US Military Dictatorship?

[tooner 243]

In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality.

 

But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html

 

quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first.

 

 

OH FUCK...here we go....

 

you think otherwise leftie boy ?

 

National security is an important thing lad. Shame you appear to think otherwise.

 

 

especially when it quashes the rights and freedoms we are trying to protect.....

 

....leftie boy....

 

no. It is National security.Don't you trust him ?

 

 

speaking in tongues now...clearly lost the plot

 

oh dear.

 

 

 

maybe of you read something it might help....try the declaration of independance and the associated amendments to it

 

 

Forget it son. I realise that you liberal-minded people think they should tell you and you're naturally inquisitive [or just nosey bastards] and envious you aren't privy to it, but the point is that someone has decided there is an issue of National Security in there somewhere, and like it or not, for that reason they quite rightly aren't going to tell you what it is.

 

Basic stuff.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

In response to the lawsuit filed by Anwar Awlaki's father asking a court to enjoin the President from assassinating his son, a U.S. citizen, without any due process, the administration late last night, according to The Washington Post, filed a brief asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the claims. That's not surprising: both the Bush and Obama administrations have repeatedly insisted that their secret conduct is legal but nonetheless urge courts not to even rule on its legality.

 

But what's most notable here is that one of the arguments the Obama DOJ raises to demand dismissal of this lawsuit is "state secrets": in other words, not only does the President have the right to sentence Americans to death with no due process or charges of any kind, but his decisions as to who will be killed and why he wants them dead are "state secrets," and thus no court may adjudicate their legality.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000142405...3152390778.html

 

quite right too. If there is a reason to do with National Security, then that comes first.

 

 

OH FUCK...here we go....

 

you think otherwise leftie boy ?

 

National security is an important thing lad. Shame you appear to think otherwise.

 

 

especially when it quashes the rights and freedoms we are trying to protect.....

 

....leftie boy....

 

no. It is National security.Don't you trust him ?

 

 

speaking in tongues now...clearly lost the plot

 

oh dear.

 

 

 

maybe of you read something it might help....try the declaration of independance and the associated amendments to it

 

 

Forget it son. I realise that you liberal-minded people think they should tell you and you're naturally inquisitive [or just nosey bastards] and envious you aren't privy to it, but the point is that someone has decided there is an issue of National Security in there somewhere, and like it or not, for that reason they quite rightly aren't going to tell you what it is.

 

Basic stuff.

 

 

that's how it works son. Like it or not, that's how it works. Simple as that.

[ewerk 26505]

 

Forget it son. I realise that you liberal-minded people think they should tell you and you're naturally inquisitive [or just nosey bastards] and envious you aren't privy to it, but the point is that someone has decided there is an issue of National Security in there somewhere, and like it or not, for that reason they quite rightly aren't going to tell you what it is.

 

Basic stuff.

 

 

And that should also prevent the judiciary from judging the legality of the executive's actions?

[LeazesMag 0]

 

Forget it son. I realise that you liberal-minded people think they should tell you and you're naturally inquisitive [or just nosey bastards] and envious you aren't privy to it, but the point is that someone has decided there is an issue of National Security in there somewhere, and like it or not, for that reason they quite rightly aren't going to tell you what it is.

 

Basic stuff.

 

 

And that should also prevent the judiciary from judging the legality of the executive's actions?

 

you don't know the reason for it do you ? Maybe they would find it is illegal, maybe they would agree there is a National Security issue. But if he has had bad advice from one of his advisors, then that person would be for the high jump. Quite rightly there too. That's also how it works. Like it or not, some things quite rightly don't get made public, but to compare it with a Stalinist regime is absurd.

[NJS 3986]

some things quite rightly don't get made public, but to compare it with a Stalinist regime is absurd.

 

What's the difference between a dictatorship like North Korea where the leader cannot be questioned by any means and a so called democracy where the leader cannot be questioned by any means?

[LeazesMag 0]

some things quite rightly don't get made public, but to compare it with a Stalinist regime is absurd.

 

What's the difference between a dictatorship like North Korea where the leader cannot be questioned by any means and a so called democracy where the leader cannot be questioned by any means?

 

you should read up on North Korea, or better still, try to go there and see for yourself the difference

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea

[NJS 3986]

some things quite rightly don't get made public, but to compare it with a Stalinist regime is absurd.

 

What's the difference between a dictatorship like North Korea where the leader cannot be questioned by any means and a so called democracy where the leader cannot be questioned by any means?

