The CIA does not have law enforcement capabilities. The CIA cannot serve a warrant to a US citizen suspected of treason(Al Awlaki was never charged with a crime or issued a warrant). So I'm not really sure how box's SWAT scenario fits into the killing of Al Awlaki. I guess it sounds like a plausible explanation, but it's not a very accurate analogy.
In Cissy's world, a terrorist has a gun to the head of a nun... FBI SWAT has a sniper on the roof with a clear shot of the terrorist... The sniper is waiting for the OK to shoot... The nun may be shot at any moment... THEN CICERO ARRIVES. He walks up to the terrorist with a warrant in hand and apologized to the terrorist for interrupting his murder, then hands him the arrest warrant. Cissy shouts to the sniper... "Its Ok To Shoot Him Now!" In the next ten seconds, the nun takes a round to the head, Cicero is shot in the back, and the sniper puts one right through the terrorists heart.
See... All nice and legal!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
In Cissy's world, a terrorist has a gun to the head of a nun... FBI SWAT has a sniper on the roof with a clear shot of the terrorist... The sniper is waiting for the OK to shoot... The nun may be shot at any moment... THEN CICERO ARRIVES. He walks up to the terrorist with a warrant in hand and apologized to the terrorist for interrupting his murder, then hands him the arrest warrant. Cissy shouts to the sniper... "Its Ok To Shoot Him Now!" In the next ten seconds, the nun takes a round to the head, Cicero is shot in the back, and the sniper puts one right through the terrorists heart.
See... All nice and legal!
Is that what happened? My understanding that Al Awlaki was on a kill list. Not sure listing the people you intend to execute is the same as a SWAT team making an in the moment life or death decision. But, maybe that's how SWAT works in your world.
Your scenarios are funny...hey, it sounds like the Bush/Cheney torture argument.
There is intelligence that a terrorist planted a bomb in the NYC subway. You captured a group of men in Yemen that are part of this terrorist organization(let's say Al Awlaki was one). And you have 1 hour before the bomb detonates. The CIA wants to interrogate Al Awlaki to get the information as quickly as possible to prevent the bomb from detonating and killing innocent Americans. What do you do box? A: waterboard Al Awlaki to try to get the information quickly? B: Ask him politely to tell you where the bomb is? C: Kill him, since he was on the presidents kill list anyways?
It's amazing how easy it is to justify killing or torturing people(including US Citizens) when you describe a Hollywood action movie plot.
You miss the point Cicero (on purpose of course). If your BFFL Awlaki had been apprehended, he would have stood trial for his crimes.
You are missing the point(on purpose of course), Al Awlaki could never be apprehended because a judge never reviewed the probable cause and issued a warrant. There was no attempt to legally apprehend him.
the war machine has no brain, the public accepts it as good and ok. the public doesn't understand the purpose as long as the public feels safe by words spoken by leaders. Game of Thrones, tell the public what it wants to hear and they don't care about all the crimes against humanity as long as it doesn't affect them face to face.
according to Box and friends (heroes) killing is justified by the war machine just for the simple fact that it exists. JUST LIKE THE IRS.
Quoted Text
go·lem noun \ˈgō-ləm, ˈgȯi-, ˈgā-\
Definition of GOLEM
1 : an artificial human being in Hebrew folklore endowed with life 2 : something or someone resembling a golem: as a : automaton b : blockhead Examples of GOLEM
...you are a product of your environment, your environment is a product of your priorities, your priorities are a product of you......
The replacement of morality and conscience with law produces a deadly paradox.
STOP BEING GOOD DEMOCRATS---STOP BEING GOOD REPUBLICANS--START BEING GOOD AMERICANS
You are missing the point(on purpose of course), Al Awlaki could never be apprehended because a judge never reviewed the probable cause and issued a warrant. There was no attempt to legally apprehend him.
Box does not understand that by defending execution and collateral deaths(executions), he is defending terrorism instead of due process.
Every soldier, cop and citizen should be outraged that rule of law has been replaced by barbarism.
Executions without a trial is not the American way.
It does serve one purpose only; to keep the other side of the story from being heard.
It also gives birth to new angry people that will seek retaliation.
You are missing the point(on purpose of course), Al Awlaki could never be apprehended because a judge never reviewed the probable cause and issued a warrant. There was no attempt to legally apprehend him.
Your BFFL was the target of Yemeni investigations. They had operations intent on capturing or if not possible, killing Al Awlaki. (Only a guess, but I imagine that our CIA was involved in that operation to CAPTURE) As posted above, capture would have been far preferable if possible, but if not, then killed.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Your scenarios are funny...hey, it sounds like the Bush/Cheney torture argument.
There is intelligence that a terrorist planted a bomb in the NYC subway. You captured a group of men in Yemen that are part of this terrorist organization(let's say Al Awlaki was one). And you have 1 hour before the bomb detonates. The CIA wants to interrogate Al Awlaki to get the information as quickly as possible to prevent the bomb from detonating and killing innocent Americans. What do you do box? A: waterboard Al Awlaki to try to get the information quickly? B: Ask him politely to tell you where the bomb is? C: Kill him, since he was on the presidents kill list anyways?
