Keys Writings, Part 18

This entry is part 32 of 34 in the series 2011C

Nov 2, 2011
 Re: Morals and Legality

Blayne: Might does not make right or legal. That is essentially your argument;

JJ You’re only half right. I am saying that might does not make right, but might does create what is judged to be legal by Constitutional authorities.

Blayne: I wonder if the congress ever passed a law like I described that it was okay for congressmen and judges to rape any woman at will would that inspire the majority to stand up and say no that is illegal and even take up arms to enforce the majority will if necessary?

JJ They haven’t passed anything that outrageous but they have passed laws that so offended public consciousness that the people have forced change. The Kansas-Nebraska Act expanding slavery caused extreme outrage. The Jim Crow laws motivated Martin Luther king to lead millions of black and whites to support repealing them. Woman rebelled against the Constitution rejecting their right to vote as well as other laws preventing them from having control over their own property. Obamacare is certainly causing a lot of people to object and has fueled the Tea Party.

In Boise many years ago they passed a law that it is illegal to fish from a giraffe’s neck. That didn’t seem to have any teeth. I’m not sure if that was someone’s version of moral natural law or what.

Nov 3, 2011
Happy birthday Keysters

Last weekend marks the 13th anniversary of the Keys of Knowledge group. The group entity is now a teenager. Rick

JJ Time flies when you are having fun. I’m glad you nudged me into doing this ahead of my personal schedule.

Nov 3, 2011
Re: Morals and Legality

Using a definition of words that does not match the mainstream use changes nothing, but if we change the accepted laws which may not be just then we have accomplished something.

It doesn’t matter that much how words are defined. What matters is how we use those words to communicate.

LWK In our system a legislative act that passes the required steps is in fact the law unless challenged and overturned by the courts. I don’t see any other practical way to do it. One can say “illegal” all one wants but it is the law if passed unless challenged and overturned.

JJ I would guess that about 99% of the people would agree with you on this Larry s well as the Founding Fathers.

Blayne: Might does not make legal.

JJ Might has determined what is legal since the beginning of time. What makes you think otherwise????

Just because you or I think something should be doesn’t mean that’s the way it is.

Nov 3, 2011
Re: The First Point 101

Duke: I wonder which side they (the South) would have taken in World War Two, and whether that would have tipped the scales.

JJ There’s no way to know for sure but I would say there is at least a 50/50 chance they would have supported Germany. especially if they still had a grudge against the North and they were supporting the Allies.

Apologists think that slavery would have died a natural death within a few years, but I do not think so. The South was working to expand it to the West, Cuba and Central America. It was so embedded I don’t think they would have given it up without a fight.

Nov 4, 2011
 Re: Morals and Legality

Blayne: Not true people have also practiced right actions or what’s legal without being forced since the beginning of time too.

JJ What people practice has absolutely nothing to do with determining what is legal. Even the most virtuous of laws can only be made and enforced through the might of the government. If there is no penalty attached then the law has no power. I myself, virtuous guy that I am, would go over 40 MPH in most 20 MPH zones if it were not for a possible penalty.

Blayne: Just because some circumstance the way it is does not make it legal.

JJ Because you are attached to only one definition of legal (even though there are several in the dictionary) this makes it almost impossible to communicate with you about law. You stick to your extreme minority definition and will not speak the sane language as others do here concerning legality or see where they are coming from.

It is a fact that you ignore that the powers-that-be determine what is legal and not your own version of what is moral.. Thank God, for if we let everyone do that we could have slavery again for half the country used to think that was a natural right.

Blayne: According to your logic if the local Mafia forces you to pay protection money or be harmed that makes it legal. After all that is the way it is…

JJ I’ve already dealt with this reasoning. The Mafia has no constitutional power to make or enforce law. But if they did control the government then what they passed would be legal.

Nov 4, 2011
 Cool Topic

Perhaps I can illustrate the communication problem we have with Blayne on laws and legal if I illustrate with a different word. We’ll use the word “cool.”

Jim: That’s a cool song.

Bob: You’re wrong. Cool means a low temperature and a song has no temperature. It cannot be cool.

Jim: But there’s more than one definition of cool. I’m not talking about temperature. I’m saying that was a good song.

Bob: But cool, hot and cold can only be measured in degrees. A thing has to have natural form and mass to be cool. A song has neither.

Jim: You’re not listening. I’m not talking about cool as related to temperature but to the quality of a thing.

Bob: But cool is always related to temperature.

Jim: Where do you get that idea?

Bob: That was the original meaning. Any change of the meaning is just a corruption.

Jim sighs…

Even so, what is called natural moral law is as different from the legalities necessary to legally execute Awlaki as the two definitions of cool.

When I asked if it was legal I wasn’t asking if it conformed to your version of what is moral nor was I referencing anyone elses version of morality but merely a legality that would be accepted in a current court of law.

Nov 5, 2011
Conclusion

This Awlaki discussion has probably run its course. We could continue dissecting but the point has been made. And what was that?

Remember that we began this discussion to illustrate two things.

(1) How difficult it is to resolve communication problems through the Internet. It is bad enough in person but here the process is much slower and sometimes sluggish. The one advantage is we can access facts through the Internet and take the time to sift through them as the discussion moves forward.

(2) The difficulty in reaching union when there is a strong disagreement. When we attempt to create a molecule it is important we approach it realistically. By examining this disagreement and others in the past I think we can see what we are up against in getting a group of 24 or more to reach the union necessary to achieve group soul contact.

I was hoping to get this disagreement to the point where we could narrow the focus down to a principle so we could attempt to reach union through the soul, but we haven’t come close to this.

Instead we got stuck on the definition of words which is about a million miles from finding the principles involved. The soul has no interest whatsoever in how society determines their terms, but how words, however they are defined, are used in dealing with principles.

If you can get down to the principles involved in an argument two or more sensitive people can reach harmony through the soul.

The first molecule will have to be composed of people who have been tested in group activity and are in basic harmony with each other on core principles and attitude toward life.

Here is a brief assessment of the Anwar Al-Awlaki case.

Was the assassination legal? The evidence seems to indicate it was but there are dissenters. The ACLU is going to file a lawsuit and if it goes to trial a final legality will be decided.

Is Awlaki guilty of a crime?

There are enough of his own words and witnesses to his words to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that he is an enemy to the United States and is likely guilty of treason.

Did Obama do the right thing in taking Awlaki out?

I think we should take out all the active enemies of this country that we can but the fact that he was an American citizen made the situation problematic and should have been handled differently. They should have first revoked his American citizenship, made the details of his crimes available to Congress and the people and then taken him out.

Nov 5, 2011
 Re: Blayne’s Blindspot

Blayne:  … as long as [The Constitution] is the law the federal government is supposed to follow it sure would be nice if they actually followed it…

LWK I absolutely agree with that idea.It is kind of useless to have a “law of the land” that in many instances is largely ignored or twisted in interpretation into something entirely different.

Perhaps this highlights a mistake that the Founders made. It was their intention to make it difficult to change the Constitution and therefore the amendment process is very difficult, and impeaching judges who largely ignore it is similarly difficult. It might have been easier for the government to adhere to a Constitution and replace errant judges who blatantly misinterpret it if it weren’t quite to hard to change in the first place.

JJ Good points Larry. If there is some law our representatives do not like they will just ignore it whether it be in the Constitution or some law passed through Congress. Illegal aliens is typical. There are plenty of laws on the books that would take care of the problem if enforced but their solution is to just create more laws.

There’s still a law saying we can’t fish from a giraffe’s neck here in Boise, but no one is stopping anyone from doing it. They are ignoring that law!

Nov 5, 2011
 Re: laissez faire thought experiment

Putting thieves and rapists in jail does not interfere with the workings of karma but enhances it. It secures the rights for those with good karma so they can live in freedom as they deserve. As far as payback for bad karma goes – if they can’t get it here there are hellholes like North Korea and Afghanistan reserved to take care of lots of negative karma various entities have accumulated.

The enhanced karma I was talking about is the good karma. That takes some law and order to secure for the just. There’s always plenty of opportunity for the bad guys to receive their just due – that is until Zion is established.

Natalie: When Zion is established what will happen to those “bad guys” who have not yet received their just due?

JJ As we move toward a more peaceable society with less violence and tyranny there will be fewer opportunities for those with a cruel or selfish nature to pay off their karma and many of these will not be able to incarnate. As a result of a better situation more people with good karma will incarnate causing society to improve.

Don’t worry about the bad guys though for they will eventually get another chance.

Nov 6, 2011
 Thoughts on Oneness

I’ve been contemplating the unresolved differences we have had lately and have some thoughts to share.

The question that might arise in these discussions, not only with Blayne, but others in the past is this.

How is it that any two sincere seekers cannot resolve their differences when both have had a degree of soul contact in the past?

The answer is this. The language of the soul is the language of principles. To resolve differences you have to distil away the non-essentials until you are left with the pure language of principles. It is then that differences can be resolved.

To understand this let us examine the principles involved in the argument that I (and others) have had with Blayne.

(1) The Principle of Freedom. This relates to decisions, actions, plans, procedures, laws, etc that bring the greatest amount of freedom to the largest possible number of people.

I believe that Blayne and I both heartily accept this principle.

(2) Laws are a branch under the Principle of Order, which are under the Principle of Creation. Just laws should therefore enhance order and creativity, or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some laws made and accepted by man conform to true principles and some do not.

(3) The Principle of Justice. I believe that both Blayne and I accept this and want it to prevail.

(4) The Principle of Judgment. Good judgment is necessary in the creating and application of law as they apply to humanity

I think that Blayne and I agree on these basic principles and if we had a discussion just dealing with them we would most likely be in harmony and open to group soul contact. So what causes the actual differences then?

The problem arises when we take our focus off true principles and put them on details that are not principles.

The biggest detail that has been a problem is the definition of “legal.”

The reason that arguing over definitions is a lost cause is that they have nothing to do with any of the principles of the argument. Instead, words can be used in any language with any definition to communicate true principles.  Communication of principles is not dependent on how words are defined. If it were one could never explain a principle in French or Spanish as all the words are different there.

Every time I have had an augment with someone who reverts to the dictionary or some other source to prove the meaning of words I know the argument is going nowhere.

On the other hand, every time that I have been in harmony with someone there is never a need to define a word to prove anything.

Why?

Because two people touching the soul together can understand each other and sense the meaning of the communication even if some of the words may not seem to be used exactly right.

When Jesus said “destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up” his enemies thought he was referring to the temple in Jerusalem, but those closest to him knew he was speaking of his body.

When we are close to someone and tune into them then we will know what they mean even if they use words differently than we personally define them.

Now Blayne thinks a law is not legal if it does nor conform to the morality of natural law. That’s fine and I accept that he thinks this way.

The problem is the question was not related to this definition but to how the legal system of today defines legal. When a judge, police officer or attorney uses the word “legal” he means something different than Blayne does. Since Blayne does not seem to recognize legal by the common use today (and this is what the discussion was supposed to be about) we had a huge communication gap.

The gaps create the illusion that we disagree on principles when we do not.

Maybe I should have asked Blayne something like this. “Was Obama’s action legal as seen though this corrupt system where everything is going to hell in a handbasket?”

Maybe that would have worked.

Anyway the key to union is to tune into each other so true communication can be established.

Note to Duke: You asked a good question. I’ll deal with it shortly.

Nov 7, 2011
 The Two Definitions

Re: Jefferson’s inspiring wording

Larry, my friend. Your feelings seemed to be hurt over something. I don’t think that anyone had any intention of hurting you. All of us regulars seem to take turns being fiercely disagreed with at one time or another, but that does not mean that anyone is showing disrespect.

We want to have an atmosphere where all are free to speak their minds as long as they remain fairly civil.

As far as this problem with Jefferson and principles go, there seems to be some miscommunication going on. I don’t think we will disagree when we understand each other.

Dan quoted JJ, “He (JJ) says that Jefferson’s version is “true on the level that he meant to communicate them” (emotionally inspiring) and then winds it all up by saying Jefferson’s version is “more inspiring than the TECHNICAL TRUTH”.”

Larry Woods says,

JJ is inconsistent here.

JJ To be inconsistent I would have to teach one thing at one time and then something contrary another time. I do not see where this happened in anything you are referring to.

Larry ALL principles are pure and pristine on the intuitive plane. But when we bring them down to the three worlds of form they get messy.

JJ You’re making my point, though I would use the word “obscured,” or something to that effect. The person understanding a principle can put it in the clearest possible language yet there are still many that will not understand most of it. Principles are the language of the soul and can only be communicated in fullness through the soul.

Larry Dan points out that JJ offered two “real world” alternative wordings for Jefferson’s statement of the underlying principles of good law. Dan also points out that JJ said Jefferson was not technically correct because his famous Declaration wording does not cover all aspects of practical use (all the exceptions) where these principles run into messy problems in the worlds of form. However, the same can be said of ALL PRINCIPLES, including all the principles JJ teaches.

JJ Yes, just about all principles as taught to humankind are not technically, or literally, correct as taught by anyone. That is one of the weaknesses of human communication. This reality should not bother any seeker, but should encourage him to look to the soul of messages more than the exact meaning of the individual words.

Larry Using JJ’s technical correct doctrine that he applies to say Jefferson was wrong will shoot down everything that every human ever taught about higher truth.

JJ Where do you get such an idea? Words describing or using a principle merely point the way to truth, but rarely reveal the whole truth of a principle. I do not believe that Jefferson was wrong, but he was extremely correct in wording the Declaration the way he did. Sure he could have worded it differently and been more wordy to make sure he wasn’t misunderstood, but the soul of the message would have been lost.

Larry JJ seems to be saying that articulating ideal truth from the higher realm of Intuition is always incorrect because those truths always run into exceptions when expressed in the lower three worlds of form,

JJ You totally misunderstand me here as I have not in the past or the present said such things. There are no exceptions to truth as I have said many times, “the truth is true and nothing else is true.” There are no exceptions to principles. They are what they are.

What I have said there are exceptions to man made rules, laws, procedures and courses of action. One can never set a course that will be right all the time and a principle lies behind this interesting fact.

Larry it’s like he is saying truth is not technically correct.

JJ Where are you getting this? The way we all attempt to express truth is rarely technically correct but truth is technically correct. 2+2=4 and nothing else is the true answer. On the other hand, if I were to attempt to tell you tomorrow’s weather, the truth is, it would be a guess. My prediction would be subject to change.

Larry So I expect JJ will soon go back and reword everything he ever said about principles so he can get it “technically correct” enough to account for all the exceptions those principles run into when expressed down here in the real world.

JJ Again, where are you getting such thoughts? Certainly not from anything I have said. No, I’m not going to go back and reword everything I’ve said about principles. There are no exceptions to principles. For instance, if there is a cause then there is an effect – always.

A lot of what I have written about principles is not technically correct and it would be counterproductive to attempt to get them all technically correct because they are understood through the soul when the sensitive seeker is pointed in the direction of seeing the principle.

Larry: The question is, will JJ continue to discuss eternal principles while not allowing Jefferson to do the same?

JJ Wow, Larry, I’ve never seen you come to such strange conclusions before. What is going on in your mind?