 

you should read up on North Korea, or better still, try to go there and see for yourself the difference

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea

 

I'm sure Amnesty have a huge file on the USA - try reading about the Patriot Act for starters.

[ewerk 26505]

 

Forget it son. I realise that you liberal-minded people think they should tell you and you're naturally inquisitive [or just nosey bastards] and envious you aren't privy to it, but the point is that someone has decided there is an issue of National Security in there somewhere, and like it or not, for that reason they quite rightly aren't going to tell you what it is.

 

Basic stuff.

 

 

And that should also prevent the judiciary from judging the legality of the executive's actions?

 

you don't know the reason for it do you ? Maybe they would find it is illegal, maybe they would agree there is a National Security issue. But if he has had bad advice from one of his advisors, then that person would be for the high jump. Quite rightly there too. That's also how it works. Like it or not, some things quite rightly don't get made public, but to compare it with a Stalinist regime is absurd.

 

And why shouldn't the judiciary get to rule on it?

[LeazesMag 0]

some things quite rightly don't get made public, but to compare it with a Stalinist regime is absurd.

 

What's the difference between a dictatorship like North Korea where the leader cannot be questioned by any means and a so called democracy where the leader cannot be questioned by any means?

 

you should read up on North Korea, or better still, try to go there and see for yourself the difference

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea

 

I'm sure Amnesty have a huge file on the USA - try reading about the Patriot Act for starters.

 

Not really bothered about such Liberal rubbish. Sorry. So far as I am concerned, if there is an issue of National Security I believe the Americans far more than I do tinpot dictators and banana republics

[LeazesMag 0]

 

Forget it son. I realise that you liberal-minded people think they should tell you and you're naturally inquisitive [or just nosey bastards] and envious you aren't privy to it, but the point is that someone has decided there is an issue of National Security in there somewhere, and like it or not, for that reason they quite rightly aren't going to tell you what it is.

 

Basic stuff.

 

 

And that should also prevent the judiciary from judging the legality of the executive's actions?

 

you don't know the reason for it do you ? Maybe they would find it is illegal, maybe they would agree there is a National Security issue. But if he has had bad advice from one of his advisors, then that person would be for the high jump. Quite rightly there too. That's also how it works. Like it or not, some things quite rightly don't get made public, but to compare it with a Stalinist regime is absurd.

 

And why shouldn't the judiciary get to rule on it?

 

Take it up with the President. If they say there is a National Security issue only for the eyes of certain people, then that is how it is and there will be a reason for it. This is the system and you aren't going to change it, just because you want to know. Has it crossed your mind that if you were told, you might agree, and then realise somewhere down the line someone has been compromised or has suffered a misjustice through it being made public and then understand why it should have been kept secure ?

Edited September 27, 2010 by LeazesMag

[ewerk 26505]

 

Forget it son. I realise that you liberal-minded people think they should tell you and you're naturally inquisitive [or just nosey bastards] and envious you aren't privy to it, but the point is that someone has decided there is an issue of National Security in there somewhere, and like it or not, for that reason they quite rightly aren't going to tell you what it is.

 

Basic stuff.

 

 

And that should also prevent the judiciary from judging the legality of the executive's actions?

 

you don't know the reason for it do you ? Maybe they would find it is illegal, maybe they would agree there is a National Security issue. But if he has had bad advice from one of his advisors, then that person would be for the high jump. Quite rightly there too. That's also how it works. Like it or not, some things quite rightly don't get made public, but to compare it with a Stalinist regime is absurd.

 

And why shouldn't the judiciary get to rule on it?

 

Take it up with the President. If they say their is a National Security only for the eyes of certain people, then that is how it is and there will be a reason for it.

 

Oh I agree, there's a reason for it, that reason is that Obama doesn't want his murky actions to be publicly scrutinised.

 

There's a thing called checks and balances, most decent political systems have them.

[LeazesMag 0]

 

Forget it son. I realise that you liberal-minded people think they should tell you and you're naturally inquisitive [or just nosey bastards] and envious you aren't privy to it, but the point is that someone has decided there is an issue of National Security in there somewhere, and like it or not, for that reason they quite rightly aren't going to tell you what it is.

 

Basic stuff.

 

 

And that should also prevent the judiciary from judging the legality of the executive's actions?

 

you don't know the reason for it do you ? Maybe they would find it is illegal, maybe they would agree there is a National Security issue. But if he has had bad advice from one of his advisors, then that person would be for the high jump. Quite rightly there too. That's also how it works. Like it or not, some things quite rightly don't get made public, but to compare it with a Stalinist regime is absurd.

