PostHeaderIcon The Slope Just Got Slicker

I have waited a few days for the smell of blood to dissipate before writing this. As we all know, a few days ago the Obamanation gave his thugs the green light to assassinate 2 American citizens – Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were killed by rockets fired from drone aircraft in Yemen.

Before I say anything else, let me assure you that I considered these people bad actors who were intent on killing as many Americans as they could. And, they probably deserved to be executed. But, because they were American citizens, any punishment should have come after due process was served – in a court of law. Our Constitution does not provide for the intentional killing of American citizens by any other process, save that of legitimate self-defense.

Before any of you loudly disagree – as have several I have discussed this with face-to-face, consider this: al-Awlaki was not killed in the heat of battle. Indeed, there is no suggestion he participated in any battles. What he did was to INFLUENCE others, using his position as Imam to amplify his voice. There is also a suggestion that he may have trained to so-called “underwear bomber” on the use of his bomb. If this is true, all it proves is that he should have left the training in better qualified hands. But back to the main point – his primary crime was convincing American (and other) young Muslims to attempt terrorist attacks in the name of Jihad. His primary weapon was his ability to convince.

If convincing others to do something that offends Barack Obama, is an acceptable basis for assassination without due process, what protects Rush Limbaugh? What protects TEA Party leaders? What protects bloggers like us? The obvious answer is that nothing does. Once a “leader” begins to operate outside the Constitution, none of us is safe. This process of incremental accumulation of deadly powers is exactly how a duly elected Chancelor of Germany became the killer of millions. Most all of his power grabs were initially cheered by people who should have known better.

Is this to be our fate? If you answer no, when do YOU start to do something about it??

Think about it.

Troy L Robinson

23 Responses to “The Slope Just Got Slicker”

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Well said, Troy; and I agree with your overall point. However, you will recall my ‘mismatcher’ mind, which is cursed to automatically seek out the differences and search for the hidden flaws, while the preponderance of folks are ‘matchers’ looking for the similarities, when comparing items, data, or ideas. Alas, I turned up a few; so bear with me.

    First, I challenge the premise that he was a U.S. citizen, at least at the time he was killed. Personally, I disagree with the interpretation of the 14th Amendment that automatically confers citizenship on anchor babies. Anwar al-Awlaki’s parents were foreign students here, subject to the jurisdiction of Yemen, when he was born a Yemeni citizen on our soil. They took him home as a young child, and raised him in their culture. When he chose to return here as a college student himself, he specifically did so on a student visa as a Yemeni citizen, in order to avail himself of scholarship money unavailable to U.S. citizens.

    Only after that gravy train was empty, did he assert his U.S. citizenship in order to remain here, to take up preaching for Allah. It was his ties to a couple of the 9/11 hijackers that culminated in a warrant for his arrest, and he split for home just ahead of the posse. He was living in Yemen as a Yemeni citizen, not a fugitive American citizen, when they zapped him, and openly actively preaching jihad against America for al Qaeda in English language videos and DVDs, which are still available all over the internet. His operational ties to the Ft. Hood massacre, the NYC car bomb plot, the underwear bomber plot, and the UPS airfreight bombing plot, seem well established.

    I have a real problem with the whole notion of ‘dual citizenship,’ which I find is patently un-American. One can have allegiance to only one country at a time. Clearly, at the time of his demise, he had no allegiance to America, and thus deserved none of the rights and privileges of an American citizen. One of those privileges is the presumption of innocence in a criminal court proceeding; but the lawyers have blown that notion up beyond common sense, to somehow suggest that we are required to grant an obvious perpetrator such presumption in the court of public opinion. Poppycock!

    I appreciate that in American jurisprudence, the state is required to prove guilt, rather than the defendant being obligated to prove his innocence as is the case elsewhere; but when half the town sees someone commit mayhem and murder, the witnesses are under no obligation to consider him innocent until he has been tried and convicted. In fact, there was a time in our not too distant past, when wanted posters offering a reward for such an offender’s body, ‘Dead or Alive,’ were routinely posted in the town square for dangerous outlaws, American citizen or not. What is the difference?