Thomas Jefferson is free to come back from the dead and discuss all the principles he wants as are you. Why would you think otherwise?

Larry: Will JJ from now on qualify everything he ever says about words that do not pass away exposing all the exceptions they might ever run into in the real world so he can remain “technically correct”?

JJ You seem to think that I think it is important to always be technically correct because the subject has come up. Why would you think this? It may be important as far as legal matters go but it is not a big deal in teaching metaphysics. In teaching principles the important thing is to communicate the essence of things and paint a picture for the student.

When Jesus said, “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free,” he was not technically correct either, but he painted a picture that leads to principles and greater understanding. A book could be written on it, yet if one just reads it literally he will have little understanding.

The same is true of Jefferson’s words. His words are lost in the literal thinking of many but lead to soul truths for those who contemplate and see the bigger picture.

Larry: Is it true that eternal principles are not technically correct

JJ When a principle is seen and understood it is correct in every way. But we do not see the fullness of a principle through technically correct literal words. One must look through the eyes of the soul at the picture painted by the words.

Larry: Is there a “technically correct” principle out there that precludes the simple articulation of eternal truth unless you accompany it with many “real world” qualifiers? Let me try it. Jesus erred when he said, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

JJ Again, Jesus was not technically correct but his words painted a picture of a principle which can lead to right human relations.

If one just goes by the literal meaning he could turn some friends into enemies.

Let us ay that I like someone to wake me at 6 AM every day. My wife, on the other hand, wants to sleep til 8 AM. Because I take Jesus literally I wake her at 6 AM. She is angry and I think: “The Golden Rule does not work.”

I would be wrong. It does work when the principle is seen. Waking my wife when I want to be awakened violates the principle, but seems literally correct.

Larry: One more thing, we have a masterful articulation of the principles of good government from Jefferson in the Declaration. Why would we ever want to say it fails the technically correct test?

JJ We had argued for days and a good portion of the argument was different understandings of Jefferson’s words. When something like this happens then this is the time to further analyze the words and attempt to see what is technically correct as well as the principles involved. If we do nothing then there is no chance of reaching agreement. If we attempt to clarify then there is a chance.

Larry: These words give us one of the very best opportunities where people let down their heart wall so that we can teach truth about law.

JJ The trouble was that Blayne and others had major disagreements about law with respect to Jefferson’s words so further analysis was necessary.

Larry Why would we want to cast it in a bad light?

JJ Again where did you get this notion??? No one cast anything Jefferson said in a bad light – especially me. I have nothing but praise for the Declaration of Independence. I don’t think it could have been worded better.

Larry: You like JJ’s new teaching about technically correct way of stating principles.

JJ There is no new or old teaching about being technically correct about stating principles. Often times it is not desirable.

Larry: Show us how this new rule works out when we post so we won’t have to get corrected for technical blunders as that blunderer Thomas did.

JJ No one said Jefferson blundered and there is no new rule. What’s got into you today? You usually understand me quite well.

Larry: Yea, I like this new method of discussing principles by always stating every exception we can cover all the bases and always recognize that stating actual principles is NEVER technically correct in our real world, plus we don’t have to worry about stepping on any toes. This will be great fun. I’m glad JJ advocates this whenever TJ speaks in the Declaration.

JJ Larry, you are totally misrepresenting me here. This is not like you.

Larry I’m also glad he will follow his own rule from now on

JJ There is no rule except in your mind.

Larry: because it will shed much light on how technically correct truth actually works out in our discussions about real life. I’m anxious to see what the KOK looks like from now on with Dan and Ruth policing everyone who breaks the rule or who expresses any questions about the rule, I’ll check in next year…

JJ Again, there is no rule and I hope your offense gets healed shortly so we can have the good ole positive Larry back.

Nov 7, 2011
 The Two Definitions

Principles (was Re: Jefferson’s inspiring wording)

Here are a few things I have written on principles.

Principles: What a principle is.

A fact is merely a piece of information that anyone can incorporate into their brain memory. It can likewise be programmed into a computer. A principle is a different matter. A principle is the underlying truth that makes all facts valid. It requires judgment to use and cannot be programmed into a computer.

For instance, the Constitution of the United States is built around the principle of the Free Agency of man. Around this principle has sprung the Constitution and thousands of books containing millions of facts. In the days of the foundation of this country there was only a handful of enlightened people who were able to understand the principle of freedom. People of a lower order could not see it. There was no way that King George from England could teach or enlighten George Washington in any degree on this principle even though he probably had as many facts in his head on the subject as Washington did. On the other hand, Washington could have done much to enlighten the King if he was willing to listen.

It takes a thousand facts to paint a clear picture of one principle, but the understanding of one principle reveals thousands of facts. It takes a certain point in the evolution of the human being to comprehend the difference between a principle and a fact but when he does, and learns to go within and touch the soul, then all the understanding and vision of a principle is revealed in a flash. Sometimes a book can be written about a principle revealed in one instant.

What is the difference between a principle and a law?

A principle is that which demonstrates the intelligence of God and makes things in the universe work toward a dominating good.

A law is a description of the working of a principle, or principles. By law I am referring to universal laws and not manmade rules.

If the law is accurately described then the perfection of God is made manifest because such a description shows the consistency of the principle and allows us to predict the future actions of the mind of God in the universe.

For instance, all form is held in place through the principle of magnetism which is an aspect of the principle of Love.

All the laws we have concerning gravity are produced by observing and describing this principle in action.

Within our souls is the capability of recognizing whether or not a thing is true. When a principle is spoken, you’ll feel within yourself the vibration of certain chords that ring true.

A principle is true yesterday, today and forever, but knowledge (as data) changes by the hour (the temperature for example). The language of the Holy Spirit is composed of principles, not data. To know all things in the language of the spirit is to know all principles.

True principles are always in effect all around us. The universe is built upon true principles, held together by them and will be dissolved by them. True principles govern our lives, our deaths, our relationships, our sorrow and our joys.

The bird flies making use of true principles, yet does not understand the principle of flight or realizes it exists. So it is with us. We live in a sea of principles, which governs all things, yet until we touch the soul we do not even realize what a principle is.

Many of the best authors touch upon a principle. Some have a sense of that which they have discovered, while others do not discern them from facts. Sometimes you can find a principle in a book written by an author that does not know what a principle is.

A principle is not created. A principle is always present and always works without beginning or end.

Take the principle of cause and effect. Was there ever a time that it did not work? Cause and effect has always been here and always will.

Take another principle:

**If there is no beginning there will be no end.

No one created this; it just exists past, present and future. Take a look at any true principle and you will see it had no creation, but just always is and always works and cannot be destroyed.

I think that truth, as a principle, is so abstract, that it needs its own “vehicle” in order to manifest. So, we have to speak of “knowledge of the truth” or “the light of truth”. When the light of truth is thrown on a conflict (illusion versus illusion), the illusion is swept away and the conflict vanishes.

A principle is an enunciation of what is. A principle isn’t made. A principle is eternal and it always is. Like Newton said, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. He discovered a principle. From that he was able to deduce a multitude of truths.

The truth that makes us free is found in the understanding of true principles.

The challenge for us to advance from facts and data to the language of principles and then, when a principle is understood, advance to a higher principle still.

There is a hierarchy of truth. The bottom of the hierarchy is truth manifesting on the physical plane. At the top of the hierarchy is the truth that there is One Great Life we call God. I am only stating God as a fact, a piece of data, because the principle behind God is a great mystery which has never been revealed.

As we advance from physical plane truth to truth on the higher planes, that which binds us is loosed and greater freedom is obtained.

A principle is true yesterday, today and forever, but knowledge (as data) changes by the hour (the temperature for example). The language of the Holy Spirit is composed of principles, not data. To know all things in the language of the spirit is to know all principles.

Let’s compare us to a slug. We don’t really know anything about the slug’s world but our knowledge is much higher than that of the slug. Just as we’re thinking on a much higher level so are the higher lives whose language is the language of principles where they can communicate principles, which is equal to thousands of pieces of data in one instant. They communicate without knowing anything about the data because they don’t need to know the data. They only need to know the principle. So when the principle is communicated by the higher lives, the lower type of knowledge isn’t even necessary but the lower type of knowledge can be discovered if it’s important for it to be discovered. When a principle is communicated to us we can translate that principle into a language we can understand by explaining it with a lot of data. The higher lives don’t have to do that.

Nov 9, 2011
 Re: OT: Proof that the devil is in the details

Duke: In 1289 Italian painter Giotto di Bondonne painted a series of frescos on the wall of the Basillica of St. Francis of Assissi. Hidden in the clouds of one is the face of a devil, which apparently went unnoticed for over seven centuries, up until very recently. Just goes to show that the old adage is indeed true: The devil really is in the details.

Link

JJ The fact that the presence of the devil was missed for 700 years really illustrates the principle that you find what you are looking for.

This link has closeups that are much easier to see:

Link

Nov 9, 2011
Law of Rebirth      

Natalie is attempting to create a group and expressed interest in having some type of lesson plan to teach from. I put together some basics years ago using a question and answer technique. Often just throwing one question at an audience can lead to quite a lot of discussion.

I’ll post a few of these lessons which all are free to use. Sooner or later I’ll add to them and fine tune them.

The first one is here:

Dan: If more advanced people are needed to form a molecule, it seems to me it might be useful to develop lesson plans that are more philosophical and not so scripture-centric in order to attract them.

JJ You are correct. I wrote these original lessons around 30 years ago when I was attempting to reach out to the Mormons and regular Christians. To expand their usefulness more cosmopolitan versions need to be written, which I plan to do. In the meantime these lessons will be useful in some circles.

Susan: Initiates of classes (class leaders) have the calling to create the lesson plans. It is not on JJ’s shoulders to spoon feed us everything. You are quite capable of developing lesson plans Dan if you truly feel called to have them. I have faith in you. 🙂

JJ Some teachers will need a little help and structure and others will want to put together their own lesson – maybe from material that I haven’t even covered. We want teachers to feel free to use their creativity. I think though that making lessons available will help some feel more confident in starting some classes.

Nov 11, 2011
Promising New Energy Source

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 17

This entry is part 31 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 29, 2011
Inertia

I never did comment on the principle behind pushing the boundaries as happens with children and some adults. The post was at:

Keys Post 54431

The Question: This is a branch of the real principle, which gives us an opportunity to do some discovery:

What is the real principle behind this Push the Boundary force and how it works?

We received a number of answers on this and I believe each person participating guessed a different principle. They couldn’t all be right could they?

Well, they all could be partially correct for many different principles are at play in everything we do, just as there are many parts to the elephant. As I said in my recent post – even scratching an itch has principles and forces at play.

On the other hand, there are some things that play out where a core principle is involved and this is one.

The core principle is inertia and I think the group will see this as I explain.

According to this principle an object in motion will stay in motion unless it is stopped by a force equal to that which is keeping it in motion.

Now when a kid gets his desires in motion for something he wants (like a new video game) the parent may at first dismiss the expressed desire and think that will be the end of it, but it often is not.

The kid has set his desires in motion, desires that have energy behind them, and the parent keeps getting hit with this energy time and time again. Finally, he gets worn down any buys the video game. The purchase is the counter force that neutralizes the energy of the kids inertia.

Another parent may not have money to buy the game and lash back at the kid with anger. If the anger has equal energy to the inertia of the desire then the kid will give up for the time being.

Many people visit salesperson thinking they are just going to look, but are not going to buy anything just yet. Then they wind up buying everything but the kitchen sink.

Why?

Because a good salesperson uses the principle of inertia. He throws desire energy at them again and again and if the customers find themselves moving in a current toward the dotted line and they do not counter with high resistance they follow the path of least resistance and will purchase. By the time that they have been hit with the power of inertia they may feel it is easier to spend a bundle of money rather than to resist.

Right now, president Obama is creating inertia behind his jobs bill. It could be the worst bill since the beginning of time but the appeal to jobs for those who are desperate is great. Since he is pitching this new stimulus again and again the inertia is building and can only be stopped by opposing forces. Some opposing forces have surfaced but some version of this is likely to get through unless the opposing force is increased.

Oct 29, 2011
Re: Definitions 1.1

LWK They (natural rights) could no more be taken away than one could take away the fact that men needed food to live – it was simply part of their “unalienable” nature.

JJ This made me think that maybe we should say the right to food is as natural of a right as the right to liberty. After all, if it came down to choosing to have food or liberty when one is starving to death, most would chose food.

Questions for the group: So, do we have a natural right to food?

Does one have a right to another’s food if the other guy has lots of it and you have none and are starving?

How about if the other guy has abundance and you are just surviving and often go to bed hungry?

How about if the other guy just eats a lot better than you can afford to?

LWK You stated that in your view that your meaning was the majority view of the meaning of “rights” and that somehow others should be obliged to state they are using a “minority” meaning. I personally do not agree with your interpretation.

JJ Well, I don’t exactly agree with that statement either. I said (or at least meant to say) that when speaking in legal terms the legal definition of rights is the one normally used and is used most of the time. I believe this is an accurate statement.

LWK It is doubtful that either meaning, legalistic or natural rights, is clearly predominant in how people use the word.

JJ This is true, but in speaking in legal terms legal rights is usually meant and the first point that I was arguing with Blayne was supposed to deal wit the question: Was it legal?

You made some excellent points in your post. Here is one I liked: “You don’t protect the rights of some by protecting the rights of others to attack them.”

Here is another: “There are many things the government does today that are much more likely to lead to a totalitarian government than killing terrorists instead of trying to bring them to trial.

“The most basic principle of natural rights is that one cannot claim their protection while violating the natural rights of others.”

JJ So true. If the execution of one man will save the natural rights of thousands then it is a good trade – proving the evidence backs up the action.

Oct 30, 2012 Election 2012 Blayne: I think Ron Paul is the only republican that can beat Obama but I doubt he can win the republican nomination.

JJ I don’t think Ron Paul would have a chance to win. Right now he scares the independents as much as Obama does but after the media was done with him he would be toast. They would research his old newsletters, writings and speeches and bring forth quotes that would blow a lot of people away and portray him as a racist who thinks the South was on the right side in the Civil War and Lincoln was a traitor and tyrant.

Also the fact that he would do nothing to prevent Iran from getting the nuclear bomb and seems unconcerned that it would send one over to Israel at the first opportunity would give the media the opportunity to portray Obama as the one who is on the side of national security – weak though he is in that department.

Oct 30, 2011
Infiltrating Mormonism,one sunday school class at a time

Adam’s Post My wife, Marnie, has gone through a re-think of Mormonism over the past several years, thanks to me and my experiences and readings, and, in turn, her own experiences and readings. Often now, when she hears or reads some “Mormon speak” in a family or church setting, she cringes. She’s fond of telling me that I’ve “ruined” her. We both, of course, feel very grateful for JJ’s teachings and the “ruin” the teachings have caused us.

Marnie still takes our children to church for the social aspect and to give them some exposure to spiritual teachings and the family culture. Occasionally, Marnie is asked to substitute teach for one of our children’s Sunday school classes, as happened a few weeks ago.