It's amazing how easy it is to justify killing or torturing people(including US Citizens) when you describe a Hollywood action movie plot.
This is an easy one (at least for me). Obviously B Just ask John McCain (an expert on torture), he will tell you that torture doesn't work Waterboarding, even hundreds of times, is ineffective against a hardened terrorist like your BFFL.
Much of the information gained from HIGH LEVEL OPERATIVES was done by "B". It's the most reliable way to gain information from a hostile prisoner.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Your BFFL was the target of Yemeni investigations. They had operations intent on capturing or if not possible, killing Al Awlaki. (Only a guess, but I imagine that our CIA was involved in that operation to CAPTURE) As posted above, capture would have been far preferable if possible, but if not, then killed.
Legally, capture means something different than apprehend. Apprehend means in a lawful manner, for criminal charges. Capture requires no criminal charge. It had to be capture or kill, because the CIA does not apprehend.
Even if Al Awlaki was captured, he wouldn't have had a civil trial, he would have most likely been sent to Gitmo and maybe stood in front of a military tribunal. Or indefinitely detained.
It had to be capture or kill, because the CIA does not apprehend.
Cissy... ya just can't keep on making up facts like this!
Apprehend: verb to take into custody; arrest by legal warrant or authority.
Now Cissy will tell you that the CIA has no "AUTHORITY" Remember Cicero... I showed you the AUTHORITY yesterday? Have you forgotten already?
Quoted Text
The CIA has three traditional principal activities... ~ gathering information about foreign governments, corporations, and individuals; ~ analyzing that information, along with intelligence gathered by other U.S. intelligence agencies, in order to provide national security intelligence assessment to senior United States policymakers; ~ and, upon the request of the President of the United States, carrying out or overseeing covert activities and some tactical operations by its own employees, by members of the U.S. military, or by other partners.
Quoted Text
The Supreme Court has long "made clear that a state of war is not a blank check for the President when it comes to the rights of the Nation's citizens." Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 536 (2004); Youngstown Sheet Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 578, 5 87 (1952). But the Court's case law and longstanding practice and principle also make clear that the Constitution does not prohibit the Government it establishes from taking action to protect the American people from the threats posed by terrorists who hide in faraway countries and continually plan and launch plots against the U.S. homeland. The decision to target Anwar al-Aulaqi was lawful, it was considered, and it was just.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cissy... ya just can't keep on making up facts like this!
Apprehend: verb to take into custody; arrest by legal warrant or authority.
Now Cissy will tell you that the CIA has no "AUTHORITY" Remember Cicero... I showed you the AUTHORITY yesterday? Have you forgotten already?
I said the CIA has no law enforcement capabilities. They do not arrest by legal warrant or authority. That's why it's a capture and kill list, not a apprehend and kill list.
Your argument is that ANY US citizen can be CAPURED OR KILLED based on the sole decision of the president without any judicial oversight. US citizens have ZERO legal protection.
Hmmm...What would George Bush do with the power to kill US citizens without judicial oversight? We already know he'd torture people.
Legally, capture means something different than apprehend. Apprehend means in a lawful manner, for criminal charges. Capture requires no criminal charge. It had to be capture or kill, because the CIA does not apprehend.
Even if Al Awlaki was captured, he wouldn't have had a civil trial, he would have most likely been sent to Gitmo and maybe stood in front of a military tribunal. Or indefinitely detained.
How do you expect to be tKen seriously ? You are a filosopher . You just like to argue . You mean Box is just missing some notorizes paperwork ? Are you really that obsessed with the letter of the law ?
How do you expect to be tKen seriously ? You are a filosopher . You just like to argue . You mean Box is just missing some notorizes paperwork ? Are you really that obsessed with the letter of the law ?
No, he's obsessed with playing Cissy games.
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
How do you expect to be tKen seriously ? You are a filosopher . You just like to argue . Are you really that obsessed with the letter of the law ?
I don't think about whether I'm taken seriously. That really doesn't concern me.
BTW, politics is the debate of ideas and the philosophy of governance. That may be a little too complex for you. I know you, and box, and Joey have no problem with executing a citizen charged with no crime, without having a chance to defend themselves against those charges. It's a little too close to the letter of the law for you. You celebrate his death along with celebrating the death of due process, probable cause, judicial oversight, and the right to defend yourself against those charges in a court of law.
At least you're honest sombody, you admit that it doesn't matter if the letter of the law is followed, and lawlessness is just a way of life now, and judicial oversight is an antiquated system of government. Only if Box and Joey would admit that.
Cissy... ya just can't keep on making up facts like this!
Apprehend: verb to take into custody; arrest by legal warrant or authority.
Try the Black's Law dictionary, since we are talking about legality. You need to do some brushing up.
In practice. The seizure, taking, or arrest of a person on a criminal charge. The term “apprehension” is applied exclusively to criminal cases, and “arrest” to both criminal and civil cases
Law Dictionary: What is APPREHENSION? definition of APPREHENSION (Black's Law Dictionary)
Logged