    Finally, as much as it irks me to defend the Obamunist, it seems to me that he was damned if he did and would have been damned if didn’t. Recall that Clinton was severely criticized for passing up similar opportunities to take out Bin Laden before 9/11. The CIA was actively pursuing him and had him in their sights several times; but couldn’t get approval from the WH to take action. Michael Scheuer, in his remarkably nonpartisan book,”Imperial Hubris” and in frequent interviews all over cable news, has been particularly damming of the Clinton administration on this point.

    We soon paid dearly for their timidity and adherence to legal niceties, toward a man who had unambiguously declared war on us, with 3,000 citizens lives. I would suggest that sooner or later, al-Awlaki would have succeeded in one of his plots, and if it had then been revealed that he had the opportunity to take him out and passed it up, BHO would have (rightly) been crucified for dereliction of duty. All that said, I see the slime on your slope, and we need to keep a very close watch on the un-American SOB illegally squatting in our WH. He is very inclined to exceed the authority of the office he has usurped; but in all honesty, I can’t fault him for this particular action. ◄Dave►

  • Troy says:

    Dave, you have made my point despite me not making it better myself. That point is that tyrants first create a new power by using it in a way that virtually everyone agrees with. The problem is that a precedent has then been set. I think it would be quite easy for all such as al-Awlaki to be tried and convicted in absentia, thus satisfying the legalities. Such a trial should be done well in advance of any opportunity to carry out the sentence.

    You well know from my past articles that I am very much against the spread of Islam by any means — even those considered “peaceful”. The stated goal of Islam is to impose itself on every person in the world, by whatever means is available.

    Having said that, I think the impending establishment of an “official” dictatorship in America is a much more immediate problem.

    Indeed, the two hazards I speak of may not be unrelated.

    As for the doings of Bill Clinton, I recall that the activities of the “first penis” and the fallout therefrom may have been more important to him than some terrorist.

    Troy

  • Trial says:

    “If convincing others to do something that offends Barack Obama, is an acceptable basis for assassination without due process, what protects Rush Limbaugh? What protects TEA Party leaders? What protects bloggers like us? The obvious answer is that nothing does. Once a “leader” begins to operate outside the Constitution, none of us is safe. This process of incremental accumulation of deadly powers is exactly how a duly elected Chancelor of Germany became the killer of millions. Most all of his power grabs were initially cheered by people who should have known better.”

    I REALLY wish a lot of conservatives would understand this! It’s not a simple matter of “terrorists must die.” After all, haven’t tea party members been called “terrorists” time and time again? I wonder if the government considers people like you and Dave “terrorists.” There are many problems with such a label.

    Now, Dave brings up some great arguments. However, I highly doubt that was the Obama Aministration’s mindset when they gave the green light for the assassination. This assassination sets a very alarming precedent, and I don’t think many Americans have been looking at the big picture.

  • I’ve posted a few links on this and The Atlantic article which Curtis posted asked the following question:

    “But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution’s restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers’ arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine.” What doesn’t he want to get out?

    To which I replied

    The fact that there is no legal justification, but by saying there is and keeping it secret, then he can kill me next for what ever reason he deems sufficient.

  • Daedalus says:

    The Constitution is the law of the land not the world, even though we might like that to be true. In general the question being raised is “how do we treat an active enemy combatant who also happens to be a US citizen.” On the battlefield you kill him, unless he surrenders. If he surrenders he can be given due process. Anwar had ample opportunity to surrender and chose to remain a combatant. This is what the government will do to you too if you flee to a foreign country and prosecute war against the US.

    • Trial says:

      “The Constitution is the law of the land not the world, even though we might like that to be true.”

      Who is “we”?

      “In general the question being raised is ‘how do we treat an active enemy combatant who also happens to be a US citizen.’

      Are you sure?

      “On the battlefield you kill him, unless he surrenders.”

      What is this “battlefield” you speak of?

      “If he surrenders he can be given due process.”

      This is VERY dangerous thinking.

      “This is what the government will do to you too if you flee to a foreign country and prosecute war against the US.”

      So, if you speak against the U.S. (specifically supporting war), you deserve to die? Granted, I understand what you’re trying to say, but I don’t think things are so cut-and-dry like you’re trying to portray.