The lesson was on “being pure” – this for a bunch of six year olds. It’s amazing what we don’t see when we’re firmly entrenched in thought forms, reinforced by a strong culture. The lesson suggested that the teacher use salt and pepper to illustrate personal purity and impurity – again, this to a bunch of six year olds. The lesson emphasized a lot of guilt and unworthiness. Marnie didn’t care for the message, the examples, and the way it was taught, especially given the young audience. [Yes, the church does a lot of good and teaches a few nice things, but other such ridiculous teachings are not flukes or aberrations. A while back Marnie listened to the Primary President read from Malachi to about 50 children. She told them that those who do not pay tithing will burn! – yes, in so many words and with that emphasis. And many other examples there are. Many of you I’m sure are familiar with such ridiculous and often harmful things that go on in what is supposed to be an educational and spiritual environment.]

Anyway, my wife didn’t like the lesson, so, God bless her, of her own volition, without my prompting or consultation, she changed it. She got out some darts and a target and used JJ’s teaching about Hamartano (I know JJ is not the only person to teach this, but JJ’s writings are where we first heard the true definition and analogy to shooting an arrow at a target) Needless to say, the lesson was a hit (yes, punned) with the kids. Aside from being fun and entertaining, the six year olds actually “got it” and they gave Marnie insightful feedback, like: “Oh, that makes sense. If we make mistakes we just try again. We practice doing better. Practice makes perfect” and so on. A much healthier message, no? A better message than: “when you sin, you are impure, like little black spots before God; and all of the accompanying thoughts of unworthiness and guilt that are likely to be imagined by impressionable and innocent minds.

A small success. But much more doable, since we can’t all go around dusting our feet to general authorities, much as I would like.

But, the small success didn’t end there. Marnie’s mother happened to be teaching the same lesson this week to the six year olds in her congregation. Her mother’s printer wasn’t working, so Marnie downloaded and printed the lesson for her. When her mother came by to pick it up, they started discussing the lesson. Marnie mentioned that she had taught it a few weeks back. She expressed to her mother that she didn’t care for the way the lesson was taught, especially for that kind of an audience. Her mother, a very orthodox Mormon, actually could see what Marnie was saying about the lesson’s poor wording, conceptualization, and analogies. Marnie told her mother what she had done and how successful it had been. Marnie’s mother “loved it.” (Can you imagine how amused/pleased I am as I listen to Marnie repeat the conversation?) “Where did you get that idea?” her mother asked. “That’s a fantastic way to teach about sin. I’m going to use that idea instead.” That’s probably about as far as Marnie could safely go with her mother. I guess we’ll never know whether her mother would have taught the lesson or not, had Marnie revealed her source:)

Truth can actually resonate when it’s not being filtered through pre-existing biases and belief. Truth can actually resonate when it’s not being filtered through pre-existing biases and belief. Oh, what…wait..what?

How we’d love to actually tell her mother where that teaching came from, but that might ruin it and halt further use of the analogy.

Another success. A few more kids who weren’t bludgeoned and burdened with guilt ridden propaganda, for an hour anyway. One Sunday school class at a time. Maybe Marnie’s mom will share with another orthodox adult who will unwittingly teach truth, as taught by an excommunicated apostate. Classic. Had to share.

Thank you for ruining us, JJ.

Adam and Marnie

JJ Thanks for the encouraging letter Adam. What you say illustrates the power of the enunciation of true principles. A teacher may receive some light and do his best to promote it and die unrecognized, but if he has followed the highest he knows some seeds will be planted and the tiniest of seeds will grow to great plants and multiply until all of humanity will some day realize the true reality. You planted a seed in your wife and your wife in her mother and the kids. Some will take that seed and plant it in others until the day comes that the apostles of the church will be talking about shooting arrows a targets until we become proficient in the paths of righteousness. Who knows, that apostle might be one of the kids taught by your wife.

Oct 31, 2011
Right to Food

Blayne: I know that JJ argues from a perspective that rights don’t really exist (Correct me if I am wrong JJ) based on his previous writings except as created and or secured by men through their individual or collective actions.

JJ To just jumble natural and legal rights together as “rights” does not accurately portray what I think. If you would have said “legal rights” you would have been correct for this was what I was talking about in relation to Awlaki. You have been talking about natural rights, a different animal, which didn’t have anything to do with my question: Was it legal?

I think we agree that it is a built in desire to want to secure life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

JJ (Previous Post) … maybe we should say the right to food is as natural of a right as the right to liberty.

LWK One could say this if one had absolutely no understanding of the concept of natural rights, and many have indeed reached this conclusion.

JJ I think I have as good of an idea of what natural rights are as you or the next guy. Let’s go by your own words. <>

Are you thinking that I was suggesting a natural right to food would mean that someone else should be forced to work to provide another with food? Where did you get such an idea??? I said nothing to indicate anything like this.

Here is how I defined a natural right, which harmonizes with the Declaration of Independence:

“That which one has a moral claim or desire to have or express.”

This definition does nothing to imply a socialistic form of government to distribute food as you imply. But the desire for food is connected with the desire for life itself and is a natural desire and just as one feels he is morally justified to live and pursue liberty and happiness all feel that that have a moral justification to obtain food to stay alive.

Not all feel they are morally justified in stealing food or forcing others to supply it to them but as long as there is an abundant supply of it, all feel morally justified in having an opportunity to honestly obtain it.

Connected with fulfilling this natural right is a natural desire to assist others in obtaining food that some, through no fault of their own, cannot obtain for themselves. These include children, babies, the disabled and the down and out who are willing to work. It is especially a natural desire to work to earn the money to feed our own children who cannot take care of themselves and it is natural for the child to expect the parent through free will to supply its needs that it can not supply for itself.

This has nothing to do with socialism, but with natural desire from our Creator as written by Jefferson.

LWK Natural rights are simply the right to exercise one’s free will without interference by others or the government.

JJ But life is spoken of as the first natural right and this exists for us whether we exercise will or not. The desire for both life and food are very similar as they exist no matter what we will and no matter what the government does and we all feel that we have a right to live and a right to eat so we can continue this right to live.

In a decent society there would be enough people who have empathy for these rights so they will share of their of own free will and all would have enough to eat to sustain their lives.

Question to the group: Does this make sense? If not why?

Oct 31, 2011
Re: Election 2012

Blayne on Ron Paul: Rasmussen did a poll recently and he was virtually tied with Obama.

JJ Some polls indicate he has a fighting chance, but this is before the media has taken sides in the general election. Right now the major media leave Ron Paul alone because they are happy to see him be a voice of opposition to many Republican policies they loath. It would be much different if he were the nominee and and was running against Boy Wonder.

Blayne: All the stuff you have brought up has already been aired in the media over and over and he still has more independents and growing. I doubt it or the Iran thing would hurt him.

JJ Where has it been aired – Alex Jones? I haven’t seen the media do any investigative reporting on Paul’s past. There’s also little about it on his site. You have to do some digging to find some of his early writings and many of them are said to be lost and many of the extant ones are controversial. BUT if he were the nominee I’m sure some of the lost ones would surface. They came out with more critical stuff on Rick Perry or Sarah Palin one one week than that have in Paul’s entire life.

Blayne: Israel has over 300 nuclear weapons they will take care of Iran if they ever became that threat just like they took care of the Iraq’s nuclear program.

JJ Iran has learned from Iraq and have secured their nuclear program much better than Iraq did. They do not care if Israel has a million nuclear warheads because they do not think they will do a first nuclear strike as all nations would turn against them. On the other hand, if they get just one or more bombs they are willing to take their chances and attack for the glory of destroying Israel. Unless there is a change in leadership we are headed for trouble there. Paul is dead wrong to not be concerned – maybe millions of dead wrongs.

Oct 31, 2011
Re: Right to Food

I would be interested in a definition of natural rights as defined by you and Blayne – in a paragraph.. In the definition that I came up with I am not going by how the strict Constitutionalists have conjured it up but by how Jefferson and the Founders seemed to understand the term “rights” in the Declaration. I think Dan has a point that it is questionable that the term natural rights, as used, is even justified. But since it is used, even in an ephemeral way, then we must acknowledge it is one of the established uses.

I would refine my definition a bit to make it more accurate. Here it is:

“That which humanity, as a whole, has a moral claim or desire to have or express.”

Previous wording:

“That which one has a moral claim or desire to have or express.”

Nov 1, 2011
Steve Job’s Last Words

Just before his death Steve looked at his sister Patty, then at his children, then his wife and next he seemed to look beyond them at empty space and said these words:

Oh Wow! Oh Wow! OH WOW!!!

Then he passed over, apparently going to the place he was seeing.

Jobs Last Words

Nov 2, 2011
Re: Gathering Data

We finally get don to the nitty gritty of this issue that the group wanted me to continue and no one has responded. Let me repeat the question:

Is there enough evidence to establish Awlaki’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

Google the name Awlaki with key words such as legal, terrorist, innocent, guilty, analysis, justified, unjustified and whatever you think helpful.

Then post the reasons he may or may not be guilty of either terrorism or treason. When we get them all tabulated then the group will judge the quality of Obama’s decision.

I’ll start the ball rolling by posting one for and against.

Reasons for being not guilty. 1. He is an American citizen and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Reasons for guilt. 1. The underwear bomber, Umar Farouk, who tried to being down an airliner, stated this under oath at his trial: “I was greatly inspired to participate in jihad by the lectures of the great and rightly guided mujahedeen who is alive, Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki, may Allah preserve him and his family and give them victory, Amen, and Allah knows best.”

See if you can find some positives and negatives to add to the list.

Nov 2, 2011
Morals and Legality

Question from JJ to Blayne: Do you acknowledge that there is a difference between legal rights and natural rights?

Blayne: No because anything that violates natural rights cannot be legal. Laws seek to illustrate morality and ethics.

JJ You have clarified here where the source of our disagreement is on the first point. You think a law has to fit in with your personal view of what is a moral natural right or it is flat out illegal and we can ignore it or break it at will.

Thus you consider a law as non-existent if you do not think it is moral, even if you are arrested, convicted and sent to jail by a process that has Constitutional authority.

The problem with attempting live by this belief is that there are lots of laws that others think are moral who could cause you untold grief – as they did with my friend Wayne. Wayne thought a lot of the laws were unconstitutional and immoral but he never thought they were not legal under our current system. He tried to live by what he thought the laws should be. Since he believed it was wrong for them to require him to get a drivers license then he did not get one and was arrested regularly. This cost him many thousands of dollars and several prison sentences.

I tried to reason with him many times concerning this because his beliefs were definitely affecting the quality of his life. My reasoning went something like this;

“Look, no matter what system we are under, none of us will agree with all the laws and regulations. If you violate and fight every law you disagree with that’s all you will be doing and thinking about and it will consume your life. And this struggle you have with the law doesn’t just hurt you but disrupts your business and affects the money your dozen employees make. Then you suffer from depression and this regular hassle with the law can’t help that at all.

“Sometimes in life there are two paths and neither choice may be what we want. You have the choice of a minor inconvenience of getting a license or not getting one and suffering a huge inconvenience. Which choice makes the most sense? You have to pick your battles and you’ve picked one here you can’t win. The State is not going to discontinue driver’s licenses because of anything you do, neither will the city discontinue building codes. Why don’t you concentrate your energy on something that will make a difference?”

It didn’t matter what I said to him. He wanted to stick to his principles – principles that most of his friends could not relate to or see much purpose therein.

When he died of heart failure he also had a large tumor on the back of his neck. It seemed to be a symbol of his thinking that he was carrying the weight of the world on his shoulders. Perhaps his soul was trying to yell him to release that weight and smell the roses along the path instead.

Anyway, if you have an attitude that any law (regulation or whatever you call them) you do not consider moral is something you can break or ignore because they really do not exist then you are even going beyond what Wayne thought and if you stand by these beliefs you could be headed for an equal amount or more trouble. In fact, you have already mentioned that you and others who believe as you do have suffered painful experiences through the court system. I suspect that you could write a book about your legal battles.

The trouble with ignoring what the system says is legal and only obeying laws that only fit your own version of morality is you not only suffer untold inconvenience that interferes with regular life, but your version of what conforms to natural law may be different from the next guy who believes in natural rights – like myself.

“But,” says the Fundamentalist, “the Constitution is clear and it is plain as he nose on your face what natural rights are. All we have to do is follow the obvious.”

Think so? If this is so then why are there disagreements here on the Keys between, not only liberals and conservatives, but strong libertarians that support he Constitution and principles of freedom?

Why did some of the Founding Fathers and half the country before the Civil War think that keeping slaves was a moral natural right? Many southerners thought they were doing the moral thing by keeping slaves. They believed that:

(1) Blacks were of low intelligence and needed the whites to help then advance. Slavery was good because it provided that opportunity.

(2) Slavery also enhanced their own natural right of liberty because the slaves increased prosperity and gave the owners more free time to pursue culture and their own happiness.

Now keep in mind that this was not just a small fringe as with some fundamentalist beliefs today but held by enough people to divide the entire country.

The bottom line is this. If millions of individuals can decide, by their own version of what is right, which laws they want to keep then we would have total anarchy in this country. Secondly, no system, no matter how perfect, will make everyone happy and all will have to conform to a few things they do not like to make it work.

It seems logical that the best course is to cooperate with the system unless something totally outrageous is demanded. In this case, one can lead the cause of civil disobedience and many will follow giving the possibility of actual success.

If one sees a path to improvement that others do not then he should seek to educate. The informed majority will generally pick the right path.

Your personal definition of legal and tying it to your version of natural rights causes you to not even consider that Obama could have acted legally in any way even if every constitutional authority on the planet says he did. This narrow view has caused you to not even considering answering my question in the spirit that as intended as everyone else clearly saw. I was talking about legal as it is considered by the authorities in our legal system, not your view of what is moral and that should have been extremely obvious.

But even after I have clearly explained what I mean by legal you refuse to go by the majority definition and cooperate and answer the question.

You seem to think that using a dictionary definition of something violates some principle. It does not. A definition is just what it is, and nothing more. It is a neutral thing, but one must go by definitions as understood by others or nothing will make sense to anyone and communication will be muddled.

Nov 2, 2011
Re: Right to Food

Larry W I want to discuss the practicality of Jefferson’s theory of rights which he articulated in the Declaration. JJ has said that it is an obscure use of the definition of rights and has little to do with the common man nor with common usage of the word, rights. But I disagree.

JJ I can’t find anything you said that disagrees with anything I actually said. You seem to be arguing with what I do not even think.

First I said that Blayne and literal fundamentalist have an obscure and unusual definition of rights – see my last post. I have no problem with the way Jefferson actually articulated them.

Larry: “…and has little to do with the common man…”

JJ Where did you get this idea??? The rights enunciated in the Declaration of Independence have everything to do with the common man. I have said nothing contrary to this that I recall.

Larry: “…nor with common usage of the word, rights”

JJ That’s not what I said. I said that not all laws we have today that are considered legal are the same as as natural rights or that which Jefferson considered to be moral. Not everything in the legal system is in harmony with natural rights.

Nothing you said is out of harmony with anything I have written that I can see yet you present it as a disagreement. Disagreeing with what?

