magekillr

For those arguing that he effectively lost his citizenship rights, here's the State Department being oddly honest about all that (the only reason his citizenship matters is because he wasn't in the country. Foreign citizens have the same rights under the Constitution only if they're being held by the US...but citizens carry those rights no matter where they go): Summary Judgments for Oct. 3 Translation (supplied by Greenwald): "We wanted to strip Awlaki of his citizenship, but theres no legal authority for us to do that, so we just went ahead and killed him."

I like how you assume they're all Democrats. Also, you don't even know what their vision is because all of them have different grievances; there is no hierarchical structure, and it's very anarchist. Hell, a lot of them are Ron Paul supporters. The only unifying message is this: the banksters stole our money, the wealth gap is continuing to increase, and we're not going to tolerate their [cabbage] anymore. No, I'm not participating with them, but I am there in spirit. I might go up to Washington on Wednesday if I can find a ride to partake in those protests. When I said my political beliefs, I said I'm very much of the mindset of Howard Zinn: If this continues to grow, it gives space for politicians to act in favor of the citizens, and against the bankster criminals.

Well, call me crazy, but a government that can kill people it doesn't like without presenting evidence before a court is the definition of a tyrannical regime. Also interestingly, the Obama administration, and the President himself, heaped praised on the Saleh regime in the midst of that regimes slaughter of dozens of its own citizens. I guess it's not terrorism if the government does it. Remember, they hate us for our freedoms.

There is absolutely zero evidence that this man was a terrorist, there is only evidence that he incited others to take up arms and become terrorists themselves. There is absolutely nothing criminal or illegal about that. In fact, the FBI is guilty of doing that very same thing. You know when you hear about the FBI "thwarting" the newest terrorist attack? It's not because they're so good at preventing terrorism. It's because they spend months encouraging people to commit acts of terrorism -- going as far as to FUND THEM -- and when the people they've spent months encouraging finally take up arms and do it, the FBI steps in and says, "Aha! We caught you and prevented a terrorist attack!" Saying that he's guilty of terrorism is exactly like saying the men in Guantanamo are guilty of terrorism. If there's so much evidence that he's guilty of what you people say he's guilty of, why won't the government present their case to a court? Here is your mindset right now: We can spy on, imprison, or even kill anyone we want including citizens without any due process or any evidence shown, simply because we will tell you they are Bad People, and you will trust us and believe us.

If there is evidence that he's guilty of terrorism and is in another country, I think there is a legal case to be made that he can be executed. Now, me personally, I would be against that morally, but it's a lot more gray in the legal area if there's an indictment with actual evidence. Think of it like a hostage situation. Police are able to kill a person who's holding innocent people hostage without a trial, "Come out with your hands up or we'll shoot you." The problem is I don't believe us to be at war with al Qaeda, I believe in treating them as criminals. Others see them as enemy combatants. The other side is where is the battlefield? Could the president launch a missile at an al Qaeda member who is in London? If not, why not? Either way, this is [cabbage], and it's sad that the biggest cheerleaders are the very people who should be appalled. It's this reason why the ACLU gets a bad rap -- they defend the people everyone hates on the sheer principle that their rights were violated (NAMBLA, Westboro Baptist Church, the KKK).

Here is Jake Tapper grilling that miserable weasel Jay Carney on the issues of this assassination: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo Remember, there wasn't even an INDICTMENT. It's just "the government says, so that's good enough."

It's just too hard to mix things like that, ya know? I wouldn't date a Republican either. I would date an economic conservative who was socially liberal (like a libertarian). When certain things are too important, things clash in a really big way. How am I going to date someone who doesn't believe in equal rights? It's too hard to look around it. But religion is really where things get hairy, especially if you plan on having kids (I don't).

Regarding inter-religious marriages/relationships: I wouldn't date a really religious person. I would date a Christian, a Muslim, a Sikh, a Mormon, etc, but only if they just identified with it culturally. Basically like a secular Jew or how most Catholics are. I also would never, ever, ever, date a pro-lifer.

Here's the problem with that thinking, though: what is the definition of that? There needs to be a clearer legal authority. For example, during the Civil Rights Protests, here is what the FBI's memos said of King, as he was considered a "terrorist threat": Full documents are included and highlighted here. Without clearer legal reasoning, the government can essentially drop a bomb on my house for inciting violence against the government, even though I haven't committed any crimes. This is a full embrace of the security state, and without more recourse or legal rationale, it could set a terrible precedent. Benjamin Wittes counters Glenn Greenwald: What Is Process Due?