      This is a very slippery slope the Obama administration is walking on. Now, if they gave a press release or speech similar to what Dave has written, it could be made much more understandable. As of now, however, I agree with Troy on this issue.

      This is not a simple matter of “terrorists should die.”
      What is a terrorist? Who is an enemy? Who deserves to die based on what grounds? Should Tea Party members be put to death if they leave the country (or if there still in the country for that matter?)

      I’m just curious of what exactly the precedent was/is when the assassination was carried out. Was the basis really like you and Dave have portrayed? You’re both not wrong in a sense, but I am very afraid of what was going on in the minds of those who ordered the assassination. Plus, I am forced to question whether the government will use this incident as precedent to “kill dissenters.” I’m trying to keep an open mind with this, but I can’t look at such a issue in black and white terms.

    • Troy says:

      Dae, while I always respect your well-thought-out opinions, in this case I must pose a question… by what logic can either Anwar al-Awlaki or Samir Khan have been considered to be on a battlefield or in actual battle?

      When you start to define words as weapons and the attempt to influence others as battle, then I repeat my original question… who is safe from a powerful entity who happens to not like what you say?

      The issue is not whether these men deserved to die. The issue is whether citizens of the United States of America are protected by the terms and conditions of their Constitution or whether we have become a government of men — one where the men (or women) in charge decide who lives and who dies.

      I say we just took a giant leap toward the dictatorship which has been the goal of the Obamanation since well before he took office.

      I will repeat my belief that this is a typical way that tyrants break down the rules that once constrained them — by using a situation than will not anger the people while they discard a rule of law. The problem is that we the sheeple seem to assume that in future, the rule will only be broken for those things the majority finds acceptable. The distance between the seemingly desirable flouting of established law and the rounding up of entire groups of people for slaughter is much shorter than most Americans seem to realize. In the end, it matters little whether offending groups are herded into concentration camps, gulags, or worked to death in rice fields. What matters is that a very few, headed by a tyrant, get to decide who dies, free of the restraint of established law.

      Surely you have seen those old films from the 1930’s where masses of misled Germans frantically cheered the impending loss of their freedom?

      Troy

      • ◄Dave► says:

        Again, it pains me to appear to be the advocate for the O’devil; but I do enjoy debate… 😉

        As explained above, I continue to reject your premise that al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen in good standing at the time of his demise, and deserved any more consideration than bin Ladin did, when he was assassinated by Seal Team Six on orders from the CinC. (For what it is worth, I was far more troubled by that action than this one, because they could have easily captured him. They knew where he was for months, had the house under constant surveillance, knew their were no guards, knew he had no modern communication capability with any operational forces, and the timing appeared to be solely politically motivated. The elaborate raid was completely unnecessary and pure political theater.)

        Be that as it may, I must ask, is Western Civilization at war with Radical Islam, or not? The Jihadis are damn sure at war with us. They are entirely unambiguous about it. Do we expect our CinC to defend us from these unconscionably brutal, unconventional warriors, or is that the job of jackbooted law enforcement officers and prosecutors in the DOJ?

        … by what logic can either Anwar al-Awlaki or Samir Khan have been considered to be on a battlefield or in actual battle?

        The same logic that would make a military barracks, flag officer’s compound, or supply convoy deep behind enemy lines, nowhere near a battlefield, a legitimate target in a traditional war. The same logic that permits us to rationalize our firebombing of the civilian populations of Dresden or Tokyo, or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki – to save both American lives, and the lives of even more innocent civilians in the long run.

        As to words being weapons, I would suggest that they are potentially among the most lethal, when in the employ of a skilled orator rousing the rabble. Charismatic leaders can inspire infinitely more mayhem by their followers, than they could possible execute by themselves. The same logic that permits me to summarily kill a rattlesnake in my garden, without the slightest hesitation or remorse, for no greater offense than buzzing his tail as a terroristic threat, could also be employed here.

        As for the ‘rule of law,’ I’ll repeat the point I made in my “Civil Disobedience” essay – there is no such thing in America anymore, if there ever was. As long as government functionaries are permitted to arbitrarily and capriciously decide which laws to enforce in whichever circumstances, or plea bargain a crime down to a lessor offense for the convenience of the courts, it is the individuals making those decisions who are ruling us, not the laws.

