Quoted from Box A Rox

Fear driven politics... and you all seem to fall for it.  

You support assassinating U.S. citizens and trampling the Rule of Law and due process because of fear.  You support indefinate detainment of U.S. citizens as you wipe your a** with the Constitution out of fear.  

Fear politics would be using fear in order to persuade the people to bend to the demands of the state for a promise of safety in return.  This is just OPPOSITE of fear politics.  This is citizens pointing out the states use of a manufactured fear to take away liberty and freedom.  You seem to not understand the difference between politics and populism.

Quoted from CICERO

You support assassinating U.S. citizens and trampling the Rule of Law and due process because of fear.  You support indefinate detainment of U.S. citizens as you wipe your a** with the Constitution out of fear.  
.

You support child beating, killing puppies, eliminating Christmas and a ban on baseball hats.  

Ya just make it up as you go along don't you.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Ya just make it up as you go along don't you.

No, I'm not making it up.  You've said you support the assassination of U.S. citizens considered "terrorists" and charged and convicted of "terrorism" by a secret panel inside the executive branch, and not by a jury of peers.  We've had this debate on the Al Awalaki thread.  You fully supported and defended Obama's decision to carryout missile strikes against Al Awalaki and his son.  Then you tried to equivocate it to some supposed Bush ordered assassination.  You said ignoring the 4th Ammendmen was justified because you FEARED that it was an imminent threat, and that Al Awalaki(the "terrorist") was in the process of carrying out attacks targeting Americans.

There are cases that most Americans support the "assassination of U.S. citizens".  Usually when it is a great danger to
the rest of society and there is no other method of capturing the threat safely.

Every SWAT kill in a kidnap scenario, is an "assassination of U.S. citizens".  Police will capture the assailant if possible, but
when the danger to police or surrounding civilians is too great, a kill shot is approved.

In almost all cases, a safe capture is preferable but on rare occasions "assassination of U.S. citizens" (as you put it) is
acceptable.

Quoted from Box A Rox

Every SWAT kill in a kidnap scenario, is an "assassination of U.S. citizens".  Police will capture the assailant if possible, but when the danger to police or surrounding civilians is too great, a kill shot is approved.

In almost all cases, a safe capture is preferable but on rare occasions "assassination of U.S. citizens" (as you put it) is acceptable.

Are you comparing the actions of an ordered assassination with a SWAT team that is in most cases acting with a SEARCH WARRANT issued by a JUDGE, based on evidence that a LAW was violated?  Do you see how ALL THREE BRANCHES of government check each other in the SWAT example?    

Yemen is 6926 miles from NYC, I wouldn't consider Al Awalaki a imminent threat to America.  

Believe what we tell you Cicero or we will send you to Siberia. You're not being a very good Comrade and are causing people to think which can be dangerous to the government.

Quoted from CICERO

Are you comparing the actions of an ordered assassination with a SWAT team that is in most cases acting with a SEARCH WARRANT issued by a JUDGE, based on evidence that a LAW was violated?  Do you see how ALL THREE BRANCHES of government check each other in the SWAT example?    
Yemen is 6926 miles from NYC, I wouldn't consider Al Awalaki a imminent threat to America.  

You always get it wrong.  

A kidnap victim is in imminent danger of being killed by their kidnapper...  Police on the scene, usually with out a
SEARCH WARRANT, and often with little time to decide weather to shoot the assailant, will sometimes shoot to kill
when it is deemed necessary.
These actions are usually only used when all other means of capture don't apply, or when there is imminent danger
to the police, the victim, or nearby civilians.

There are often non lethal means to subdue the criminal or terrorist, but when those means cannot be used or would
endanger our police, military, or civilians, then occasionally, a kill would be appropriate.

Had authorities known that  Right Wing Nut terrorist, Timothy McVeigh, was on his way to blow up a government
building in Oklahoma City, and as he approached the building,  he was shot and killed by a SWAT team his shooting
likely would have been justified.

(You remember Timothy McVeigh don't yo Cic?  You consider him a hero revolutionary... Most Americans see him as
a terrorist.)

Quoted from CICERO

Yemen is 6926 miles from NYC, I wouldn't consider Al Awalaki a imminent threat to America.  