Here's another person making the point of the issue: On the Death of Anwar al-Awlaki

The Greenwald piece was meant to give a background on the issue (he provides a lot more links if you click his piece). Here's one that might help: U.S. tries to assassinate U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki The issue isn't so much that he's an American citizen -- although that is a BIG part of this. The issue is "did al Qaeda commit an act of war, or commit a crime? And if they committed an act of war, what constitutes the battle field?" Bush argued that the entire world is the battle field, which Obama seems to be re-affirming. That raises a lot more legal questions because then you have to ask, "When does the war end? If it's an act of war, then why aren't the president and other United States buildings legitimate targets?" Etc. That's what is at stake. Other opinions here: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/09/al-awlaki-and-the-law-1-1.html

For an alternative view to Greenwald, see Andrew Sullivan: The Un-Bush

So this morning I woke up to discover that President Obama has killed Anwar al-Awlaki. Anwar al-Awlaki is a supposed member of al Qaeda (no real evidence), encouraging people to engage in violence against the United States (this is not a crime, it is protected free speech). He also happens to be an American citizen. Here is some background: More here: The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality What are your thoughts on this, and what do you believe the legal implications of such an action are?

No, I am against it in practice. I want it abolished worldwide. I'm just not going to care when he is inevitably put on trial and sentenced to death for his crimes. I have better ways to occupy my time than to rally outside the Saudi Arabian Embassy calling for King Abdullah's life to be spared -- a completely fruitless endeavor.

If you're against the death penalty, how can you not care if someone is put to death? Hey, if I had my way, he wouldn't be put to death. But I'm not going to shed any tears over a tyrant family that has contributed money towards terrorism and violence -- perhaps not directly, but they look the other way while the other wealthy families do it. The same goes for Stalin, Hitler, Gaddafi or any other bastard of the like.

That might be the official story, but the truth is that the King doesn't care which way it goes, so long as the monarchy has power. He knows that the House of Saud's days are coming, he knows that the Empire who put him there is losing influence, and he's just trying to get an extension and appease the masses. I'm against the death penalty, but it won't surprise me -- nor would I care -- when his head is on a pike.

Saudi king overturns verdict against woman driver

Heh, this article brings me smiles: Read on: As Scorn for Vote Grows, Protests Surge Around Globe

Matt Yglesias has a nice Q/A (he's not an economist, but in my opinion he understands the issues quite well):

Look, their societies are extremely sexist, like beyond the pale, whereas ours are still very sexist. But the point he's trying to make is this: take the fastest growing surgery there is, which is breast implants. Why is that? It's because our society places emphasis on the importance of having large breasts; having them is what it means to be a woman. Someone in Saudi Arabia looks at this and sees it as a burden. They don't see women frolicking around in skimpy clothes as free, they view them as oppressed sexual objects who dress like that FOR MEN rather than for their God or their own well-being. In fact, many Islamic Feminists mock America's "secularism" because of its hypocrisy. Were secular in our government and laws, especially in the theory, but will America ever be able to elect an atheist president like Australia did recently with Julia Gillard? Or what of Nick Clegg, a major candidate in Britains elections, who was able to state freely, I dont believe in God. We still have many Judeo-Christian laws on the books even if theyre unconstitutional in practice and we dont even have a state-established religion. An entire major electoral party which panders to the extreme religious right continues to assert among its major presidential candidates that America is a Christian nation. Abortion rights are continuously scaled back in the name of religion, where the main target isnt legality but access; and if you cant legally access an abortion provider, what good does it do that you have the legal right to an abortion? In this sense I see many Americans who bash Muslims to be bigoted, oh-so concerned about their clothes but ignoring the tragedies that are taking place in their own backyard with the scaling back of womens rights. Many of those same women are on the front-lines, like Sarah Palin. It might feel good to lecture Muslims about womens rights, but in this sense, I do see it as a form of imperialism where the White Man is the blank slate. Theyre not concerned with women, but cultural genocide of who is a Real American. I think both societies are wrong. The burqa for instance is more cultural than religious; its existed before Islam was even founded. I do not believe in cultural relativism. Sexism is a form of violence, and I do not think it should be tolerated; I see the burqa as a sexist "tradition" by putting the onus of men's sexual and power trips on women, just as has been done for centuries. When it comes to basic human rights, nothing pisses me off more than arguments based on "cultural acceptance". But what makes it any different than what nuns wear? Saris? It is the thought processes that should be combated, not whatever cultural norms that might continue a sexist tradition. Women in the West should not feel pressured to wear makeup before they go to the grocery store any more than a woman in Saudi Arabia should feel pressured to cover her body down to her ankles.