Nov 2, 2011
Re: Gathering Data

I think you’re missing the reason we are doing this. We care listing things in his favor and not in his favor as to whether he is guilty of treason, terrorism, subversion, etc. I doubt if any one thing will be absolute proof one way or another. When the list is complete then the group will make a judgement. How about contributing a point?

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 15

This entry is part 29 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 25, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law 1.2

Blayne: If had to sum up the two sides it is this: Your side is that bunch of politically connected attorneys studied the evidence and concluded he was a threat worthy of death and you explicitly trust that decision despite the lack of verification/accountability. And the precedent that government has done this in the past secretly and or illegally etc. makes it ok.

JJ That’s about a million miles from my side. This tells me that you are reading what I write with tremendous filters on wit the purpose of defending your mindset and not even trying to understand what I am saying or trying to do.

Why don’t you read what I actually write and try restating what my side is.

Oct 25, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law 1.2

Blayne: If had to sum up the two sides it is this: Your side is that bunch of politically connected attorneys studied the evidence and concluded he was a threat worthy of death and you explicitly trust that decision despite the lack of verification/accountability. And the precedent that government has done this in the past secretly and or illegally etc. makes it ok.

JJ (Previous Post) That’s about a million miles from my side. This tells me that you are reading what I write with tremendous filters on with the purpose of defending your mindset and not even trying to understand what I am saying or trying to do.

Why don’t you read what I actually write and try restating what my side is.

Blayne: What part of my statements are wrong?

JJ So you can’t more accurately restate the stance I am taking? If you are going to argue with me you first must understand what I am saying and coming from else we will continue to go around in circles.

You seem to think I am coming from a value judgment stance in our discussing as you are. I am not. So far with you I have only attempted to conclude whether the action was legal or not. This is a conclusion dealing with the technicalities of the law – NOT whether Awlaki was “worthy” of death.

Let’s analyze what you think I am saying based on what I have been trying to accomplish with you.

Blayne “Your side is that bunch of politically connected attorneys studied the evidence and concluded he was a threat worthy of death.”

JJ I haven’t taken a side and have not said anything giving a value judgment as to whether Awlaki was worth of death. I have maintained that the evidence gives support to the idea that Obama’s action was legal. That doesn’t mean he was right or wrong or that Awlaki was “worthy’ of death. It means the action is assumed to be legal unless proved and accepted otherwise through the judicial system.

Blayne: “and you explicitly trust that decision.”

JJ I haven’t said whether or not I trust Obama’s decision let alone “explicitly trust.” Trusting or not trusting Obama’s decision has nothing to do with the first point that we are dealing with.

Blayne: despite the lack of verification/accountability.

JJ Again this has nothing to do with the first point – Is it legal? I do not believe I have given any value judgment related to verification or accountability yet.

Blayne: And the precedent that government has done this in the past secretly and or illegally etc. makes it ok.

JJ I didn’t use precedents to establish that anything was okay, but to give evidence of the legality.

Again, for the umpteenth time – if something is legal that doesn’t mean it is right, moral or okay.

Here is my correct position so far:

Evidence and facts indicate that Obama’s action was legal.

Oct 26, 2011
Letter of the Law 1.3

Blayne I agree with you here in fact there are a distinct lack of facts in this case which is one of the main reasons for my stance. So if the facts are not enough to support my conclusion how in the world are they enough to support yours?

JJ I didn’t say there were not enough facts but “facts are not enough to assure a correct decision,” meaning that two people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.

There are enough facts to establish the legality. You don’t need many facts for this like you would if we were evaluating how moral tor correct the action was.

Blayne If had to sum up the two sides it is this: Your side is that bunch of politically connected attorneys studied the evidence and concluded he was a threat worthy of death and you explicitly trust that decision despite the lack of verification/accountability. And the precedent that government has done this in the past secretly and or illegally etc. makes it ok.

JJ See previous post.

Blayne My side is this: the only verifiable/accountable evidence is that he has spouted some anti-government rhetoric. That he was a credible threat is nothing more then accusations aired in the media. And that this does not warrant immediate assassination. And that past precedents of illegal actions do not make it ok,

JJ This has nothing to do with the first point we are discussing which is:

Was it legal?

Blayne: I actually agree with you here and this is why I am so astonished. I am definitely attached to the values and ideals of freedom and justice

JJ But that doesn’t have anything to do with the question: Is it legal? Your mind keeps translating this question into; “Was it the right thing to do?

You seem to have a problem in breaking a problem down to its component parts and analyzing them. You keep wanting to deal with the whole shebang at one time and this is one reason no one seems to be able to come to agreement with you in an augment and we keep going in circles.

Blayne and would rather error on the side of freedom then allow any encroachment because I have seen the pain misery and suffering trampled rights cause. My astonishment is that others who are otherwise intelligent would see this as not all that important and see my position as not a good thing

JJ Most people here value the principle of freedom just as much as you do. Judging whether or not a thing is legal has nothing to do with freedom. If I say that slavery was legal 200 years ago that does not mean I do not value freedom.

Blayne So let me make sure I understand you here. You are saying a principle must be like gravity always in operation despite what men do? JJ This could lead us to a diversion that could take us far off the topic and lead to days of going back and forth. I have already written volumes on principles.

A principle is the core thing that explains why something works. Gravity itself is not a principle though it is often called such but some principle explains its operation and why it is always at play. That principle has not yet been discovered but it will be related to the principled of cause and effect. A principle is always true and can be accessed once understood.

The principle of freedom is related to decision. Every decision we make either leads to greater or less freedom. Decisions are always at play.

My point was that if you see this as a principle then I can see why you think there should be no exceptions to it just as cause and effect is never negated.

JJ (Previous Post) You have a black and white view where the Solomon principle does not even apply, no exceptions, a person should be presumed innocent until found innocent or guilty by a jury trial.

Blayne This is an incorrect view of my position I have repeated several times there are some exceptions. Perhaps one of the reasons we can’t agree is because of wrong perception of my view?

JJ If this is incorrect then when can we discard the presumed innocent process of the legal system?

JJ (Previous Post) If a law is declared legal by constitutionally appointed judges and I do not agree with that law then it is still the law and legal and binding in your society. And what do you suggest we do with laws we do not like – break them and go to jail? Complain about them? That doesn’t do much good. If a person is really outraged then he should seek to make changes.

Blayne I have already proven this is not true and quoted A supreme court ruling and 16th volume of American Jurisprudence. Martin Luther King Broke the law and went to jail and it did change the law eventually.

JJ There’s nothing in your quote that disproves anything I have said.

The Constitution trumps all other laws like it says and unconstitutional laws can be discarded, but a law passed through proper channels will be in force until it is proven to be unconstitutional. Just because you think a law is unconstitutional doesn’t mean that others will see it the same way. If the Supreme Court declares a law is constitutional and you disagree then you will still be bound by it, even if you are sure they are wrong.

There are many laws that some argue as being unconstitutional that we are still bound by because judges think they are constitutional.

Just try and drive without a license if you think having one is unconstitutional. You can still go to jail as did my friend Wayne. You can’t just say, I’m ignoring this because it is not Constitutional.

Blayne You seem to feel that there is nothing we can do but then you seem to contradict yourself and say a person should change the law if he doesn’t like it.

JJ I said there is nothing we can do about bad law in THE SHORT TERM! In the long term we can attempt to change the laws. There is no contradiction.

Blayne: Your idea that any law passed is binding is the prevailing mindset and is the very reason why it is so hard to change things and the entire system.

JJ So are you saying that if a law is passed that you deem unconstitutional, but it has not been overturned then you can break it with impunity? I don’t think so. It didn’t work for Wayne. Where do you get such illogical unreasonable ideas?

Blayne: Do you believe government has a right to mandate health care coverage?

JJ I think it is unconstitutional but there are Supreme Court justices that disagree. Law is not subject to belief. If I believe that I should be able to drive without a license I can still go to jail over it no matter what I believe.

We should be getting a Supreme Court decision soon on the mandate and that will determine what is legal with the mandate independent of any belief you have.

Blayne If no then will you obey the law passed despite 70% of Americans opposition?

JJ I obey all current laws with draconian penalties. I think even Ron Paul does also.

Blayne: So by having this mindset that any law passed is binding which goes against all our founding principles and hundreds of years of jurisprudence and historical precedent we have created a society that think government has a right to intervene into every aspect of out lives.

JJ One thing has nothing to do with the other. Bad law, which is binding has been passed or incorporated since the beginning of civilization and will continue far into the future. Why you think that a law passed, but not overturned, is not binding and you can ignore it without penalty is an amazing piece of mental gymnastics to behold.

JJ (Previous Post) Once something is legal there is no line to draw. It is just legal and there is nothing you can do about it in the short term. You can disagree with it but you will still be subject to it until it is changed.

Blayne So if congress ever passes a law that it is ok for them to rape women at will then you would consider that binding and tell folks if they don’t like it then change it but until then they must abide by it? That is the logical conclusion of your view. You are dead wrong here my friend!

JJ I said we must abide by law or suffer the penalties attached. I didn’t say that we could not break the law through civil disobedience. In that case the penalty would still be there. Suppose there was this stupid law that said rape was okay and if you tried to stop one you would suffer the death penalty. You arrive on the scene like John Wayne and attempt a rescue. You are caught in the act of heroism and soon executed.

Was the law binding on you even though it violated all sense of right and wrong?

Yes, you did not escape the penalty.

Why would you think otherwise?

I feel like I am arguing with someone who is just dreaming up things that make no sense to be arguing about for the hell of it. JJ (Previous Post) Where do you get that idea? Of course the Constitution gives us rights. That’s why we have different rights here than people in other countries.

Blayne The constitution purports to protect rights it does not grant them. The right to bear arms in self defense like all rights has always existed just like gravity.

JJ Gravity exists in North Korea, but the right to bear arms does not exist. They do not have that right no matter how many times you shout it from the rooftops. If a Constitution like ours were in force there then they would have the right. And where would it come from? Not osmosis, but the Constitution.

Your confusing “a right” with something that is moral, correct, or right. It would be the right thing to do to give North Koreans the right to bear arms, but presently they do not have the right.

Blayne: So how could it grant rights that it doesn’t even list?

JJ See above.

Rights that were already in existence were merely guaranteed by the Constitution, but rights that were not in existence were created by it as well as protected. Before the Constitution, under the British rule, they did not have a right of protection against unreasonable searches. The Constitution granted that right and protected it.

Blayne: I am amazed at the lack of understanding. North Koreans have the same rights as we do as do all men.

JJ Then why can’t they have guns?

Are you sure you’re just not trying to give me a bad time as a hoot?

Blayne: Just because they are being oppressed and do not have power to overcome their oppressors at the moment does not mean they do not have the right to bear arms rise up and overthrow their oppressors just like we did in the 18th century.

JJ If they try and bear arms now they will be put to death. Obviously the right to bear arms does not exist there. If they overthrew their government they could establish that right in the future, but it does not exist now. I feel kind of silly having to explain this.

Blayne The idea that a piece of paper can grant rights is amazing. It is just an illustration of existing rights…

JJ If the ruling powers accept that piece of paper then the rights written there are granted. Of course, it is not the physical paper itself that grants the rights but the power of the words thereon which were initiated by intelligent effort and have a life of their own.

JJ (Previous Post) And what principle have I abandoned? The answer is none.

Blayne: You have abandon the principle of freedom and justice.

JJ That accusation is completely untrue with absolutely nothing to back it up – and beneath you.

Blayne: Where we disagree is that unsubstantiated accusations constitute an act of war.

JJ I have no idea what you are talking about here.

JJ (Previous Post) Then explain how slavery was both moral and legal if only the moral thing is legal.

Blayne Slavery was immoral and unconstitutional that was the basis for the argument for abolishing it. Slaves were not seen as men they were seen largely as animals which of course was an illusion but this was their reasoning in denying them the same rights as all men.

JJ If slavery was unconstitutional then why did we need a constitutional amendment to make it unconstitutional and illegal???

Legalities concerning slaves were referenced three times in the Constitution

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons “all other persons,” meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of “such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,” meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons “held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another,” meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

Obviously the people thought slavery was Constitutional as many thousands of people owned them and were not prosecuted for breaking the law. It was also immoral to relegate them to being considered property.

You’re wrong on this point. Slavery was both immoral and legal in early America. It was also legal and immoral in Ancient Rome and Greece and many other nations.

Blayne LOL tell me what’s the difference between Hitler and the thugs I described except scale? Nothing!

JJ Big difference. The thugs are still subject to government and the law. Hitler was the government and the law.

Blayne They say unconstitutional laws are not binding as you keep claiming they are. Of course you omitted it here it clearly says such laws are not binding confers no authority AS IF IT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED etc etc. it refutes your argument 110% ! Not it can be thrown out later. It clearly means it is null and void the minute it is passed like it never existed. I could post a dozen more and I am sure you would deny them also. Clearly you are to attached to your belief here to see the truth.

JJ I covered this a while back but let me recap. A law, once passed, has binding penalties are passed upon violators. Even if the law seems to obviously go against the Constitution it will still be in play and enforced until it is overturned. You can’t just wave a piece of paper and say “I’m not paying income tax because it is unconstitutional,” and then think you will be left alone because your proclamation has negated the law.

JJ (Previous Post) Blayne then gives a discourse on parking tickets and does not address the fact that it would be impossible to give every crime a jury trial.

Blayne The point you missed is that you assume everything that ends up in court is a crime based on your belief all legislation is binding.

JJ It’s not a belief. It is a fact that once a law is on the books it is binding until it is overturned. If I am wrong give me one example.

Blayne However if we actually followed the law we would have a minute fraction of cases and they could all be easily tried by jury.

JJ I’m with you on throwing out a lot of bad and unnecessary law but its unlikely to happen any time soon. Meanwhile the laws we have are enforceable unless overturned.

Blayne We have a lot of attorneys making a living off the misery and suffering of society much of which they cause and while contributing nothing to society. Sorry If I did not make that clear.

JJ You’ve always been clear as a bell on that point.

Blayne You can deny it all you want. I have used traditional application not assumptions, corruption does not make a fact an assumption. You are using typical leftist rhetoric saying the 5th and 6th amendments have nothing to do with each other. The left uses the same BS on the second amendment to say it was talking about only the militia not the people when every other amendment clearly denotes the people and the 2nd of no exception. JJ My points concerning two Amendments are nothing like the Left’s interpretation of one Amendment – the Second Amendment. There is no hard evidence that the sixth explains the fifth anymore than the seventh explains the sixth. All the Amendments paint a full picture but are independent entities.

Blayne: Still the 6th guarantees every man accused of a crime a trial by jury so any due process must offer every man that right outlined in the 6th. How you can extrapolate anything other then that is beyond all reason and logic.

JJ It says: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,…”

In Awlaki’s case he was not criminally prosecuted but treated as an enemy combatant so one could argue the speedy trial does not apply. Also the Sixth says one should be tried in the district where the crime was committed. How could we have a jury trial for him in Yemen?

Blayne Yeah heaven forbid anyone should want government to follow the law that binds them down from mischief, why they must be extremists…

JJ I guess I’m an extremist then.

Blayne It is very interesting that you agree with the quote yet try to paint me as a fundamentalist for espousing it as part of my philosophy.