        To pretend that our Constitution is the immutable law of the land, which protects us from the designs of the tyrannical elites, who actually run this country, is delusional. The Constitution, as written by our Founders, has been defunct at least since the time of Lincoln. The mayhem done to it by Progressive politicians and judges, beginning in 1913, have reduced it to little more than the scaffolding that perpetuates their illegitimate rule over the sheeple of America. 90+% of the activities of the Federal government are patently unconstitutional.

        I will concede that the Obamunist has had designs on a dictatorship of the proletariat, with him at the top, from well before he convinced the dumb ass sheeple to hope for change to “fundamentally transform America” into a Marxist nanny state; but if you think he is by any means the first POTUS to ever issue a license to kill an American citizen, you are kidding yourself. Clinton alone, had a body count that ran several pages. I can’t imagine anyone who has ever read a spy novel, or watched a movie or TV program featuring the craft, not taking for granted that such things are done rather routinely.

        When deemed necessary to the security of the state, by those we are more or less required to entrust with such clandestine matters, what choice do we have? Personally, I don’t lose any sleep over that assumption, and might just do so in its absence. Needless to say, the potential for abuse abounds, and if anyone is compiling a list of contumacious bloggers, I am sure to be on it. That, of course, does not intimidate me in the slightest. There are a whole lot of red-blooded American Patriots on there with me, who are far more dangerous to their agenda than my feeble voice.

        The Obamessiah has awakened the sleeping giant Yamamoto spoke of. We outnumber and surround them. We can and would survive without their Progressive cities. They couldn’t last a week without shipments of our food. It may get a bit bloody before it is over; but if they are foolish enough to start it, we rednecks in flyover country will prevail in the end. Count on it. ◄Dave►

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Keeping an open mind on this is difficult indeed; but I am endeavoring mightily. I sure can see both sides of the argument. Like the waterboarding issue, I just can’t seem to get past the notion that we must wait for an avowed enemy to actually harm our families and neighbors, before taking preventative action. (See my old “Urban Varmints” essay)

    Meanwhile, the best article for Troy’s position I have read is:

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278845/assassin-chief-kevin-d-williamson

    Persuasive stuff… ◄Dave►

    • ◄Dave► says:

      Then again… my man Walter Russell Mead, author of “Special Providence” and the essay I often recommend, “The Jacksonian Tradition,” weighs in on my team:

      http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/10/01/obama-warrior-or-assassin/

      …it is all a matter of perspective. Are we at war with an enemy, or engaged in a law enforcement operation with a criminal enterprise? ◄Dave►

      • Troy says:

        I suggest a different perspective… Have we a government of laws or a government of men? My perspective is that we began with the former but are racing headlong toward the latter. Do we respect our Constitution, even when it protects people we don’t like or do we consider our Constitution so special that we apply it only on special occasions?

        I conclude that trying to support the Obamanation’s actions in this situation is like a woman trying to be just a little bit pregnant.

        Troy

  • rochnowski says:

    I fully agree with you Troy. The united States Constitution is the LAW of this nation. Barry Sotero (Barrack Hussein Obama) had absolutely no right under The Law to take any persons life with his own directive. In my opinion, he is doing his best to set up America – to accept this type of assassination – to make it acceptable to the masses of Americans… and he is using the media to continue the brainwashing of We The People… and using this particular young man was a win with many sheeple… Obama has a list of others they intend to continue this deadly work on, according to multiple news sources.

    A couple other video messages did a good job on this story in my opinion:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=vnem1Ohm3Q0

    and

  • Troy says:

    Again, it pains me to appear to be the advocate for the O’devil; but I do enjoy debate…

    Then, let us proceed with the debate. It is good mental exercise for us all…

    As explained above, I continue to reject your premise that al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen in good standing at the time of his demise

    I was not aware that US citizenship had degrees of “standing” that modified a citizen’s rights.

    (For what it is worth, I was far more troubled by that action than this one, because they could have easily captured him. They knew where he was for months, had the house under constant surveillance, knew their were no guards, knew he had no modern communication capability with any operational forces, and the timing appeared to be solely politically motivated. The elaborate raid was completely unnecessary and pure political theater.)