I'm sure you wouldn't consider Osama Bin Laden an imminent threat to America on Sept 10, 2001 either... Regardless
of his citizenship.

Quoted from Box A Rox

A kidnap victim is in imminent danger of being killed by their kidnapper...  Police on the scene, usually with out a  SEARCH WARRANT, and often with little time to decide weather to shoot the assailant, will sometimes shoot to kill when it is deemed necessary. These actions are usually only used when all other means of capture don't apply, or when there is imminent dangerto the police, the victim, or nearby civilians.

That's great!!  I agree with you in this instance.  Of course, when there is probable cause and imminent danger, police act without search warrants to save the greatest number of innocent lives.  BUT...What you also forget, they are still LEAGALLY held accountable to prove probable cause to justify the actions.  If probable cause isn't met, the police are held legally responsible for illegal actions.  

Remember those college kids sitting arm and arm during an occupy protest and the police were pepper spraying them?  Did they have the authority to inflict harm on those protesters?  

Please tell me what evidence of probable cause the president put forward to justify the execution of Al Awalaki.  I tell you what evidence – NONE!!!  And you have NO PROBLEM with that, because you feel SAFE.  

FEAR, FEAR, FEAR...Who is practicing the politics of fear?  

Quoted from Box A Rox

I'm sure you wouldn't consider Osama Bin Laden an imminent threat to America on Sept 10, 2001 either... Regardless of his citizenship.

More boggiemen!!!  

Saddam
Gadaffi
Now Iran

More guns, more bombs, more laws, less liberty, less freedom.  You must give them up.  You must be scared.  Everybody is going to kill you.  And if you deny the state the power they need to keep you safe, and question the assault on your liberty, then you must not care about the victims of 9-11.  Always the State's trump card, the anti American guilt card.  

Hell, the Gulf of Tonkin justified the death of 50K+ Americans.  Keep believing Box.

Quoted from CICERO

Please tell me what evidence of probable cause the president put forward to justify the execution of Al Awalaki.  I tell you what evidence – NONE!!!  And you have NO PROBLEM with that, because you feel SAFE.  

I would have had no idea of any 'probably cause' regarding Osama Bin Laden  before his Sept 11th attack...
So 'probably cause' regarding  Al Awalaki and  Bin Laden is equal.

Quoted from Box A Rox

I would have had no idea of any 'probably cause' regarding Osama Bin Laden  before his Sept 11th attack...
So 'probably cause' regarding  Al Awalaki and  Bin Laden is equal.

What do you mean?  Bin Laden was indicted by a Grand Jury after the first world trade center bombing in 1993.  The state actually brought charges against Bin Laden in NYC.

Quoted from CICERO

More boggiemen!!!  
Saddam
Gadaffi
Now Iran

Saddam was never a threat... but Right Wing Conservative fear killed him and 4400+ Americans in Iraq.
Gadaffi??? IMO was not a threat to the USA.  
Iran???  The only sounds of war with Iran comes form the Right Wing Fear Mongers.

Quoted from CICERO

What do you mean?  Bin Laden was indicted by a Grand Jury after the first world trade center bombing in 1993.  The state actually brought charges against Bin Laden in NYC.

So it would be acceptable to kill BinLaden just because he was charged (not found guilty) of crimes in the USA???
Where is your "Rule of Law"... your "Trampling on the Constitution"?

    

Quoted from Box A Rox

Saddam was never a threat... but Right Wing Conservative fear killed him and 4400+ Americans in Iraq.
Gadaffi??? IMO was not a threat to the USA.  
Iran???  The only sounds of war with Iran comes form the Right Wing Fear Mongers.

You still believe the left vs. right thing?  I don't know if I can even debate people that still are naive enough to believe there is a difference.  Obama has followed the same foreign policies of GWB but somehow it isn't the same.  He is detaining people in Gitmo, increased troop levels in Afghanistan, sitll in Iraq, bombed Libya, deployed combat troops to Central Africa, and assassinated U.S. citizens.  Yet he's different...It's TOOOOO funny.

LBJ took America to Vietnam based on fake war propaganda, but still...Democrat = Good and Republican = Bad.  Clinton bombed Bosnia to advance an oil pipeline, but was justified because we were fighting against "ethnic cleansing"(which we don't care about in the Sudan).