JJ You seem to overlook the fact that we both agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are supposed to be subject to it. We also both embrace the Principle of freedom to the best of our abilities. We just interpret things differently.

You think that a law has to be good righteous and moral before it is binding on citizens. You are the only person I have ever come across that thinks this way.

Everyone I know sees that there are some bad laws out there that have little to do with morality that can land us in jail if we violate them. Why you do not see this is very mysterious.

Oct 26, 2011
Re: anti-government movement claptrap

Dan: You said it brother, THEY do that kinda stuff to keep the sovereign man down. My 2nd cousin on my mother’s side had a friend that said his buddy knew someone who … and remember to stay under cover when you see them there chemtrails in the sky.

JJ Chemtrails, Moon landing hoax, false flag 911, secret NASA missions, Ron Paul enthusiast, Confederate supporter, Illuminati conspiracy, literalist view of the Constitution, Planet X, tax protesters… The are all so different subjects but believers are so much the same.

Oct 26, 2011
Re: anti-government movement claptrap

Blayne: Wow so we should not take the constitution literally?..So tell me what is it allegorical for?

And Ron Paul enthusiast? How about JJ Dewey enthusiast? Painting with quite a broad brush there aren’t you…

JJ Yeah, I might have stepped over the line but couldn’t resist… There’s a lot of interlapping in that list though.

People get in trouble when they take anything too literally whether it be the Constitution, the Bible, DK, me, or the voice of God himself. Judgement and discernment must always be in play or the pilgrim will be deceived.

Comet Elenin No More

This may be the last we hear of Comet Elenin. At least Blayne and I agreed on that.

Elenin Link

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 14

This entry is part 28 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 21, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law 1.1

I don’t believe the Constitution differentiates between criminal and commercial law. You can go to jail over a traffic violation just as you can burglary. My friend Wayne went to jail several times over traffic violations without a jury trial. I didn’t see any reason to break the law down to its various parts when the Constitution did not.

Oct 21, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law

Eke: “The constitution is made for man and not man made for constitution.”

JJ Great statement Eke.

On a different note I notice that the posts of you and Judy both have a lot of unwanted characters. Usually this is caused from your creating the post in some incompatible software. What I’ve found that works is to convert your formatted text to raw unformatted text format and then post. This usually solves the problem.

Oct 21, 2011
Re: Muammar Gaddafi Killed

Have you ever seen a worse job of taking a video than the one associated with Gaddafi’s killing? You’d think for such a historical event someone would have made sure the camera was steady and focused. As it is it looks like it was filmed by someone wacked out on LSD dancing around a fire pit.

Oct 22, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law

I’ve been checking into what you said Larry and found a few things. I couldn’t find any evidence though that something like a speeding ticket would fall under commercial law. Do you have a reference on that? Most are in a different category than felonies or misdemeanors, I know that.

You are right that normal traffic tickets are called infractions. Others though can lead to misdemeanors or felonies such as DUIs, reckless driving, refusing to sign or pay a ticket, driving without auto insurance and failure to stop at the scene of an accident.

The next time I get my driver’s license I’ll have to see what I actually signed on for.

Now there are those who drive with no license and they didn’t sign up or agree to anything yet they can be charged with a number of crimes while driving and sent to jail like my friend Wayne. Speeding without a license has nothing to do with morality but it can certainly get you in trouble.

The Fifth Amendment says:

No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

When one is fined for speeding he is indeed deprived of property (his money) without due process as some define it.

When I was talking about due process of law I was talking about all laws that can lead to loss of life liberty or property. That does lump the various categories together. I see nothing wrong with this as it has nothing to do with saying all law is the same or currently dealt with the same way. Why you thought I was saying such a thing is a mystery and such technicality has nothing to do with a ring-pass-not.

That said, thanks for your information on the various kinds of law. I learned several things.

Oct 22, 2011
Molecular Difficulties

A short time ago it was suggested that a molecule could be created through online communications. One of the things that will have to be dealt with in a molecule will be various disagreements. Since we had one here I thought it may be a good opportunity to illustrate two things. One is how difficult and slow it is to solve any problem online. We could have probably hashed out this Awlaki problem in person within an hour or so but here we have spent many days and intensive hours in writing and still we have not gotten beyond the first simple point of whether Obama’s action was legal.

The second problem that is illustrated is how difficult it is to solve personality disagreements when they come up. What seems simple and clear to some is very complex to others.

Another problem is that many tune out when a round of disagreements materialize whereas in person most people are willing to wade through a couple hours of arbitration.

I tried to break down the various elements of the problem in an attempt to make it solvable. If we started out talking about what is right or wrong then emotions will run high. I thought I would begin by examining whether or not the action was legal – which should have had nothing to do with good or bad, but still we did not escape confronting that from the beginning.

I think that seeing the futility here of bringing harmony between two good people illustrates the difficulty we will face in creating a united Molecule. Obviously, we will need to draw from a large pool of seekers to create the first unified molecule.

After the first one is created the second will be easier, however.

This arguing process is becoming very time consuming and not doing anything to convince our holdout – Blayne. What do you think? Should we continue on this subject or not?

Oct 23, 2011
The First Point 101
My Friends,

Thanks for your feedback. It sounds like the group would like us to see this subject through to see where it goes. Okay.. I’ll cooperate.

As you know, I’ve tried to simplify the discussion by breaking the conflict down to its simplest parts. This sometimes can be quite beneficial. Suppose person A is arguing with person B about Topic C. Perhaps Topic C is composed of five different parts and the two actually agree on four of those parts. This means the path to union is found in a correct understanding of the fifth part.

On the other hand, if they disagree on four out of five of the parts then the division is pretty wide and agreement will be difficult to negotiate.

The funny part about point one is that both Blayne and Duke thought the assassination of Awlaki was illegal, as well as myself. It turns out that looking into it changed my mind and caused strong disagreement from Blayne. I do not recall Duke even weighing in on the legality since the analysis began – so maybe they both disagree with my thoughts so far.

Let us first summarize where we are on point one.

Arguments can be made either way on this and both sides have their points.

One side claims it is illegal because Awlaki is an American citizen. As such before he can be punished he needs to be arrested, read his rights and then given a jury trial. Only then can we punish him. This they say is mandated under the Constitution.

The other side claims the Constitution is not so black and white and during a time of war we can attack those who are working to destroy this country whether they are citizens or not.

I found one scientific poll on this and 73% of the population agree with the second side.

Poll Link

The New York Times cites reasoning that Obama’s attorneys give for the action being legal. Among them are:

“The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.

“Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.

“The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.”

NYT Link

In my opinion the second side makes the strongest case. Suppose an American citizen had an atomic bomb pointed at New York and we had the chance to take him out before he pressed the button. Would we allow millions of people to die just so we can adhere to a black and white surface interpretation of the Constitution?

No. This does not make sense.

So far all judges and attorneys involved in decision-making have deemed the action legal and its legality thus stands unless the some action through the legal system proves otherwise. If this were to happen then I would agree that the action is illegal, even though I wouldn’t agree with that assessment.

Question: Is there anyone besides Blayne that disagrees with my conclusion? If so, why?

Oct 23, 2011
Re: Cyclopean vision

Good points, John. I’m sure that advanced beings with one eye do not suffer from the limitations of seeing that one of us have with one eye. Evolution always goes forward, not backwards. It is quite possible they can see more with the eye closed than we can see with both eyes open and that eye works in combination with other sight centers they use creating not only three dimensional seeing but dimensions we cannot even see. There are reasons the masonic symbol is called the “all-seeing eye.”

Oct 23, 2011
Re: Molecular Difficulties

Larry W JJ quote, “…we see that the Molecule is basically a representative government, but with maximum authority (which can be removed at any time) in the hands of the leaders. It follows the Middle Way principle and uses the best of the democratic system combined with the efficient elements of the authoritarian system.”

I think if you look at the context where you got that quote, Dan, you will see JJ was talking about the business molecular relationship there.

JJ This principle basically applies to the spiritual molecule as well.

Oct 23, 2011
Re: Molecular Difficulties

Good point Rick. If there is a principle involved you are on to it. Creation involves going from the disorganized to an almost perfect organization. In between there will be broken eggs. Perhaps we can call this “the broken eggs principle.” Without the broken eggs you will not have that great tasting omelet.

Oct 24, 2011
New Principle
Steve:
What springs to mind is the ‘Push the Boundary’ Principle. Children do it all the time, and it seems a natural aspect to growth.

The flip side is that those in power under glamour and illusion will also use it to their own gain, more often than not to the detriment of others. Once a precedent is set, it can be like opening a new door of opportunity for them.

JJ Glad to see you guys thinking about principles.

There is indeed a principle involved and “Push the Boundary” is a great name to describe one of its effects. But this is a branch of the real principle which gives us an opportunity to do some discovery:

Question: What is the real principle behind this Push the Boundary force and how it works?

Oct 24, 2011 Re: Moving Onward

Duke: Lincoln suspended civil liberties during an undeclared war, but so far we have not elected someone so evil as to twist that into justification for imprisoning political opponents.

JJ

Good point.

Oct 25, 2011
Letter of the Law 1.2

Blayne: I admit I could have a blind spot. However I go to great lengths to try and re-examine things when told that or several I respect disagree with me. Could I still be missing it? Sure but after going over the facts several times there is nothing to suggest to me that I am missing something here.

JJ Unfortunately, facts are not enough to assure a correct decision. A number of us here are familiar with the same facts yet come to different conclusions. You have come to one conclusion and everyone else with the same facts has come to another.

And why is this?

It isn’t because you are honing in on some fact the rest is missing. Instead, it is that you have a strong attachment to certain values or ideals that are not that all-important to the rest of us. This causes you to take the same facts we use and come to an entirely different conclusion.

And what is that difference in values? You give a hint in your next statement.

Blayne: I hear yours and others reasoning and it is contrary to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

JJ This is not the core reason for most of our disagreements but a branch reason. We’ll deal with this for now.

First, innocent until proven guilty, is not a principle, but a procedure and not all nations practice it or believe in using it. In reality a person is guilty the instant he commits a crime. Instead of being a principle it is a procedure that has a place in our legal system.

If you believe it to be a principle then I can see why you would be fairly black and white that it must always transpire just as gravity always works.

So, here seems to be the reason we cannot agree on the first point.

You have a black and white view where the Solomon principle does not even apply, no exceptions, a person should be presumed innocent until found innocent or guilty by a jury trial.

I do not think anyone else here thinks that way. Here is my view that most here seem to support.

Innocent until proven guilty is a procedure and all procedures are subject to exceptions. In other words, there are times when the procedure does much more harm than good and in such cases they should be abandoned and replaced by something more efficient.

For instance, if we had evidence that a certain citizen was going to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York and there was not time to follow standard procedure then to hell with procedure – let us instead save millions of lives and neutralize the situation anyway possible. The people, as the final arbitrators of the law, would support such an action.

This is where the Second Key of judgment comes in.

Wise judgment always trumps procedure from a higher point of view.

Does this mean that the legal procedure of innocent until proven guilty is meaningless? No, of course not. All of our laws and legal procedures stand as written unless sound judgment and the will of the people decrees they should be overridden.

Does this mean that we should make a list of 10,000 exceptions to our legal procedures?

No. This again goes against the key of judgment. The people will have a feel for when a wise judgment is made that overrides procedure and if the judgment is in a gray area they will be forgiving.

Obama taking out Awlaki was in a gray area, but 73% of the people support it which gives evidence that good judgment was used.

Blayne I can’t do much more then that if all the arguments don’t make logical sense to me, and I am not going to concede until they do.

JJ The arguments do not make sense because they do not harmonize with that to which you give great value. If your values were the same as the rest of the group then the arguments would start to make sense.

Blayne Your excuse that I am just being a fundamentalist here does not apply because we are dealing with foundation principles of justice here; innocent until proven guilty.

JJ Justice and “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” are two very different things. True justice is only created by good judgment. “Innocent until proven guilty” requires no judgment but is a black and white procedure that usually helps insure justice, but not always. We should always seek justice, but we should not always seek the same black and white procedure.

And since we are dealing with black and white things the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” rarely happens even in a jury trial. Sometimes a person is proven guilty, as was O J Simpson. He was judged innocent because of bias. Other times there is not solid evidence of guilt but the guy is still found guilty. Rarely is a person proven guilty beyond any doubt.

You want “innocent until proven guilty by a jury trial” for every crime which is a different animal than a mere “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Those who judged the Awlaki situation most likely presumed he was innocent until the evidence convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of treason and more. So the procedure was most likely applied there, but without a jury trial. You do not have to have a jury trial to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, a jury trial does not always establish a judgment beyond a reasonable doubt as in O J Simpson.

Blayne Basically what you are saying is because judges and government have perverted the foundations of law through precedent we have to just go with it.

JJ Perverted is your choice of wording not mine. What perversion are you talking about?

If a law is declared legal by constitutionally appointed judges and I do not agree with that law then it is still the law and legal and binding in your society. And what do you suggest we do with laws we do not like – break them and go to jail? Complain about them? That doesn’t do much good. If a person is really outraged then he should seek to make changes.

Blayne So where do we draw the line?

JJ Once something is legal there is no line to draw. It is just legal and there is nothing you can do about it in the short term. You can disagree with it but you will still be subject to it until it is changed.

Blayne: Do we just abandon the principles of justice and allow ourselves to devolve until all the principles are no longer adhered to in any meaningful way because generations of corruption are the precedent?

JJ I’m certainly not abandoning any of my principles.

Blayne First of all the constitution does not give any rights at all.

JJ Where do you get that idea? Of course the Constitution gives us rights. That’s why we have different rights here than people in other countries.

We have the right to bear arms here but in North Korea they do not. What gives us that right where the North Koreans do not have it?

The Constitution and the will to uphold it.

We have many rights because of the Constitution that many in other countries just do not have.

There is a difference between something being right (correct) and “a right.”

Blayne Just because all branches approve does not mean it is lawful.

JJ Wow. If all branches of government cannot make a law which is legal then who can? By your reasoning then it would seem that nothing legal exists anywhere if legality cannot be decided by anyone living.

Blayne: So according to you since that is the reality we might as well abandon its principles.

JJ And what principle have I abandoned? The answer is none.

Blayne In light of this (the power of juries) why is it so hard for you to understand that a star chamber of attorneys approving hits is wrong and un-American?

JJ Not all legal decisions in the universe are made by juries. In Awlaki’s case the attorneys advised but did not make the decision. I understand it was the military in connection with Obama giving final approval. If you try and apply one solution to all legal problems this will create more problems than it solves.

Blayne: The Jury is the the forth branch and government and the most important.

JJ Yes juries are extremely important and need to be restored to their rightful place. They even have power to negate Constitutional law. But in times of war many things do not go through juries. One size does not fit all.

Blayne What is not logical about law needing to be foundationally moral? It is perfectly logical.

JJ You are not hearing me. I said nothing even close to this conclusion you have conjured. Whenever possible a law should be moral. I have NEVER said anything contrary to this.

BUT I have said that a law does not have to be moral to be legal. If those who have power to make law pass a law that says slavery is legal then it would be legal, but that wouldn’t make it moral. Oh, wait, we’ve already had a law like that which was Constitutional.