    I totally agree and I think the Obamanation should have been called to account.

    Be that as it may, I must ask, is Western Civilization at war with Radical Islam, or not?

    Of course we are not. If we were, we would long since have eliminated Saudi Arabia rather than kissing their oil-stained butts.

    The same logic that would make a military barracks, flag officer’s compound, or supply convoy deep behind enemy lines, nowhere near a battlefield, a legitimate target in a traditional war.

    That was beneath you. Clearly, in a traditional war, all uniformed military are legitimate targets.

    The same logic that permits us to rationalize our firebombing of the civilian populations of Dresden or Tokyo, or nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki – to save both American lives, and the lives of even more innocent civilians in the long run.

    None of these events can be defended on any rational basis.

    As for the bombing of Dresden, General Patton repeatedly asked the supreme allied command to stop such bombings because they gave new fighting spirit to an army that was ready to give up.

    The nuclear attacks on Japan were crimes against humanity. All we had to do was drive the Japanese back to their home islands, then create a blockade. Japan is so resource poor it would have dropped to its knees in short order.

    Likewise, the firebombings had little or no military value. All of these bombings were nothing more than the satisfaction of bloodlust. If we allow ourselves to sink to the level of our enemies, what point is there in defending ourselves rather than simply joining them?

    To pretend that our Constitution is the immutable law of the land, which protects us from the designs of the tyrannical elites who actually run this country is delusional. The Constitution, as written by our Founders, has been defunct at least since the time of Lincoln. The mayhem done to it by Progressive politicians and judges, beginning in 1913, have reduced it to little more than the scaffolding that perpetuates their illegitimate rule over the sheeple of America. 90+% of the activities of the Federal government are patently unconstitutional.

    Sadly,, this is true. But, I make no such pretense. My position is that it is still possible to return to government per our Constitution, whether by changing the present course or by picking up the pieces after our collapse. Any and all of my efforts are to assist us in our return to Constitutional rule, and one way we do that is to insist that those we elect stop trampling on our laws and traditions. Our silence has long been taken as a form of consent.

    It is correct that (IMHO) Lincoln wrongly violated the constitution in his almost successful attempt to preserve the union.

    It is also correct that the dawn of the progressive age — in the late 1800’s — started a slide away from the constitution and toward socialism that has accelerated considerably in recent years, and without regard to the political party apparently in power.

    And, it may also be correct that there is not one damned thing I can do about it. But, there is no way I will ever concede that the likes of Obama, Clinton, Holder and a whole hedge of Bushes are acting in my interest or with my consent.

    Troy

  • ◄Dave► says:

    Well, Sir, since you reject my key premisses, regarding citizenship and war, there is little room left for debate on the initial question; but you have introduced some new ideas to chew on. First, let me clarify a couple of points:

    I was not aware that US citizenship had degrees of “standing” that modified a citizen’s rights.

    Not degrees; status – currently in effect, or not. Technically, our laws do not permit dual citizenship. A child born in America to foreigners, and raised as a citizen elsewhere, is deemed (incorrectly in my view) to have a ‘right’ to American citizenship, just as he has a right to the citizenship of his father’s home country; but to actually become an American citizen, upon reaching the age of majority, he must assert that right, and swear allegiance solely to America. Similarly, any American citizen, even a natural born one, has a right to renounce his citizenship and swear allegiance to a different country. Upon doing so, he loses his birthright, and the only way to regain U.S. citizenship would then be to become naturalized, just like any other foreigner.

    It is my contention that al-Awlaki effectively renounced his American citizenship, when he returned to live as a Yemeni citizen, and very publicly enlisted in the Jihadis’ war against his former country. You are free to disagree; but it is a very defensible position, which renders moot the question of ordering the assassination of an American citizen.

    That was beneath you. Clearly, in a traditional war, all uniformed military are legitimate targets.