 

And why shouldn't the judiciary get to rule on it?

 

Take it up with the President. If they say their is a National Security only for the eyes of certain people, then that is how it is and there will be a reason for it.

 

Oh I agree, there's a reason for it, that reason is that Obama doesn't want his murky actions to be publicly scrutinised.

 

There's a thing called checks and balances, most decent political systems have them.

 

That may well be. It also may not. Not everything is a Watergate, just like every football club carrying a debt isn't a Leeds.

Edited September 27, 2010 by LeazesMag

[NJS 3986]

Not really bothered about such Liberal rubbish.

 

 

The liberal rubbish that forms the basis of the article on NK you Linked to?

 

So far as I am concerned, if there is an issue of National Security I believe the Americans far more than I do tinpot dictators and banana republics

 

 

Because they have absolutely no history of lying do they?

 

What would be your limits - how many people would they be allowed to kill before you said hang on there's something not quite right here - 10, 100 - a thousand - more?

[LeazesMag 0]

Not really bothered about such Liberal rubbish.

 

 

The liberal rubbish that forms the basis of the article on NK you Linked to?

 

So far as I am concerned, if there is an issue of National Security I believe the Americans far more than I do tinpot dictators and banana republics

 

 

Because they have absolutely no history of lying do they?

 

What would be your limits - how many people would they be allowed to kill before you said hang on there's something not quite right here - 10, 100 - a thousand - more?

 

I know who the good guys are. The bad guys wouldn't let you post what you say about them.

[tooner 243]

Not really bothered about such Liberal rubbish.

 

 

The liberal rubbish that forms the basis of the article on NK you Linked to?

 

So far as I am concerned, if there is an issue of National Security I believe the Americans far more than I do tinpot dictators and banana republics

 

 

Because they have absolutely no history of lying do they?

 

What would be your limits - how many people would they be allowed to kill before you said hang on there's something not quite right here - 10, 100 - a thousand - more?

 

I know who the good guys are. The bad guys wouldn't let you post what you say about them.

 

 

phew! what a relief, as long as YOU know.....

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

What's the difference between a dictatorship like North Korea where the leader cannot be questioned by any means and a so called democracy where the leader cannot be questioned by any means?

 

Maybe you'll learn about that if you get out of nappies and start attending a school of some description. For now I'd concentrate on learning to poop in the toilet, not in your pants, remember what mummy told you.

[Happy Face 29]

What's the difference between a dictatorship like North Korea where the leader cannot be questioned by any means and a so called democracy where the leader cannot be questioned by any means?

 

Maybe you'll learn about that if you get out of nappies and start attending a school of some description. For now I'd concentrate on learning to poop in the toilet, not in your pants, remember what mummy told you.

 

 

As for your repeated and unwarranted ad hominem attacks on me, frankly there is no need for you to blow up like this. It shows a lack of tact on your part and a failure to deal with or even understand my points.

 

[LeazesMag 0]

Not really bothered about such Liberal rubbish.

 

 

The liberal rubbish that forms the basis of the article on NK you Linked to?

 

So far as I am concerned, if there is an issue of National Security I believe the Americans far more than I do tinpot dictators and banana republics

 

 

Because they have absolutely no history of lying do they?

 

What would be your limits - how many people would they be allowed to kill before you said hang on there's something not quite right here - 10, 100 - a thousand - more?

 

I know who the good guys are. The bad guys wouldn't let you post what you say about them.

 

 

phew! what a relief, as long as YOU know.....

 

coming from a yank wannabee ....

[Happy Face 29]

 

If only someone stopped Stalin before the first of those 20,000,000 eh?

 

I'm sure you agree this is an outrageous abuse of power and hope the others are right that the supreme court will reject it. I can understand you jumping on the jokey response to Leazes (the only response he warrants) as it's probably the only debatable thing in the thread.

 

Well, isn't that a shame. You are absolutely clueless HF, in your knowledge and awareness of the importance of National Security issues. I'm sure you haven't lived in the real world.....

 

Aye, your trust in the infallibility of leaders shows up my naiveté in the political arena and no mistake.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Happy Face

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

HF has been playing too much Xbox and doing too much DIY to even comprehend reality anymore. He's like a dull piece of plankton floating round aimlessly in a sea of liberal gibberish. It's easy to be condescending to these types so I will give him some real advice: get a job - be realistic and go for menial entry level stuff - it will be hard but it will open your eyes, there is a whole world out there.