Blayne What is not logical is putting the stamp of some legislative and judicial process on something immoral and calling it legal.

JJ It happens now and then but it’s still legal just as immoral slavery once was.

Blayne: You still haven’t addressed the rape law scenario. Calling that legal would be absurd that is what is called “color of law” meaning it has the color of law but is not really law as it is immoral or harmful.

JJ Just as slavery was legal when declared legal by the authorities even so would rape be legal if it was passed as a law. In some countries rape is pretty much legal and one can legally rape his wife or even beat her. Not much morality there in what is legal – but it is still legal.

JJ (Previous Post) I keep telling you this first point has nothing to do with right and wrong, but legal and illegal. They are two different things.

Blayne And you are wrong here it is in our jurisprudence. I have studied this stuff in depth.

JJ Then explain how slavery was both moral and legal if only the moral thing is legal.

Blayne: Basically what you are saying is if some group of thugs comes and takes over your neighborhood or town and starts abusing everyone and there is no one to stop them since that is the reality then that makes it legal as they are the new law.

JJ That’s crazy talk. We have a legal system set up and those who operate outside of the system cannot decide what is legal within that system.

On the other hand, if a group of thugs overthrew our government and instituted their own then they would have power to decide what was legal, just as Hitler did when he took over Germany.

You do not seem to be able to get it in your head that legal is not always moral. It was legal to abuse Jews in Hitler’s Germany but that was not right or moral.

You have a very strange ephemeral idea of what legal is and that is making this discussion a thousand times more complicated than in talking with anyone else here about this subject.

Blayne What you are saying in essence is might makes right or legal in this case.

JJ No. I’m not saying anything close to that. Legal is not always right. Might has not produced bad law here but it is the result of legal representatives we have chosen through election.

Blayne When in fact everyone knows it is not legal because it is not right. Sure everyone knows that is the reality but that does not make it legal. Well what the heck here is a couple references the second one a US supreme court ruling that bad laws are not law at all:

(Wordy legal quotations omitted)

JJ Your quotations say nothing about laws being moral only that they need to be in harmony with the Constitution or they can be thrown out. Both sides of the argument already believe that so why spend so much time on this?

The problem is that you think it is your sense of morality that determines Constitutional law rather than constitutionally appointed judges. Everyone thinks their interpretation of the Constitution is the right one and to avoid bedlam certain judges must be appointed to interpret law.

Blayne (Previous Post) So far each point that you have tried to say was open to interpretation in the constitution I have easily refuted and pointed out the plain meaning.

JJ (Previous Post) I don’t recall you refuting even one that I have not demolished. Care to refresh my memory one even one thing.

Blayne Sure you said that due process of law in the 5th Amendment has no clear meaning leaving the door open to interpretation to allow star chambers of politically connected attorneys to order hits on American citizens. The sixth amendment defines due process as trial by jury by saying all are entitled to it. It could not be much more clear then that.

JJ I didn’t say “no clear meaning” I said “It can indeed be argued.” The President, his attorneys and military chiefs in a time of war are hardly a star chamber. The sixth amendment is a separate entity from the fifth and doesn’t even contain the phrase “due process.” How can it be defining something it does not even reference??? Due process merely means a legal process.

I don’ think you’ve refuted anything here.

JJ (Previous Post) So you maintain then that EVERY single crime needs a jury trial. You are really in a minuscule minority here. Even applying this to one crime, parking tickets for example, would be crazy talk.

JJ Blayne then gives a discourse on parking tickets and does not address the fact that it would be impossible to give every crime a jury trial.

Blayne What part of the Constitution being the law of the land do you not understand? I have showed you twice now how it DOES define due process and has been used in that definition.

JJ No you have not. You keep referencing the Sixth Amendment that does not even contain the words “due process” neither does it define the term. It is not clearly defined anywhere in the Constitution.

You are using traditional assumptions.

Blayne So you refuse to acknowledge the clear language of the 6th amendment that all men are guaranteed trial by jury. If all men accused of a crime are guaranteed such how is it that due process could be anything else? It is illogical to think otherwise.

JJ The sixth amendment does not even use the term “due process” is but speaks of some legalities which can be part (but not the whole) of due process.

The 14th Amendment says: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

This gives the only other hint as to what due process is. Note the term “due process of law.”

Due process is merely considered to be following that which is legal. Most of the legal minds agree that Obama’s action was legal along with 73% of the people and, after all, the people are the final judge of the law.

Blayne: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

JJ Good quote. He is in harmony with my thinking.

Blayne: We know what the Founders meant when they wrote it we have plenty of their writings of them telling us what they meant, as if the language of it was not plain enough.

JJ Not all the founders were in agreement on the contents of the Constitution. What they said may have influence on a judge’s interpretation but what is written in the actual Constitution is paramount and many of the lines are subject to interpretation. If you do not think so then you are in a very tiny minority.

You seem to think that a dozen people can read any line in the document and the wording is so clear that all will come to the same conclusion. This is La La Land thinking and history proves you absolutely incorrect. You and I who are both libertarians and we cannot even agree on many lines and you and I would both unitedly disagree with many Leftist interpretations.

Blayne: Tell me what is the spirit of the words of “In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” It says “all” not some.

JJ Awlaki was notified a year before his execution that that he was a wanted man and if he could not be captured and tried by jury he would be taken out. He had a year to exercise his right to a jury trial, but refused. So the word ALL did include Awlaki. He was then turned over to the due process of a military action.

What is and is not a criminal prosecution is also subject to interpretation.

Your thinking that everything in the document is crystal clear and no interpretation is needed is strange indeed and none of the Founders support you in this thinking. If there were not numerous ways of looking at the words and interpreting the words then we wouldn’t even need judges for this purpose. The Founders would not have created the Supreme Court if no interpretation of the Constitution was needed..

Blayne: I in fact would like to abolish the constitution.

JJ Wow. Who would have thought? What would you have in its place?

Blayne: So you can stop trying to associate me with the fundamentalist moniker.

JJ Pick six people here and ask them whether or not you sound very fundamentalist in your interpretation of the Constitution.

Blayne’s quote: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson.

JJ Again – a good quote.

JJ (Previous Post) This is like listening to the extreme religious fundamentalist say something like:

“Jesus says I should pluck out my eye if it offends and my eyes caused me to lust after a woman so I guess I’ll pluck them out.”

Just like that scripture has shades of meaning even so are there differing ways to interpret the Constitution.

Blayne And this is like listening to a liberal leftist saying oh the constitution is a living document and it means what ever some judge Attorney or the president says it means as long as he agrees with my liberal belief’s.

JJ This is the first time in my life I have been compared to a liberal leftist.

When leftists speak of the Constitution being a living document they are NOT referring to the fact that intelligent people can have differing interpretations. They are saying that they should be able to negate what is written as immoral and create law true their version of what is right and moral rather than by what is written or by adding amendments. I am totally against the leftist view of the “living document” as they understand it.

JJ (Previous Post) And how do you know that the decision of a jury is true. You don’t. There is not 100% surety in any decision made. Without some element of trust nothing can get done. With too much everything falls apart. This is why the Key of Judgment is so important.

Blayne This is getting ridiculous. Nothing is perfect the point is all the evidence is heard by an impartial jury not a bunch of politically connected attorneys who are biased to an agenda. The attorneys are supposed to be making the case to a jury not ordering deaths.

JJ The question under consideration is – was the action legal? If it was then there was probably no more bias involved than would occur in the regular jury process. It looks like our main difference in thinking.

You think that a law has to fit in with your version of what is Constitutional, right and moral to be legal.

I think that laws are legal, whether I think they are right or not, if they have been created through our Constitutional process.

I’d say that over 90% of the people would agree with me on this and when 90% of the people support what is deemed to be legal then that legality will indeed be upheld until it is changed by new law.

I’m talking about legalities here, not whether Obama made the best possible choice in dealing with Awlaki. That comes later.

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 13

This entry is part 27 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 19, 2011
Message to Blayne

I hope you don’t think I’m coming down too hard on you. Perhaps a few positive words are in order.

Overall you have one of the finest minds that I have come across and when battling ignorance I am always overjoyed to have you on my side. I think that if you and I had been attorneys together we could have become famous for winning cases.

You remind me somewhat of Paul who was independent, operated out of the box and fiercely went his own way whether Peter and the others agreed or not.

You also remind me of my beloved friend Wayne (whose thinking was a lot like yours) with whom I also had many strong disagreements. Like you he was a person that I could have passionate arguments with yet still keep as a great friend who would do most anything for me and I for him.

Oct 19, 2011
Re: Conclusion for Consideration

“DaJudge”wrote:

Your God says to kill Americans who have not been given their due process rights under the 5th Amendment? The following is Ron Paul’s thoughts on the matter:

JJ Moses had many of his enemies taken out without any due process and many of them were not an imminent threat.

Oct 20, 2011
Question Three
Question Three: The next natural question is would such an action be the right thing to do? This question has already been tossed around like crazy and no agreement has been reached. Instead of asking that question now let us ask this? If such an action were legal under what circumstances would it be the right thing to do?

Let us expand this question a bit. Here are some yes or no questions. Would it be alright to assassinate Awlaki if evidence indicated there was a 50% chance he was involved in plotting terrorist acts against.

A 75% chance?

A 90% chance?

A 99% chance?

A 99.9% chance?

Why not 100%? Because there is never 100% surety in any judgment of guilt or innocent.

Now let us suppose that we had firm intelligence that Awlaki was heading up a group that gained possession of a nuclear weapon and they had plans to detonate it in Washington DC. We receive intelligence that the group is gathered in a certain location in Yemen. We could send a cruise missile that would destroy the entire group as well as put the bomb out of commission. Should we act now?

Should we have lots of discussion and legal research first, miss the opportunity and take our chances

Should we take him out even if we are violating the a number of laws in doing so?

Oct 20, 2011
Re: Conclusion for Consideration

This is a consideration indeed but I doubt if they expected that 80% of murders would escape the jury process. I think the point to take in consideration is that no matter how intelligent the initiators are that they cannot foresee all the results of their work and cannot include all the safeguards necessary. You’d think the wording of the Second Amendment would be plain enough but if the Founders could have seen into the future they would have just left off the reference to militias.

Oct 21, 2011
Letter of the Law 1.1
JJ quoting Blayne Nowhere have I said this sort of thing is new.

JJ (from last post) You had me fooled. Here is what you said in post # 54101

“This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.”

You have also talked about this setting a bad precedent many times as if such a precedent had not been set before.

Blayne: You have taken this out of context you do this a lot when we disagree and it clouds the issue. I went on to explain when questioned earlier on this very thing that it is unprecedented for the president to order a hit on an American citizen and then announce it publicly as if it is no big deal.

JJ It was in context for that post and there was nothing in post #541012 that indicated otherwise. Sure you have said other things in your dozens of posts on this subject. Am I supposed to piece them all together, read your mind and come up with an acceptable conclusion???

Even taking into consideration that you said (in another post) that “it is unprecedented for the president to order a hit on an American citizen and then announce it publicly” does not change the meaning of this statement in question you made:

“This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.”

Both of your statements could be your true meaning as they do not contradict. It could be the first such hit ordered by an American President and apart from that it could be an unprecedented act.

This is an example of why others do not think you see the other side or yield a point.

You clearly said that “”This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history..” and nothing in that post or any other says otherwise.

When I read that I didn’t think you were referring exclusively to the president’s actions but seemed to be speaking generally.

You do not seem to be able to put yourself in the readers shoes to the point that you can see how your words were interpreted to mean what they seemed to say in the context of that post.

This causes you to project an image of being so determined to be right that you cannot concede a little and say something like:

“Yeah I can see how that statement could come across that way. Sorry about the confusion. Here’s what I really meant to say.”

JJ (Previous post) Just because you give your reasoning (which is in this case unconvincing) does not mean you have considered the opposing views. It sounds more like your mind was just set in stone and you found what you were looking for – for you anyway, but not for anyone else here.

Blayne: You’re entitled to your opinion. However basically you have just called me a liar. Just because you are unconvinced of my reasoning is no reason to assume I have not considered others opinions.

JJ I’ll practice what I preach and yield here as I just suggested you do. I can see how you might read my statement that way, but it is certainly not what I meant. I believe you are a very honest individual and that you are a big believer in telling the truth.

I know that you always think you give the other side of an argument fair consideration, but that doesn’t mean you actually do.

For instance, I remember a lifetime ago when I was a strong believer in the Mormon church. I thought I gave full consideration to arguments against my beliefs in church doctrine. For instance, I didn’t accept reincarnation even though I had taken people back into past lives as heard them speak in different accents and reveal things they couldn’t have known in this life. When I rejected this as evidence I really believed I was giving both sides of the argument full consideration.

Now, on hindsight I can see that I was not. I was not lying when I thought I was seeing both sides fairly. I just had a blind spot due to my strong fixation on my belief system at the time.

Even so I think you believe yourself to be truthful when you say you’re seeing both sides, but in my opinion you are caught in an illusion that needs dispelled.

This is why I have tried to break this argument down into pieces so we can look at them one at a time and discover where the real problem lies in reaching reasonable conclusions all rational minds here can accept.;

JJ (Previous Post) Like many laws there is more than one way to interpret this…

Blayne: The legal system is already bogged down and there is no justice and we are facing disaster precisely because we do not follow the law here.

JJ Law is not based on how fundamentalists interpret original documents but how it has been applied and interpreted by judges as well as altered by new clarifying law over the years. This is the reality that makes laws that are now legal. You do not seem to accept this reality which I and most people do.

That doesn’t mean I agree with all the laws, but unlike you I accept their reality. I don’t have to agree with a law to accept that it is the law. You seem to think you have to agree.

A fundamentalist could probably argue that most speed limit laws are unconstitutional and refuse to recognize them. Now I do not like speed limit laws and would be happy to see most of them eliminated, but I recognize their reality that they are indeed legal within our system, even though permission to create them was not spelled out by the Founders.

So, overall the system has evolved legally with Congress adding to and constitutionally appointed judges interpreting the law we are governed by. We thus follow law – some good and some not so good, but laws nevertheless.

Blayne It’s pretty clear that all crimes should be tried by jury in Law and historical precedent.

JJ The jury system doesn’t have time to judge more than 20% of the murders let alone traffic tickets and thousands of other infractions. I think you are being unreasonable here.

Blayne: Your saying only a certain percentage are actually tried by a jury is a red herring to say the least.

JJ It’s not a red herring at all but makes the point that many points of the Constitution cannot be applied in black and white literal mindset. That’s why we have judges as well as Congress to pass clarifying laws.

Blayne Most these people WAVED THEIR RIGHT to a trial by jury.

JJ And where in the Constitution does it give them that right? Even you are using wiggle room here.

Blayne: Using this to try and justify assassination of an American citizen does not apply.

JJ I was using it to show that a hard-core fundamentalist black and white interpretation is often not practical.

Blayne: The few exceptions are self defense when one must kill or harm someone in self defense and war which is basically self defense on a massive scale.

JJ But we are in a war with terrorists which has been approved by all branches of government making it Constitutional. Therefore the president as Commander in chief can do what is necessary to carry out the war unless stopped by the legal system, Congress or the people themselves.