    You can only find that beneath me, because you reject my premise that we are at war with these several million transnational Jihadis, organized on a principle other than that of a nationstate, who have formally declared war on us. Clearly, if we were to acknowledge being at war with these barbaric suicidal warriors, they too would be fair targets wherever we found them, whatever activity they were engaged in; not just on the ‘battlefield,’ which was your challenge. You seem to wish to discount al-Awlaki’s activities as only akin to free speech. I submit that the studios of Tokyo Rose or Axis Sally, would have been prime legitimate bombing targets during WWII. Even (and especially) with any of the various traitorous American citizens sitting at the microphone at the time, who were subsequently convicted of treason after the war, their Constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech notwithstanding.

    None of these events can be defended on any rational basis. … If we allow ourselves to sink to the level of our enemies, what point is there in defending ourselves rather than simply joining them?

    Now it is my turn to be dismayed to see this lame suicidal argument coming from you. This is precisely the mentality that causes me frequently to lament that there is nothing we can do, that we will permit ourselves to do, to prevent the ultimate victory of Islam over Western Civilization (see my Dark Ages II essay). I for one, haven’t the slightest interest in obtaining a prayer rug, and for some strange reason, it seems important to me that my grandchildren’s grandchildren not be compelled to bow toward Mecca five times a day, with their ignoble asses in the air, while praying to Allah – in Spanish! If this requires fighting fire with fire, please pass me the matches.

    There is nothing civilized about street fighting or warfare, nor should such be attempted. Queensberry Rules are for sport, and lethal warfare should never be engaged in for sport. Civilized behavior is to avoid fighting, as often as possible. Human behavior being what it is, when dealing with less civilized brutes, this is not always possible. They tend to function on the basic instincts of pleasure and pain; and when they perceive the outcome to likely be more pleasurable than painful, they are as likely as not to attack on the slightest provocation, rationale, or whim.

    When attacked by a brute, whether in a street fight or warfare, one has two rational options; fight or flight. Flight may often seem prudent; but human nature being what it is, doing so is almost guaranteed to attract even more assailants in the future. The only rational way to fight when one must, is at full intensity, with the intent to utterly vanquish one’s opponent. Once begun, their is no substitute for decisive victory, and if one is unprepared to do what ever it takes to achieve it, one should have run away to begin with. For, only slightly less important than maximizing an assailant’s pain, to deter such foolish behavior in the future, is to convince any other brutes lurking about, that similar provocations would likely result in far more pain than pleasure, to accrue on their own balance sheet.

    My position is that it is still possible to return to government per our Constitution, whether by changing the present course or by picking up the pieces after our collapse. Any and all of my efforts are to assist us in our return to Constitutional rule, and one way we do that is to insist that those we elect stop trampling on our laws and traditions. Our silence has long been taken as a form of consent. …there is no way I will ever concede that the likes of Obama, Clinton, Holder and a whole hedge of Bushes are acting in my interest or with my consent.

    There is the rub, isn’t it? You know very well that my posture is the same, and I have openly refused to acknowledge Obama as my President from the day he was inaugurated. By extension, I recognize none of the appointments or any of the actions of the usurper as legitimate, or any bill he has signed as legally binding on anyone. When one combines this mess, with the fact that none of the so-called authorities will lift a finger to investigate, or dare to permit any judicial hearing of evidence of, his massive fraud, it becomes obvious that a course correction is nearly impossible. Add the national debt and unfunded liabilities, which our posterity couldn’t possibly pay, and it is going to have to be the scenario of picking up the pieces after our collapse.

    That collapse is going to be exceedingly ugly, painful, and bloody, as the entire world realigns, while we are distracted with our civil war. How long it will take is indeterminate; but I doubt that you and I will still be here, if and when the kids try to cobble what is left of America back together. This is just as well, because it won’t resemble anything like the idyllic place we grew up in back in the ’50s, which we probably unconsciously pine for. Our dream of restoring America, is only that – a dream. America will never again be the great nation it once was; but at best will devolve into several regional enclaves, because there is no other way to resolve the irreconcilable world-views, of the Cultural Marxists in the cities, and Constitutional Conservatives in the heartland.

    This is just as well, because then the massive loss of territory and resources won’t be so hard to swallow, for those whose region wouldn’t have included them anyway. Russia will undoubtedly retake Alaska, while Mexico retakes most of the Southwest. Hawaii and the Pacific Islands will go to Japan, and I wouldn’t be surprised if, led by the Chinese, the South American Marxists didn’t take back Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and even Florida. At the same time, China will be busy ‘buying’ most of our corporate farms, oil fields, and other natural resources, with the hard currency we will need to replace our worthless dollars for international trade.

