 8, 2011 at 4:56 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Due process in this case was a determination that death was the only way to stop the war planning of this particular man. This decision was made in the situation room, and was fully vetted by competent legal scholars.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 8, 2011 at 8:40 am

That User Name is already is a registered user.

"This decision was made in the situation room, and was fully vetted by competent legal scholars. "

probably one out of two: sure, it was likely made there.

How do we know it was made by "competent legal scholars"? How do we know they obeyed the law?

How do we know that "competent legal scholars" won't decide another American citizen should be denied due process?

The law on due process was the line. Now that our government feels they needn't bother with due process, where is the line now?

Do you KNOW where the line is, or just think you know? Or just hope?

"Was his citizenship revoked? No. The government murdered an American citizen without due process."


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

He got a lot more due process than that Permanente killer got.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 8, 2011 at 5:07 pm

svatoid is a registered user.

Another apples and oranges comparison from Walter--who by this time is once again grasping at straws trying to justify his twisted views.
The Permanente killer was armed and was confronting police. Had they been able to they would have captured him alive--they would not have executed him


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 9, 2011 at 4:47 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

Still, no trial. You are the one reaching at straws, svatoid. They could have surrounded him and waited him out. My "twisted" view is that sometimes people make due process difficult, but that does not make them immune from that process.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 9, 2011 at 10:20 am

That User Name is already is a registered user.

WW: my "...view is that sometimes people make due process difficult, but that does not make them immune from that process."

As per the rule of law, Reagan's executive order, the constitution and our understanding of due process.

We now know a 2nd American citizen was murdered in Yemen without due process.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 9, 2011 at 11:35 am

svatoid is a registered user.

"Still, no trial. You are the one reaching at straws, svatoid. They could have surrounded him and waited him out. My "twisted" view is that sometimes people make due process difficult, but that does not make them immune from that process."
Your comments, Walter, are truly ridiculous. Waited him out??? What about the neighbors and danger to other innocent citizens? Really, Walter, can't you come up with a better argument to try to justify your ridiculous stances?
He had the chance to surrender. Had he, he would have been captured by police. He chose an armed engagement. Your comments are even more surprising given your previous comments about obeying police and police being justified in hitting and shooting people when they do not obey them.
This person and his actions have nothing to do with the topic in this thread, Grasp at some more straws, you are sinking fast.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 9, 2011 at 3:24 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

If a bad guy is isolated and cannot escape, there is no imperative to kill him. I imagine that the site commander felt that it was best to shoot to kill, and I don't question him/her, but one could so question.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 9, 2011 at 3:36 pm

That User Name is already is a registered user.

Glad you settled the local police action.

What does that have to do with our government assassinating two American citizens without due process?

Against our laws, the constitution and Reagan's executive order forbidding the CIA from assassination of American citizens.

I do not understnad how a true conservative, a true libertarian or a true liberal can condone an action like that.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 10, 2011 at 1:09 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I guess you might say I am a tolerant conservative libertarian liberal.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by That User Name is already
a resident of another community
on Oct 10, 2011 at 10:28 am

That User Name is already is a registered user.

WW: "...I am a tolerant conservative libertarian liberal."

amended

WW is a tolerant conservative libertarian liberal who tolerates his big government disregarding the rule of law, the constitution and previous executive orders banning assassination, to murder it's own citizens without due process.

By Jove, I think we're getting somewhere, at least in fleshing out your identification.

Now we just need to keep our government from breaking the law.

And protect OUR civil rights.




 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 10, 2011 at 6:55 pm

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

This killing was absolutely legal. I cited my law, you cite something different.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Svatoid
a resident of Charleston Gardens
on Oct 10, 2011 at 7:21 pm

Svatoid is a registered user.

Note that walter cites what he calls "my law l. Not necessarily the law of the land. Walters interpretation of law depends on what right wrong cause he is supporting and/or which group he is attacking. That says it all.


 +   Like this comment
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis
a resident of Midtown
on Oct 11, 2011 at 8:24 am

Walter_E_Wallis is a registered user.

I call it my law because it was my cite as opposed to the vacuous wave of the Constitution. It was my cite of an attorney General's cite of the law of the land. While I don't always agree with the Attorney General, this time he had it right.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:


To post your comment, please click here to Log in

Remember me?
Forgot Password?
or register. This topic is only for those who have signed up to participate by providing their email address and establishing a screen name.

To Cambodia With Love
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 3,259 views

Early Campaign Notes: City Council
By Douglas Moran | 15 comments | 1,808 views

Life in fast forward
By Jessica T | 3 comments | 1,585 views

Medical
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,476 views

Vikram Chandra's "Geek Sublime" and 10/3 event at Kepler's
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 314 views