State Department: Don't Invade Privacy of Al Qaeda Cleric on CIA Kill List

[thatsMRSc2u]

  Actually they are tax-payin employed AMERICANS who just dont agree with YOU.

  Why dont you two give it a rest..........

[Warph]

No.no,no. You missed my silly joke. Look at your last two words! Oh, never mind. I guess maybe you don't have a sense of humor after all, you just think other people should and them bristle at them? I guess we can only laugh when you make one. Never mind already. sheesh!

Sorry, Diane... I took it the wrong way.  I put in a lot of years with State and hate to see it crumble like it has the past two plus years .  This article really teed me off.... besides, Slappy beat me three straight in shuffleboard and I lost three beers to him.  Excuse me now while I go change my pants! 

[larryJ]

Warph, I can understand your feelings.  I worked for the Los Angeles Times most of my life and it was a great place to work.  Family owned and operated.....took good care of the employees.........etc.  Then when the Tribune bought it, it all started downhill fast.  It is a sick feeling to see a great corporation like that lay down and die.  I was glad to leave when I did.  I feel sorry for those who have been there for many years, but have not reached retirement age yet.  It's like hanging by the fingernails. 

While you are changing your clothes, be sure and shake all that dust out of them also.  Kudos to Slappy.

Larryj

[Anmar]

Diane is no more a liberal than I am...But it is easy to be labeled as such, by rightwing loonies...

Warph...As far as I'm concerned, people like that cleric have no rights.  Period.  If you present a possible threat to the stability of my country, you don't get to have the same rights as the rest of us who work every day to better this country and its outlook.

The guy is an american citizen, like it or not.  The constitution say he has certain inalienable rights.  That inalienable means you can't take them away.  It says those rights are given by God.  Once you violate the constitutional rights of a single individual, you are giving the government authority to violate everyone else's.  Its not a far reach to start declaring people on the far right as "domestic terrorists" and then start killing them.  As much as I disagree with the right wing wackos, I would still stand up for their rights. 

[srkruzich]

The guy is an american citizen, like it or not.  The constitution say he has certain inalienable rights.  That inalienable means you can't take them away.  It says those rights are given by God.  Once you violate the constitutional rights of a single individual, you are giving the government authority to violate everyone else's.  Its not a far reach to start declaring people on the far right as "domestic terrorists" and then start killing them.  As much as I disagree with the right wing wackos, I would still stand up for their rights. 

What inalienable rights are being violated?   IF he is accused of a crime, then he has to stand trial. In order to stand trial we have to arrest him and make him appear in court. IF he doesn't want to stand trial then we force him and if he won't be taken by reasonable measures to contain him, then he dies. Thats not a violation of the constitution thats the process in bringing a accused to trial. 

[srkruzich]

BTW Article 3 i think addresses this specific issue.  IF a citizen is accused of treason and flees to another state, then he is to be given up by that state and brought back for trial. IF the accused refuses to go, force is used. Shrug. if he dies then that is his choice

[Anmar]

What inalienable rights are being violated?   IF he is accused of a crime, then he has to stand trial. In order to stand trial we have to arrest him and make him appear in court. IF he doesn't want to stand trial then we force him and if he won't be taken by reasonable measures to contain him, then he dies. Thats not a violation of the constitution thats the process in bringing a accused to trial. 

Steve, This is actually the process that should be followed.  The problem is that he's being targeted for assassination,  not arrest.  Thats why they call it the CIA kill list, not the CIA, arrest and bring to america for trial list. 

Here's a question, why do you think OBL was executed instead of brought here for a trial?  According to all accounts, he was unarmed and wasn't resisting.

[srkruzich]

Steve, This is actually the process that should be followed.  The problem is that he's being targeted for assassination,  not arrest.  Thats why they call it the CIA kill list, not the CIA, arrest and bring to america for trial list. 

Here's a question, why do you think OBL was executed instead of brought here for a trial?  According to all accounts, he was unarmed and wasn't resisting.

BECAUSE that wasn't osama that was executed!

[Anmar]

BECAUSE that wasn't osama that was executed!

could be true.  I don't really know, I don't think any of us will ever really know for sure.  Bottom line is that this course of action sets a very dangerous precedent.

[srkruzich]

could be true.  I don't really know, I don't think any of us will ever really know for sure.  Bottom line is that this course of action sets a very dangerous precedent.

Osama was on dialysis back on 9/11. You don't live 10 years in a cave on dialysis.