    Meanwhile, the NWO banking crowd will be struggling mightily to stay on top of the shifting sands. They undoubtedly will succeed in the end, making the notion that America is an independent self-governing collection of individuals, as illusory as it is today. The sheeple will be as enslaved by personal credit then as now, and ripe for a whole new batch of panderers and demagogues selling government solutions to their problems… Argh… I am going to quit right here, before I vomit all over my keyboard…  ◄Dave►

    • Troy says:

      I don’t actually object to our defending ourselves and what is rightfully ours. However, I am troubled by the notion that whatever evil your enemy visits upon you justifies you to respond in kind (or worse). Once we accept this notion,the only standard left for us is that of the most viscous among us.

      I pride myself on my actions being (usually) driven by rationality, morality and ethics. If I surrender these for any reason, even my own survival, my life becomes pointless.

      This is the mindset that motivates my arguments in this matter.

      Troy

  • Daedalus says:

    War occurs when their is a cessation of rational behaviour by one or both of the parties. In the case of Al Qaeda they initiated and sustained the irrationality. When one fights a war one kills the enemy. No matter where he is found. Since time immemorial surrender has often been an option to death (although not always observed). This is because the surrendees are often a source of information or make good hostages. So called advanced countries set up nice rules (Geneva Convention) in an effort to remediate some of wars horrors. As far as I know Al Qaeda is not a signatory to that convention.
    I imagine we might negotiate with them if they wished, but not much chance of that considering the generally barbarous nature of Islam. There might be some enlightened Muslims, just like there were some enlightened Christians during the Inquisition. As far as the “battlefield” the enemy has already determined it is everywhere and anywhere. Not our choice.

  • Daedalus says:

    Just thought I would add a note.
    The Government can become irrational and war against its own citizens. History shows us Collectivist governments quite capable of this. Witness Nazi Germany, Socialist Russia & Communist China under Mao. Maybe this is what you fear Troy. Me too!
    Oh yes, slave labor is another “nice” use for prisoners of war.

    • Troy says:

      Maybe this is what you fear Troy. Me too!

      Let me try to explain what I fear. We know there are those who would take away what liberty we have left. I want to resist that in any way possible. However, if I allow the very basis of that liberty to be taken from me under the pretext of protecting it, what have I actually gained? Whatever the outcome of the struggle, I will have lost my liberty. If the outcome is to be the same regardless of which side “wins”, what is the point of killing each other?

      If, under either outcome, I am to lose my liberty, does it follow that I must also forfeit my integrity as well? Must I turn away from those principles from which my liberty flowed?

      I guess my overall point is that, in the heat of “battle”, with the smell of enemy blood in our nostrils, it becomes far too easy to forget exactly what we were fighting for to begin with. When that happens, the so-called “battle” simply becomes an exercise in slaughtering each other.

      As much as I relish life and liberty, it may be better to die trying than to live by becoming like that which you set out to defend yourself against.

      Troy

      • Daedalus says:

        I hear you Troy, but I am not sure that is what our framers intended with the Constitution. The site below has this take on the subject:

        http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/anwar_al-awlakis_comeuppance_and_the_framers_vision.html

        “When they created the Constitution, the Framers drew a distinction between enforcing criminal laws and combating rebellions, insurrections, and foreign attacks. The president’s powers as commander-in-chief and Congress’s war powers are not implicated by the former; they are concerned peculiarly with the latter.”
        &
        “The Constitution is more than simply the Bill of Rights — its basic configuration protects individual liberty in a number of ways. The constitutional authority to use lethal force against those who seek to destroy the United States and its people is a critical aspect of this liberty-protecting infrastructure.”

      • ◄Dave► says:

        That was an excellent article, John. Thanks for sharing it. Unfortunately, Troy has already rejected the premise that we are at war, so I doubt that it will be persuasive with him. I do think we need to sort out this definition of war business, and Congress’ continuously dodging their duty to declare war for the past 70 years.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Political Spectrum
Political Circle
Archives
Blogroll
Internal Links