Jamal Khashoggi

[volfanhill]

The word "idiot" comes from the Greek noun ἰδιώτης idiōtēs 'a private person, individual', 'a private citizen'
Sounds more like the Trumpers mentality.

You should keep the name calling on hold. You didn't know about Obama and killing US citizens. How the hell does a adult not know about that? And when you think of your defense ask some questions. Even if you are ok with it, you have to agree, it's newsworthy.

 

[hog88]

One man's terrorist is another man's hero. It's always been that way.....in every conflict since the beginning of man.
I'm acutely aware of the hypocrisies of war and patriotism.

LOL

 

[NorthDallas40]

The word "idiot" comes from the Greek noun ἰδιώτης idiōtēs 'a private person, individual', 'a private citizen'
Sounds more like the Trumpers mentality.

Well that’s one version. Turns out ignorant is also in the origin. As usual you’ll twist it however you need to

 

[hog88]

That's just nuts. If someone becomes a functional combatant with a stated foreign enemy, they sacrifice the rights afforded Americans.

Is this codified somewhere?

 

[NorthDallas40]

You should keep the name calling on hold. You didn't know about Obama and killing US citizens. How the hell does a adult not know about that? And when you think of your defense ask some questions. Even if you are ok with it, you have to agree, it's newsworthy.

It’s because of this. As long as the private person uses this name I’ll allow it.

 

[NEO]

I'm comparing the suspect being shot by the cop without due process to the terrorist being killed in a drone attack without due process.

Drone strikes are done to non us citizens and do not fall under the constitution per say nor do they happen on us soil. Drone striking a us citizen without "cause" is against the law. You are delving into congressional powers bestowed to the president as commander in chief though and what is and isn't required to be authorized by congress. Your analogy is two completely different constitutional arguments.

 

[AM64]

According to the Oxford Dictionary you are a moron.

View attachment 354548

I particularly like the bit about "perhaps arising under the influence". That would explain a lot.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Drone strikes are done to non us citizens and do not fall under the constitution per say nor do they happen on us soil. Drone striking a us citizen without "cause" is against the law. You are delving into congressional powers bestowed to the president as commander in chief though and what is and isn't required to be authorized by congress. Your analogy is two completely different constitutional arguments.

And you just gave him an out that he will twist by saying “without cause”

So let’s clear that up now. The office of the President is not bestowed with the powers of acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury against a US citizen. That power is solely vested in the Judicial branch. The Executive branch indeed acts as prosecutor but has ZERO vesting in the determination of guilt and consequences.

 

[luthervol]

You should keep the name calling on hold. You didn't know about Obama and killing US citizens. How the hell does a adult not know about that? And when you think of your defense ask some questions. Even if you are ok with it, you have to agree, it's newsworthy.

In all honesty, I was probably aware of the story at the time; but It was 9 years ago and my memory sucks. I had absolutely no recollection of it today when it was brought up. I'm sure it was way overplayed on conservative news sources so it would be a much bigger story to some.
The crying wolf effect: Benghazi, e-mail, birther, Uranium 1, Vince Foster, Fast and furious, etc.....every time the right sees a mountain, I assume it's a molehill.

 

[luthervol]

Drone strikes are done to non us citizens and do not fall under the constitution per say nor do they happen on us soil. Drone striking a us citizen without "cause" is against the law. You are delving into congressional powers bestowed to the president as commander in chief though and what is and isn't required to be authorized by congress. Your analogy is two completely different constitutional arguments.

"without cause" is the biggie.

 

[volfanhill]

In all honesty, I was probably aware of the story at the time; but It was 9 years ago and my memory sucks. I had absolutely no recollection of it today when it was brought up. I'm sure it was way overplayed on conservative news sources so it would be a much bigger story to some.
The crying wolf effect: Benghazi, e-mail, birther, Uranium 1, Vince Foster, Fast and furious, etc.....every time the right sees a mountain, I assume it's a molehill.

The fact that you think, for the first time in our history, this was allowed to happen is ok speaks volumes. I learned more about your ignorance tonight then ever before. Also noticed you would be cool with Trump deciding who to whack. Congrats on being anti liberty.