Blayne: The Jury is supposed to judge the case not the Judge he is supposed to be impartial and only keep order during the trial period.

JJ This is a good point. The Founders realized that no law was perfect, not even Constitutional law. Therefore they created juries to be the final arbitrators. They have the final say on law and can even legally throw it out or disregard it – even if it is constitutional. The legal system tries to hide this power from juries and unfortunately, sometimes a jurist can be held in contempt for using this power.

Blayne: Judges have no authority to make law…

JJ They do have Constitutional power to interpret law which often does create new applications of the law. Some could argue that this makes new law.

Other times they do actually make new law from something not even written and this is a wrong use of power that the system has no effective way to correct. This needs to be addressed, but it has little to do with the subject at hand.

Blayne Also this idea that we can separate legal from moral or right is not correct. Laws are supposed to be based on basic morality.

JJ Where do you get this idea? There are many laws that have nothing to do with morality such as speed limits, eminent domain, licensing, the qualifying age of our representatives, taxes, immigration, and many other laws are based on common sense – not morality.

I think that is one of the main reasons you cannot agree that the action on Awlaki was legal because in your mind it was not right. You seem to think that if a thing offends your sense of morality then it is not legal.

This is not logical and it is not true in the real world. Some laws offend my sense of morality also, but that does not make them illegal. If I break them I will suffer the consequences whether I agree or not.

Blayne If it is immoral and wrong to kill someone without a fair trial and hearing of all the evidence (except in self defense) then any law passed that allows it is no law at all.

JJ You’re not being logical here. If a law is passed and approved within our system then it is the law whether we like it or not.

I keep telling you this first point has nothing to do with right and wrong, but legal and illegal. They are two different things.

Blayne: I have to wonder why you left out my example of Churchill defying the group pressure when he thought it was wrong?

JJ I didn’t. You even quoted it in your post. Here it is again:

“There was only a couple times where Churchill had to stand against the many. More often than not his logic was strong enough that the many stood with him.”

I have no problem with you going against the majority. It is your right, which I support. It is my right to disagree with you though and attempt to show you the error of your reasoning.

Blayne You are telling me because 4 or 5 disagrees with me I must be wrong and haven’t considered their side.

JJ It’s not that others disagree but I see little evidence that you see opposing arguments through the others eyes.

Blayne: And I am telling you I have looked at the known evidence and found their side wanting.

JJ I’m sure that is true in your eyes.

Blayne: By the way. I have refuted all the arguments several times.

JJ I know you’ve argued all over the map on this with a number of members and you made some good points and this is why I jumped in to use this like a Molecular exercise and attempted to break the argument down to its parts.

The first hurdle is simply agreeing on the legality of the action – not the morality, or all the other points discussed.

Blayne: Sorry I will not just rubber stamp anything you or anyone says or Even God George Washington or Thomas Jefferson If it doesn’t make sense and is refuted by facts… 😉 Some people don’t like that and perhaps that is one of the sources of negativity..

JJ I felt a little disturbance in the force. That was my motivation in posting something more positive about you.

It’s fine with me that you don’t follow the crowd.

Blayne: I am adhering to the principles of freedom and liberty that a man is innocent until proven guilty…

JJ Awlaki was presumed innocent until those with legal power to judge judged otherwise. Whether they judged correctly has nothing to do with the first point. The point is they had the legal power to judge.

Blayne: What principle are you arguing from?

JJ Man made law is not directly based on a principle but determined by the will of the people who are involved. It is [probably loosely associated with the principle of intelligent organization under the Law of Economy. Sometimes what is legal is a million miles away from a principle. The Principle of freedom has nothing to do with whether a thing is legal or not. It used to be legal to own slaves, but that had nothing to do with the Principle of Freedom.

Blayne: Who are these legal minds that you think are so great?

JJ It doesn’t take a “great” legal mind to determine the legality of most things. It’s a fairly simple procedure that you seem to be making extremely complicated.

Blayne This is nothing more then an appeal to authority.

JJ Authorities have their place. What is legal is often determined by authorities, like it or not. Just because you do not like what is legal does not alter reality.

Blayne: Because some lawyer says something is one way or another does not make it so. Assuming these guys are the greatest legal minds because they are politically connected to get into these positions is naive at best. Attorneys are among the most ignorant of law of any group! These guys know how the corrupt non article 3 courts work and how to manipulate them for their own gain but they know little about the actual law. Being officers of said courts the courts also favor them despite their ignorance. The judge the defense attorney and the prosecutor all belong to the same club and their first duty is to protect the court and not their client yet few people see the huge conflict of interest here.

JJ Wow.. You are really negative on the legal system. If some alien came here and only listened to you he’d think we have no justice whatsoever and thugs are everywhere. Our system is not perfect but sometimes it gets things right.

But the point we are discussing has nothing to do with this red herring. We are not discussing right and wrong, but legal and illegal. Two very different things.

Blayne: My reasoning is sound that allowing this type of Assassination sets a precedent that could impact millions and future generations.

JJ This has nothing to do with whether the action was legal.

Blayne Instead of trying to minimize it to bolster your argument here you should be admonishing the opposing group they could ALL be wrong and it could impact millions but since you are part of that group it appears you could not bring yourself to jeopardize winning the argument by doing that.

JJ For the umpteenth time this part of the argument has nothing to do with right and wrong. The first point is to establish whether the action was legal or illegal.

Blayne: The varied interpretations of the constitution are just people trying to twist the meanings to their own agendas and or illusions.

JJ Several here have different interpretations of the Constitution. Are those who disagree with you just twisting things? I don’t think so. I think we are all interpreting it the best we can.

Blayne So far each point that you have tried to say was open to interpretation in the constitution I have easily refuted and pointed out the plain meaning.

JJ I don’t recall you refuting even one that I have not demolished. Care to refresh my memory one even one thing.

Blayne: Sounds to me like you prefer a bunch of people shouting he’s guilty he’s guilty kill him kill him and then trying to rubber stamp it with a bunch of lying attorneys, ignoring the principle of innocent until proven guilty…

JJ I think most people reading this will agree that you have an imagination going wild here concerning me.

Blayne: Your argument is based on your belief that due process means a bunch of politically connected attorneys with agendas said its ok. When I have pointed out the constitution clearly defines due process as trial by Jury

JJ And, using your reasoning, I could say that your argument of a jury trial for all is shows you rely on corrupt judges and attorneys in trials with hand picked biased juries. Nothing we set up is perfect.

Blayne: Wow you have this completely backwards. Justice has been destroyed precisely because we do not adhere to it (jury process).

JJ So you maintain then that EVERY single crime needs a jury trial. You are really in a minuscule minority here. Even applying this to one crime, parking tickets for example, would be crazy talk.

Blayne: The basis of all law is no harm no crime. The Idea we don’t have time to give every accused a fair trial is a construct created by attorneys so the can run people through a corrupt system…

JJ I don’t think so. If we gave every law breaker a jury trial we would need ten times as many attorneys and judges.

Blayne: If we had stuck to the maxim of law no harm no crime there would be a lot less cases and a lot less theft by attorneys and judges.

JJ Again, I’m sure your idea of harm differs from many and you are sure yours is the only right one. All the laws we have follow someone’s idea of preventing harm.

Blayne: This just illustrates you do not understand the maxim of law and you are in illusion on this. The 5th Amendment precisely says NO MAN shall be deprived of life liberty and property without due process. Pretty sure that means it INCLUDES EVERYONE.

JJ That’s right, but it doesn’t define due process. A due process was applied to Awlaki but that’s not good enough for you because it doesn’t fit the meaning of due process that you have defined in your belief system.

Blayne The 6th then defines it as trial by jury. They are not mutually exclusive.

JJ That’s your conjecture. The Constitution doesn’t say anything one way or another about exclusiveness.

Blayne: The maxim of law has always been that the federal government can do nothing that is not specifically granted in its charter the constitution. Not; that if it is not spelled out they have free reign to do what ever they want. In other words if it is not in there they can’t do it PERIOD!

JJ You look at the Constitution the way fundamental literalists look at the Bible. This attitude causes them to get many things wrong because they do not look at the Spirit of the word.

There are many things the Federal Government has to do that is not literally spelled out. Adjusting the salaries of Federal workers to inflation is one thing, or should we just pay them $300 a year? (Actually that might be a good idea for a lot of bureaucrats)

Authority to create national highway system was not spelled out but maybe one out of 10,000 thinks the government overstepped its bounds there.

The creation of NASA was not spelled out there but this has been a great benefit for the world.

Many things not specifically spelled out have been fined tuned by judges and new legislation. None of us agree with all the fine-tuning but some has been a stabilizing force. And if some of this offends the people enough public opinion can always force positive change.

Blayne The constitution also settles how we deal with war and lesser threats to the nation.

JJ Yeah, The Constitution does this followed by constitutionally authorized judges and legislation which does not rely on your interpretation. Your opinion does not make law or determine how the Constitution is interpreted.

Blayne: By declarations of war and for lesser actions letters of marque and reprisal period. So there is nothing grey about it…

JJ Nothing grey about it??? Yeah, right. If its so clear then why cannot you and I agree??? It’s so clear that all intelligent people can just give it a quick look and agree with what it says – right? Give me a break.

This is like listening to the extreme religious fundamentalist say something like:

“Jesus says I should pluck out my eye if it offends and my eyes caused me to lust after a woman so I guess I’ll pluck them out.”

Just like that scripture has shades of meaning even so are there differing ways to interpret the Constitution.

The human language is so imperfect that one cannot wrote more than one paragraph that a dozen people will interpret the same way. You even complain that your own words are misunderstood, so what makes you think the Founding Fathers found the magical method of creating a document that is so clear that all who can read will see the meaning the same way and only see differently if they are corrupt?

Do you even read and analyze some of the things you are saying here?

Blayne: IOW I am saying in order for any action to be legal it has to be moral on a basic level.

JJ I’ve already responded to this. See above.

Blayne: And of course there is no accountability here to what they claim. How does anyone know if any of their accusations are true?

JJ And how do you know that the decision of a jury is true. You don’t. There is not 100% surety in any decision made. Without some element of trust nothing can get done. With too much everything falls apart. This is why the Key of Judgment is so important.

Blayne: If they knew where he was to hit him with a drone strike it seems to me they could have captured him fairly easily. There is no proof he was an eminent threat to us.

JJ And how many times has this been done in history with a notorious bad guy? I can’t think of any. And why? Because it takes time and planning to accomplish such a thing and by the time the execution is ready he is likely to be in hiding at another location.

Blayne:

This is all I have time for at the moment….

JJ Probably a good thing you didn’t have two moments.

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 12

This entry is part 20 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 13, 2011
Re: Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’

Blayne: Let me get this straight do you think this justifies executing citizens on the presidents word he is a terrorist threat with no accountability authority or evidence?

JJ No. That’s not what I said. I posted that example from George Washington’s execution without trial to illustrate that much worse has been done by our heroes. The men Washington executed appears to have been less of a threat than Anwar al-Awlaki is to us.

I agree with you that the law needs to be followed. It does look liked he could be tried for treason as he apparently is advocating a violent overthrow of the United States openly on his web site. Treason has carried the death penalty in the past.

If this guy is a threat that needs taken out then Obama should work within the law to accomplish this. If there is no way to bring him in then perhaps he could be tried in absentia or have his citizenship revoked and treated accordingly.

So, do you agree with George Washington’s executions I cited? If not then what should he have done?

Molecular Disagreements

Blayne and Duke are among my favorite people so I do not relish them going after each other and disagree so strongly but such things happen. After all, a number of the good members here have gone around with me a number of times. Such disagreements are likely to surface in the molecule now and then so this provides an opportunity to ask some new questions.

Let us suppose that Blayne and Duke are in a molecule together and this very argument breaks out.

Would this disagreement interfere with the spiritual flow? After all the subject is somewhat removed from spiritual conversation.

Let us suppose the topic involved a spiritual principle. Would such a disagreement create a problem?

In both cases can anything be done to cause them both to look through the eyes of the sol together and see as one?

The Governing Principle Blayne writes: Perhaps we can try an experiment here? Point out what you think my illusions are on this issue and lets see of we can at least agree on what the issue is and is not and if we can come to agreement there then we can seek soul contact on if it was handled appropriately?

JJ Thanks for the brave suggestion.

Let’s handle this as if we were in a molecule and we are trying to bring harmony and agreement on this issue.

Now the problem with many disagreements is that both sides of the issue are often not understood or articulated well. For instance, I have had people disagree with me when they really agree but just did not understand what I was saying. If they have their mind made up to be disagreeable it seems that no clarification satisfies them.

It doesn’t do any good to attempt to solve a disagreement through group soul contact unless both sides are clearly understood. If the problem is nebulous then the soul cannot give a clear answer.

In addition the principles involved must be understood and articulated as much as possible.

Steve asks – what shall we do if two or more principles are involved? Which one should we follow?

The answer is that there will always be a dominate principle governing the situation. More often that not, the governing principle concerning the action of a disciple is to accomplish the greatest good for the greatest number of people.

For instance, we are told to not kill which falls within the principle of harmlessness. But suppose you were in a bank and a crazy man had planted a bomb and was about to detonate it when such a blast would kill about 100 people. You just happen to have a gun and know you can take him out before he presses the button? Do you do it when this action seems to violate the principle of harmlessness?

Yes, you do because the overriding principle is to follow that course which brings the greatest good to the greatest number. If you shoot the guy you will take one life and save 100 thereby doing a much greater good than doing nothing.

That said, let us look again at the argument between Blayne and Duke. Answer these questions.

List all the principles involved.

Whose reasoning seems to support the greatest good for the greatest number?

Why?

If you think it is neither side then what action would have been the greatest good.

Believe me, the answer will not be as simple as some may think.

Oct 16, 2011

Re: The Governing Principle

Good comments again today by the group. If we are to harmonize we need to hone in on the principles that apply to the subject.

I think we all agree that the most desirable outcome for an action is the greatest good for the greatest number.

The problem is that both Blayne and Duke believe their conclusions support that direction. What causes two intelligent people to come up with opposite conclusions here? There are several things.

(1) The primary one is the Second Key of Judgment. This is the Second Key of Knowledge because it is of prime importance, right up there with the power of decision itself.

(2) Different core beliefs.

(3) Different values.

(4) Different focus.

Blayne places great emphasis on individual; freedom and focuses in that direction.

Duke places emphasis on flexibility to achieve the greatest good.

Both points of focus have their place and, used with judgment, can produce good results but understanding this will not bring them to agreement. Let us therefore look at the two perspectives and the principles involved in understanding the argument.

Blayne and Duke are free to correct me if I am not accurate.

Blayne sees the killing of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, by the decree of our president as a major threat to the freedom of us all. He broke the law to do this, and if he gets away with it this means that the government can target anyone they dislike. All they have to do is discredit them and then take them out. This could lead to a situation where everyone would be afraid for their lives if they criticized the government.

Duke thinks there is enough evidence to prove that Anwar al-Awlaki was a threat. Maybe not an imminent one but one that was planning an attack on Americans that would take many lives. Since there is no way to just arrest him to neutralize the threat Duke thinks that it is good common sense and serve the greater good to take him out even if it is not clear that such an action is technically legal. After all, we targeted thousands of American citizens for death that had similarly withdrew from the union during the Civil War.