[Happy Face 29]

HF has been playing too much Xbox and doing too much DIY to even comprehend reality anymore. He's like a dull piece of plankton floating round aimlessly in a sea of liberal gibberish. It's easy to be condescending to these types so I will give him some real advice: get a job - be realistic and go for menial entry level stuff - it will be hard but it will open your eyes, there is a whole world out there.

 

oh dear

[Kevin S. Assilleekunt 1]

I knew you wouldn't like that suggeston

[LeazesMag 0]

 

If only someone stopped Stalin before the first of those 20,000,000 eh?

 

I'm sure you agree this is an outrageous abuse of power and hope the others are right that the supreme court will reject it. I can understand you jumping on the jokey response to Leazes (the only response he warrants) as it's probably the only debatable thing in the thread.

 

Well, isn't that a shame. You are absolutely clueless HF, in your knowledge and awareness of the importance of National Security issues. I'm sure you haven't lived in the real world.....

 

Aye, your trust in the infallibility of leaders shows up my naiveté in the political arena and no mistake.

 

you've been reading the wrong books mate. Get into the real world.

[tooner 243]

Not really bothered about such Liberal rubbish.

 

 

The liberal rubbish that forms the basis of the article on NK you Linked to?

 

So far as I am concerned, if there is an issue of National Security I believe the Americans far more than I do tinpot dictators and banana republics

 

 

Because they have absolutely no history of lying do they?

 

What would be your limits - how many people would they be allowed to kill before you said hang on there's something not quite right here - 10, 100 - a thousand - more?

 

I know who the good guys are. The bad guys wouldn't let you post what you say about them.

 

 

phew! what a relief, as long as YOU know.....

 

coming from a yank wannabee ....

 

i don't even understand your response....must be my percieved lack of real world experience, or your lack of geographical knowledge, of course it could be that you are an internet forum sooopa poster that reverts to what he knows best (name calling and the like) when his side of the argument breaks down.

fact is ,either killing is bad or it isn't, it can't be ok for one side and not the other. either you're for it or you're not.

i am against killing period.

 

fact is LM you haven't a clue, in order to get one you'd need to open your eyes and your mind to the miriad of other cultures and points of view that exist on our planet....tbh i dont even know i'm wasting my effort with this.

Edited September 27, 2010 by tooner

[LeazesMag 0]

Not really bothered about such Liberal rubbish.

 

 

The liberal rubbish that forms the basis of the article on NK you Linked to?

 

So far as I am concerned, if there is an issue of National Security I believe the Americans far more than I do tinpot dictators and banana republics

 

 

Because they have absolutely no history of lying do they?

 

What would be your limits - how many people would they be allowed to kill before you said hang on there's something not quite right here - 10, 100 - a thousand - more?

 

I know who the good guys are. The bad guys wouldn't let you post what you say about them.

 

 

phew! what a relief, as long as YOU know.....

 

coming from a yank wannabee ....

 

i don't even understand your response....must be my percieved lack of real world experience, or your lack of geographical knowledge, of course it could be that you are an internet forum sooopa poster that reverts to what he knows best (name calling and the like) when his side of the argument breaks down.

fact is ,either killing is bad or it isn't, it can't be ok for one side and not the other. either you're for it or you're not.

i am against killing period.

 

fact is LM you haven't a clue, in order to get one you'd need to open your eyes and your mind to the miriad of other cultures and points of view that exist on our planet....tbh i dont even know i'm wasting my effort with this.

 

point is sunshine, you are a plastic yank coming on here trying to tell genuine lifelong supporters of the football club that have actively supported the club for anything between 20-45 years that you know better than we do.

 

You also insist you know more about the politics of the UK more than the majority of posters who have lived here and always have done to go with it.

 

You also are debating issues of National Security with me. You know fuck all about me, you know nothing of my backround or anything at all. You know nothing about my perception of the world, politics, cultures, how I have travelled. You know fuck all. What I do know about you though, is you are a plastic yank, like most Canadians. Like most Jocks who are English wannabees. You are the North American version of a mackem.

 

Killing is bad, but sometimes it is justified. Don't bother preaching to me that the killing of cunts who have terrorist links or even cunts who have sympathies with those who do active terrorism within the civilised western world from their caves in the middle east isn't justified, because it is.

 

Issues of National Security are basic common sense. You being a liberal minded tosspot, think you should be told certain things. But you should not. Certain things are highly confidential for a reason. If you don't agree then basically it's your tough luck. If you want to talk politics talk Canadian politics, not UK politics, because I for one don't give a shit what your opinions are of the UK if you have chosen not to live here and integrate into the community correctly.

Edited September 27, 2010 by LeazesMag