Not to get into a debate over abortion on a thread not about abortion -- which is why I haven't said anything about my originally posted link -- but what you've just said exactly shows why people who want to force women to bear children against their will are misogynists. There's a reason why the early feminists of the late 1800's and early 1900's were AGAINST abortion. It's not because they viewed it as killing, but because their fathers forced them to have abortions against their own wills. You should really read the history about abortion, why religion became against it (heh, bet you didn't know that abortion was quite popular in religious circles back in the day, did you?), the fact that it was only "illegal" for a short period in American history, and why the same religious movement is now against it. To give you a very short history lesson, the Protestants had a lot of abortions, while the Catholics did not. Catholics were having large families despite being a small percentage of the population. Protestants then came out AGAINST abortion after years of supporting it because of their racism (no, Catholicism isn't a race, but it did represent a certain monolithic group of people...usually the Irish). They thought that if Protestants kept having abortions, that Catholics would eventually overtake them as the majority. They then came out against the practice, as well as other family planning. The movement is now against it because it empowers women and gives them control over their own bodies. The cat was let out of the bag the other day by a Republican law-maker (as if the people paying attention didn't know the real reason): They're against birth control for the same exact reason. It's misogyny, and you cannot believe in equal rights if you don't even respect someone's right to control their own body. That is why forced birthers are sexist. Even if you think the practice is wrong -- and many pro-choice women do -- you cannot possibly support the criminalization of the practice. Would you support the government forcing people to donate blood at the threat of the gun? Why not?

And on another area of that note (sexism), religion, for all its patriarchal [cabbage] and penchant for contempt for women, does not hold a monopoly. [cabbage], I attended a humanist conference in London while I was on vacation in England with PZ Myers and Richard Dawkins, and I wanted to ask a question about how atheists and free-thinkers are to attract more women into our ranks. Not that I needed to know the answer to that, but I wanted to raise awareness to the rest of the community that by and large it's a community full of dudes and that women are not visible. I couldn't get to ask my question because of the annoying education protesters -- even though I agreed with their message, they were protesting the wrong people. However, it was kind of funny because not even 2 weeks later (the talk was on June 9th), Rebecca Watson made a video expressing her displeasure with creepy people asking her to their room for coffee at the early hours of the morning: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKHwduG1Frk&feature=channel_video_title I admit it would have been cool for me to have been the one to jumpstart this conversation among atheists worldwide, but I'm glad that it did nonetheless. This sparked a lot of outrage from Richard Dawkins, the privileged [bleep]wit that he is, to mock her and then went on to rant about how bad women in developing countries have it. It started a conversation among the atheist community, and a lot of them have been just as sexist as their religious counterparts. Rather than LISTENING to the women -- hey, what a novel idea? -- they just berated them and told them to shut up. For more info on this, just google Elevatorgate. I'm sure you'll find what you need to know. PZ Myers has also been a riveting voice on the side of women, and just last week wrote a blogpost titled: Sexism is a problem we should address Religion has a problem with sexism. Atheists have a problem with sexism. The workplace has a problem with sexism. The goddamn WH with Barack Obama has a problem with sexism. The problem isn't one specific set of beliefs or dogma -- although those sets of beliefs being entrenched are definitely in the way of social progress -- but our entire patriarchal structure.

Let's not try and think that Westerners have always been so much more enlightened, either. Women in Saudi Arabia had rights before women in the West (particularly in America). Women in Saudi Arabia could own property before women in America. Hmmm, let me rephrase that: women in Saudi Arabia were considered people rather than property before women in the West. Plus, the driving [cabbage]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65UIrMXhTtk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6evy_yokfog&feature=related No, that doesn't excuse the Wahhabis from their disgusting, misogynist behavior, but let's also not forget that we empower their sexism because of their energy production. And if Saudi Arabia ever tried to democratize itself, and overthrow the family, America would probably give King Abdullah the guns himself to mow down his citizens before allowing democracy to control that oil production. Oh wait, we already do that. edit: Not sure how it's hypocritical or fallacious. We should follow a society that embraces change; religious dogma, by definition, is just that: "dogma."

Been making the rounds overnight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aC19fEqR5bA&feature=player_embedded

On that note, screw the Catholic Church and their misogyny.