 

[NorthDallas40]

And you just gave him an out that he will twist by saying “without cause”

So let’s clear that up now. The office of the President is not bestowed with the powers of acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury against a US citizen. That power is solely vested in the Judicial branch. The Executive branch indeed acts as prosecutor but has ZERO vesting in the determination of guilt and consequences.

Called it. Such a private person

"without cause" is the biggie.

 

[luthervol]

And you just gave him an out that he will twist by saying “without cause”

So let’s clear that up now. The office of the President is not bestowed with the powers of acting as prosecutor, judge, and jury against a US citizen. That power is solely vested in the Judicial branch. The Executive branch indeed acts as prosecutor but has ZERO vesting in the determination of guilt and consequences.

Unless that US citizen becomes a functional combatant with a stated foreign enemy, thereby placing themselves under the purview of the President as Commander and Chief.

 

[luthervol]

The fact that you think, for the first time in our history, this was allowed to happen is ok speaks volumes. I learned more about your ignorance tonight then ever before. Also noticed you would be cool with Trump deciding who to whack. Congrats on being anti liberty.

First time in history? Are you nuts?

 

[luthervol]

Called it. Such a private person

Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back.
It was a pretty obvious hole in his argument. Hell, even you saw it.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Don't pull a muscle patting yourself on the back.
It was a pretty obvious hole in his argument. Hell, even you saw it.

I saw you would falsely claim that and twist it which you did. POTUS cannot act as judge jury and executioner on a US citizen. Period. And GTFO

 

[volfanhill]

First time in history? Are you nuts?

Um did you not read what Obama signed off on? Are you stupid?

 

[hog88]

In all honesty, I was probably aware of the story at the time; but It was 9 years ago and my memory sucks. I had absolutely no recollection of it today when it was brought up. I'm sure it was way overplayed on conservative news sources so it would be a much bigger story to some.
The crying wolf effect: Benghazi, e-mail, birther, Uranium 1, Vince Foster, Fast and furious, etc.....every time the right sees a mountain, I assume it's a molehill.

How do you overplay a President ordering the execution of a US citizen without due process?

 

[Weezer]

How do you overplay a President ordering the execution of a US citizen without due process?

In luther's mind, it's always overblown if it reveals a Democrat doing something wrong. He's a loyal sheep. I'll give him that much.

 

[clarksvol00]

Now that we've established that we don't like Obama dropping a bomb on a citizen without court approval because he might be terrorist, can we get a show of hands on who approves the Saudis chopping a guy into little pieces because he wrote mean things about them in the newspaper?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Now that we've established that we don't like Obama dropping a bomb on a citizen without court approval because he might be terrorist, can we get a show of hands on who approves the Saudis chopping a guy into little pieces because he wrote mean things about them in the newspaper?

Sure. I’ll say they are dirt bags. I’ll also say it isn’t our business to exact punishment. If Saudi won’t do it then it falls on Turkey.

 

[clarksvol00]

Sure. I’ll say they are dirt bags. I’ll also say it isn’t our business to exact punishment. If Saudi won’t do it then it falls on Turkey.

I agree to some extent, but I'm curious to know what we're sending to the Saudis in terms of weapons/money/etc. If we complain about China or Russia or whoever else on human rights we need to complain about the house of saud too.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I agree to some extent, but I'm curious to know what we're sending to the Saudis in terms of weapons/money/etc. If we complain about China or Russia or whoever else on human rights we need to complain about the house of saud too.

You won’t get an argument from most of us the House of Saud is trash as far as I’m concerned.

 

[luthervol]

How do you overplay a President ordering the execution of a US citizen without due process?

He was an Al-Qaeda terrorist plotting attacks on Americans. Once you become a functional combatant with a stated foreign enemy, you knowingly sacrifice your right to due process.

 

[clarksvol00]

You won’t get an argument from most of us the House of Saud is trash as far as I’m concerned.

Seems like everybody is more concerned with catching Luther with a "whatabout Obama's drone strikes" than the fact that we're big into* supporting a regime that cuts newspaper columnists into little pieces.

*(and have been)