Current Issue
Back Issues
 Subscribe to BartBlog Feed
How to Read
Members ( need password)
Subscribe to BartCop!
Contact Us
Advertise With Us
Link to Us
Why Donate?
The Forum  -
The Reader
Poster Downloads
Shirts & Shots
BartCop Hotties
More Links
BFEE Scorecard
Perkel's Blog
Power of Nightmares
Clinton Fox Interview
Part 1, Part 2
Money Talks
Cost of Bush's greed
White Rose Society
Project 60
Chinaco Anejo


Search Now:
In Association with

Link Roll
American Politics Journal
Barry Crimmins
Betty Bowers
Consortium News 
Daily Howler
Daily Kos
Democatic Underground 
Disinfotainment Today 
Evil GOP Bastards
Faux News Channel 
Greg Palast
The Hollywood Liberal 
Internet Weekly
Jesus General
Joe Conason 
Josh Marshall
Liberal Oasis
Make Them Accountable 
Mark Morford 
Mike Malloy 
Political Humor -
Political Wire
Randi Rhodes
Rude Pundit 
Smirking Chimp
Take Back the Media
More Links


Locations of visitors to this page

Subject: let's argue about Awlaki

You're twisting the argument.

There's no chance I might have a sincere point of view?

Why does every disagreement come down to me being a liar?

We all know that cops in America kill too many people........some cops have a shoot first,
ask questions later mentality. And some cops plant weapons on people they've killed who were unarmed.

True, but that's waaaay off-topic and we need to keep moving forward.
If everybody could just admit I'm right, we could move on.

But you can't use your analogy of the cop shooting someone coming at them.

It's a place to start a discussion.
Remember the torture debate we never had because nobody would agree that
they might consider breaking a certain terrorist's finger to save their child?

That was a logical to start a debate - but nobody would budge.
I guarantee that Bono, MLK, John Lennon and Ghandi would fight to save their kids,
but it's so easy to take a "never" position in a debate.

This way, I've gotten people to admit that some cops deprive suspects "extra judiciously."

That's what I call progress.

Now that we've admitted life can be taken without a warrant, maybe we can have
that debate and discuss under what circumstances that judiciousness can be deprived.

Awlaki was accused by the U.S. of plotting terrorist attacks on Americans, and he certainly was very
openly verbal about the need for jihad against America. But the rationale for killing him rests solely on
U.S. intelligence (very often an oxymoron) and not on any hard proven facts or judicial proceedings.

I do not share your concerns.
If the Giggling Murderer said we needed to murder 250 "maybes" in Yemen, I would vote no.
But Obama would still be dithering over Libya had Hillary not straightened him out.

This Awlaki slug was the biggest al Qaeda threat - he was essentially OBL's replacement.

How big a resume should we allow this punk to build before we put his lights out?

Remember a few weeks ago, some Pakistan handjobs orchestrated an attack on our embassy.
We knew it was the Paks because our military was tapping their damn phones.
They heard the attackers call "home" and ask for further instructions,
so I assume Awlaki made some phone calls and it cost him his ass.

Are you asking to read the transcripts of those tapped phone calls?
I'm certain Obama wouldn't bet his presidency on a maybe.

Possible Truce Point:
It feels like I'm always arguing the opposite side in a "In a perfect world" debate.
Is it wrong to deprive a guy of his civil rights?

In a perfect world, yes, but what if you can save an airliner by taking Awlaki out?
Do you want to be on that side of that argument?

"I could've saved that plane, but my warrant had a typo, so I held back."
That sounds very Democratic.

How may times over the years have I suggested that my debate partner and I were talking
about different things? I think this disconnect has caused a lot of bad blood and it's because
I have failed to make the point I'm making now.

Should wars be avoided?
Yes, at almost any cost.

Is torture wrong?
Yes, in almost every case.

Is it wrong to shoot a cop?
In almost every case, yes.

If you check, you'll see I'm consistent in that I'm always arguing the concrete, facts in our face
and my opponent often says, "That's always wrong, no matter what," which isn't very real

To use your cop analogy, the guy stands on a soapbox exhorting a crowd to go blow up a police station
and kill cops. The cops observe this, but instead of arresting him for inciting violence, putting him on trial,
convicting him, sending him to the slammer where he belongs; they kill him. The rationale for killing him is
that he was a threat to society and needed to be removed. A court would call this extra judicial murder, and
sentence the cop for contravening U.S. law. No conviction, no execution.

If the murderer was standing right there next to the cop, unarmed, killing him would be wrong.

BTW, are you under the impression that Awlaki was some kind of cheerleader or heckler?

He was godfather to the Shoe Bomber and the Underwear Bomber.
He helped that Times Square bomber build his didn't-work bomb.

He was e-mailing that Captain that shot up Fort Hood and killed 20 or so soldiers.
Please stop thinking he's some dude with a smart mouth and a modem.

Is that why people want him treated more fairly?
Because some see him as "just some dude with an opinion?"


   Until the U.S. reverts back to the rule of law, these killings will be seen as nothing less than vigilante justice;
to the detriment of our world standing, and more importantly our ability to counter terrorism worldwide.
Every extra judicial killing only convinces more people (misguided as they may be) to join the extremists in fighting the "Great Satan".
   It's stupid.

I think Obama got this one right.


Send e-mail to Bart

  Back to



Send e-mail to Bart

  Back to


Privacy Policy
. .