Posted on 04/07/2010 7:24:39 AM PDT by kristinn
Already working on it...
So, Americans, with impunity, can engage in armed conflict in support of terrorist organizations against US forces, because the government bailed out AIG?
Wrong one...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSx7nZQC2VI&playnext_from=TL&videos=7jpfkKi1B5U
Right one...
US “re-verts” are not true muslimes and hence do not deserve the full citizen treatment. Only non American “middle eastern” looking muslims can be considered pure by The 0.
So, Americans, with impunity, can engage in armed conflict in support of terrorist organizations against US forces, because the government bailed out AIG?
No; that’s not at all what I was saying. What I was saying is that our government only ‘believes in’ laws and rules when it suits them.
You brought up the Hague convention as a matter of law [the definitions thereof] and I countered with another matter of law. The ‘enemy combatant’ designation is a misnomer [as regarding the Hague]; there are “lawful combatants” {uniformed soldiers} and “unlawful combatants” {what we’ve been calling ‘enemy combatants’}.
IE the ‘enemy combatants’ term, as used today, is an example of [our] government “playing the [word] game” with ‘legalese.’
I am with you bro.
Just limit it to who ever the President identifies as an islamic terrorist. Then is OK to kill them by executive fiat.
...and Joos. Them too - can't trust 'em.
...and wet backs. Them too - "Press One for english my a$$...
...and queers. Them too - damned perverts.
...and Irishmen. Them too - never liked any of 'em anyway.
Who else is on your list; and who's list are YOU on?
Not so simple is it?
Your resident Tyrant is no different from any other tyrant that has ever been and his end will necessarily have to be the same. CO
>Your resident Tyrant is no different from any other tyrant that has ever been and his end will necessarily have to be the same
As was written some time ago:
“The history [...] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states.”
I’ll see your 12,300 and raise you another 150 million whits on November 2nd!
scary!!!!
Maybe not but someone operating against American interests overseas and engaging in terrorism should be capped with extreme prejudice. Otherwise we are back to the premise that enemy combatants should be brought to trial.
Adam Gadahn should be waterboarded and killed
Thank you for doing my research for me, It pretty much proved my point.
I’m not usually snarky. I was just returning a snarky volley.
Your link also had the list of “in absentia” trials Laz posted to prove his point. considering the section that preceded the list, he was being more than a little misleading.
That order came straight from the bj in office at the time...as well as blatantly ignoring the Posse Comitatus Act. Janet Reno couldn’t do Waco on her own.
What happened to bj for that? NOTHING.
Precedence was set. Remember that they THOUGHT Gore would win the presidency. What do you suspect might have happened if he had?
Waco and Ruby Ridge set precedent. Bush kept his hands clean and just paved the road, but Bush isn’t president anymore...and abu has been systematically following clinton precedent since he first got the nomination.
It’s as if the intervening years of Bush never existed. He started right where bj left off.
Explain yourself, because you utterly suck in every way.
So Obama is against water on the head but approves assassination of US citizens?
You know what’s REALLY scary? How many people on this thread have to mentally edit their remarks for fear the wrong people might be watching?
And you know they are....
Kennedy. Thieu, leader of our ally, South Vietnam, 1 November 1963. How did that work out?
“Can’t trust Salon.”
That was my first thought. As juicy as this article is I shall wait to fully indulge.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.