I think the first question to settle is whether of not the assassination was legal. Read this article (or Google others) and give your opinion. If it was legal, that may not mean it was right, but it would mean that the action was justified legally.

Was it Legal?

Oct 16, 2011

Re: The Governing Principle

It is interesting that both Blayne and Duke were arguing from the conclusion that the action in taking out Anwar was illegal. But the New York Times article indicates that it may have been legal after all. Actually any president has to confer with many legal advisers in taking any controversial action.

One of the reasons Blayne was against this was because it was illegal and established a bad precedent. But if it was already legal then the action does not establish anything as it is already legal.

Duke was arguing that it is okay to break a law when the greater good is at stake.

But if the action was legal it appears that both of the were arguing about a point that does not even exist.

It appears then that the argument should just boil down to this question.

Was the action the right thing to do. In other words, was the greater good served by taking him out or not?

Is this assessment correct? What do you think?

NOTE I want to stress that even though this is not a metaphysical subject our end goal is very spiritual in quality. One out of a 1000 of these type of arguments end in agreement so if can accomplish this it will serve as an example and be worth whatever effort it takes.

I must admit that i have not read all the dialog in this ongoing discussion. I’m sure many others haven’t also. Therefore, for those who want to catch up I posted all the pertinent dialog at:

Discussion Link

Oct 17, 2011 Good comments today and I enjoyed them all but we are becoming a little scattered here. To unravel this subject and find agreement we have to dissect it into its pieces and then put them back together. If we just argue the whole subject we will have a cacophony indeed.

Here was the question that needs to be our first point of focus.

“I think the first question to settle is whether of not the assassination was legal. Read this article (or Google others) and give your opinion. If it was legal, that may not mean it was right, but it would mean that the action was justified legally.”

NYT Link

When I made my first comment on this subject I was under the assumption that Obama was operating outside the law in going after this guy. Then I read the New York Times article and changed my mind. After studying the details it appears that Obama may legally squeak by on this and it looks like Ron Paul may not have much of a case in his talk of impeachment.

The courts and the legal experts seem to accept that we are legally at war with terrorists and that those who take sides with the terrorists are fair game citizens or not.

To this Blayne replies: As for the courts ruling blah blah it does not matter the courts are wrong here and I addressed why. There is no authority for such in the document that defines the scope of congress and the president. The courts have long ago given up their duty to stick within the scope of the constitution.

JJ I often think the courts are wrong, but it is still their decisions that determine the interpretation of the Constitution and the laws of the land. Sometimes I think they are right and others way off base, but it is a fact that they determine legality.

It is a hard fact that many lines in the Constitution are open to interpretation. Yes it says that Congress shall have power to declare war, but is the only way to do this with a document that says, “We declare war”?

Congress has authorized the war in Iraq and the War on Terror and these have been upheld by the courts as legal war action.

It appears then that Obama operated within the law and as proof of this we will see that those who disagreed with him will be powerless to legally prosecute or even do much to bring an investigation into the matter.

The Fifth Amendment guarantees due process, but what this is, is subject to interpretation. I’m sure Obama believes he went through due process through his legal maneuverings.

I’m sure that FDR felt he was legally justified in taking away the freedom of Japanese Americans during World War II. Woodrow Wilson also jailed thousands of Americans without normal due process during World War I.

Many things presidents have done have been very questionably legally and morally, but if thy are upheld by the constitutionally mandated courts of the land then they are technically legal.

We can say the Constitution says otherwise, but the opinion of a U.S. citizen does not make law.

If citizens to not like certain laws then they can pressure Congress to write better laws that are more just – as well as clearly written.

One of Blayne’s concerns is that Obama’s action will set a bad precedent so in the future a President could pick on someone he just doesn’t like, declare him a terrorist and take him out.

If we had a dictatorship this could happen, but a dictator doesn’t need any precedent. But what about this concern as it applies to our current system? Is this something we should lose sleep over?

Oct 17, 2011

Legalities

I’ve been thinking of a conclusion on the legality of Obama’s decision to take out Awlaki that we could all agree on. Blayne seems to have strong opinion that the act was flat out illegal and unconstitutional, but there are arguments in both directions and it is always important to see the logic of both sides. I thought this New York Times article was fairly balanced on the issue:

NYT Link

Another Link

Here’s my conclusion that I would like Blayne and Duke to consider and would also like comments from the rest of the group.

My Conclusion: Obama’s taking out Awlaki, an American citizen, was controversial with some believing it to be illegal and others legal. In reality if it was clearly illegal the ACLU (which thinks it is illegal), Ron Paul and hundreds of Obama’s Republican enemies in power could bring Obama and others up on charges.

Since this hasn’t happened, nor is likely (and the courts seem to support Obama’s action) we have to conclude that the action was technically legal enough for Obama to proceed with impunity.

This is not an attempt to judge whether or not the action was morally right or wrong but merely to reach consensus on the legality of the issue.

Note: This part of the process has nothing to do with soul contact but we are merely using our minds and best judgment to go as far as we can on our own.

Oct 17, 2011
Re: The Governing Principle

Blayne: Hitler came to power in a democratic election (yeah I know it was not a majority) still he did not seize power by brute force. He did not just implement his plan over night. He gradually implemented it over time.

JJ Actually Hitler did not receive enough votes to become Chancellor. Because of the lack of majority needed he managed to use his influence to get himself appointed. After that, things did not change gradually but was pretty much overnight. He used the full force of his will and power from the moment he took office.

Oct 18, 2011
Re: Conclusion for Consideration

Okay, we are at step one in this harmony seeking process concerning Obama’s termination of Anwar al-Awlaki.

In the beginning I thought Obama broke the law in his action and I think several others did also. But then after studying the details I can see the logic in the legal argument on both sides. The law in this case is not clearly demarked and seems to favor Obama’s action. Even though a number disagree and threaten legal action it is doubtful that Obama will wind up in any trouble over this.

In the early days of this country we published wanted posters stating: “Wanted Dead or Alive.” A reward was offered to anyone who would bring outlaws (U.S. Citizens) in dead with no trial, no judge and no jury. This idea of going after obvious criminals without a jury trial is not new.

It appears that everyone but Blayne who has responded agrees that the matter is not black or white – that Obama could be legally justified.

From the Beginning Blayne took the stance that the action was just plain black and white, crystal clear illegal and unconstitutional and nothing was going to change his mind.

Nothing did.

He still thinks the same way, hasn’t budged an inch, and sees absolutely no value in any argument or legal defense made. It would appear that if God, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington appeared to him to show him any error in his thinking he would not consider changing his mind.

I would admonish Blayne to consider this. He alone is holding to his view with absolutely no wiggle room. We have an intelligent group here. If they are intelligent and this case is so crystal clear to anyone with a brain – then why cannot even one other person see with this crystal clear vision you have?

Is it possible that you are holding on to your interpretation so tightly that you are not looking at or considering the other side?

If you know the sky is blue and someone says it is green then you feel justified in flat out rejecting them because the truth is so obvious. But civil law is not so black and white. It has shades of gray and it appears to me and others here that there are shades of gray in judging the legality of Obama’s action.

I’d like to hear feedback from the group on this.

Next question.

It appears that Obama’s legal team has worked pretty much in secret and wrote up a 50 page legal memo justifying the action. Parts of this memo have been leaked but the process and the details are kept secret.

Is Obama justified in this? If not what should he have done?

Oct 18, 2011
Letter of the Law
Quoting JJ In the early days of this country we published wanted posters stating: “Wanted Dead or Alive.” A reward was offered to anyone who would bring outlaws (U.S. Citizens) in dead with no trial, no judge and no jury. This idea of going after obvious criminals without a jury trial is not new.

Blayne: So you think this justifies killing American citizens without trial?

JJ We haven’t got to this yet in the process I am attempting to guide. We are just dealing with whether the action was legal or not.

Blayne Nowhere have I said this sort of thing is new.

JJ You had me fooled. Here is what you said in post # 54101

“This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.”

You have also talked about this setting a bad precedent many times as if such a precedent had not been set before.

In truth there have been many times American Citizens have been executed without a trial with the blessing (right or wrong) of the legal powers.

Placing a bounty on outlaws “dead or alive” is just one example. If you are worried about precedent that is a much more egregious one than the Awlaki case.

Blayne: You act like I have just dismissed everyone’s arguments without consideration when I have explained my reasoning on every point some many times.

JJ Just because you give your reasoning (which is in this case unconvincing) does not mean you have considered the opposing views. It sounds more like your mind was just set in stone and you found what you were looking for – for you anyway, but not for anyone else here.

Blayne; Yeah we have nearly 200 years of due process meaning trial by jury as defined in the 6th Amendment and Article III, Section 2, Paragraph [3] of the US constitution and wars being handled by formal declaration and lesser actions by letters of marque and reprisal but I am the one being unreasonable here because we have departed from those sound principles of freedom in the later half of the 20th century… OK…

JJ I agree with you (as I am sure many others here) that in many cases we have gone astray from the original Constitution and original intent. In many cases it has been to our detriment, but others not so much. Let us take that section of the Constitution you referenced. It reads:

“The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.”

Like many laws there is more than one way to interpret this.

Is it saying that all crimes must be tried by a jury or is it telling us how to handle all crimes that are to be tried by a jury?

I haven’t checked but judges must have not gone by the first interpretation because most crimes are NOT tried by a jury. Even in the crime of murder only 20% of those caught wind up before a jury. For the letter-of-the-law guy this would be unconstitutional.

If we followed the letter of the surface interpretation here the legal system would be so bogged down that there would be no justice served anywhere.

Judges here were forced to discover wiggle room or face disaster.

Blayne: So by this logic I should just give in to peer pressure and ignore my own reason and logic when nothing has been presented that refutes my logic?

JJ No. I would never suggest this. I have always advised to follow the highest you know and for all of us the highest we know will be wrong at times.

The disciple must continually question and examine the highest he knows and challenge himself to see from a higher angle of vision. If he does this continually then the highest he knows will he more accurate as his life proceeds.

In your case, you are surrounded with other seekers who are also intelligent. When none seem to agree with you on this legality (that I have seen) then it would be wise to ask yourself if there is something you are not seeing. Is there a blind spot, an illusion, a dogma held too close etc?

I know you do this at times but it doesn’t seem to happen in the midst of an argument. In your quiet moments, where you have time to think, you do digest higher soul guidance and you are indeed making progress overall.

Blayne: After saying I would be trying very hard to consider the other sides point of view what makes you think I have not?

JJ Not only in this case but in many other arguments I have seen powerful evidence presented that you are not correct and you either dismiss it or ignore it and change the subject.

In this case, the greatest legal minds in the country are looking at the situation and most do not see the issue as black and white the way you do, yet you dismiss them. If you were adhering to some principle I could give you some slack but legalese deals more with data and angles of interpretation than principles.

Blayne: So far I have just been lectured on why I have not considered anyone else’s view. I asked folks to point out where they think I am wrong but I only get why they think they are right without addressing my points and reasoning.

JJ Yet you have offered even weaker arguments as to why you are right. The Jefferson story makes little sense to me concerning your case.

Blayne: Apparently not giving in to peer pressure means to you I must not have considered the other sides point of view.

JJ If this happens time and time again then it may be a sign you need to examine your thought process.

There was only a couple times where Churchill had to stand against the many. More often than not his logic was strong enough that the many stood with him.

Blayne: So does considering the other sides point of view mean I should not give counter points where ever I see them? Heaven forbid of those that responded could they all be wrong?

JJ You are on the right course by being honest and speaking your mind. If you are not correct on some issues then (if you are honest with yourself) then you will eventually make corrections. I am hoping this little exercise will make that time come sooner rather than later.

Quoting JJ: If you know the sky is blue and someone says it is green then you feel justified in flat out rejecting them because the truth is so obvious. But civil law is not so black and white. It has shades of gray and it appears to me and others here that there are shades of gray in judging the legality of Obama’s action.

Blayne: Believe me I know firsthand that civil law is anything but black and white. The constitution is pretty black and white though and we have ample writings from the founders on their intended meanings written into it.

JJ I don’t think the Constitution is black and white at all. If it were we wouldn’t have thousands of different interpretations arising from it. Many Fundamentalist Christians think the Bible is black and white as they read it, but obviously it is not which is evidenced by thousands of different interpretations.

Blayne: How many of you have even read this law that you think may give Obama legal authority? Correct me if I am wrong but none of you have even read it right? So how can you make any judgment never having read it not knowing the facts of what it actually says?

JJ I’ve read legal interpretations concerning this and it sounds more plausible than someone just shouting “follow the Constitution!”

Blayne Where is the wiggle room in the 5th and 6th amendments that no American can be deprived of life liberty and property without due process and the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury?

JJ Let’s look at the pertinent language of these two:

Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

JJ In Awlaki’s case the due process was conducted by the President and his legal team. So far this has been accepted by the Constitutional judges of the land. It can indeed be argued that Awlaki had due process and the process deliberated for about a year on the matter. That is much more consideration than most criminals have.

Sixth Amendment In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State …

JJ As I said earlier this usually doesn’t happen because it is not practical and if it did justice would be destroyed. It doesn’t say that every lawbreaker will be subject to regular criminal prosecution. Awlaki was not even subject to a regular criminal prosecution so this does not even apply to him.

Blayne: People say the 2nd amendment is not black and white on bearing arms either however it is about as black and white as it gets when is say the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

JJ I agree with you that this amendment is pretty black and white and those that say that only militias can have guns are being disingenuous.

Blayne: You also seem to be ignoring that I said even if we accept this law as legal that Obama has still over stepped even that.

JJ That may or may not be true but I am trying to go one step at a time.

Blayne As far as being legal lets take your version of legal to its logical conclusion. Do you think interning Japanese Americans who committed no crime or act of war was legal? After all it was justified because of war and done based in interpretation of the Presidents legal power to conduct war. This is another case where the majority was in agreement and but they were wrong. If congress passes a law that it is ok for congressmen and Judges to rape women at will and the courts uphold it is that legal? After all it went through the legislative and judicial process so it must be technically legal right?

JJ I think rather than asking if such things are legal you should be asking if they are right? That which is legal is not always the right or moral thing. If Congress passed a law saying that women could be raped and it was upheld by judges then it would be legal, but it would be immoral as it has always been.

Again, what is being asked is this: Was Obama’s action legal? The question was NOT: Was Obama’s action the best of all possible choices.

Oct 19, 2011
Question Three

Blayne and I are still dissecting the first question – Is it legal? – but let’s move ahead on some others.

Here was the second question.

It appears that Obama’s legal team has worked pretty much in secret and wrote up a 50 page legal memo justifying the action. Parts of this memo have been leaked but the process and the details are kept secret.

Is Obama justified in this? If not what should he have done?

My thanks to the few who responded to this. I think the group will agree with my conclusion here which is:

It’s fine if he checks with his attorneys in secret and has them do some research and write up a memo. But to proceed with a controversial action he should be sure enough of his legal correctness that he can release all the legal justification around the decision.

LWK made a good point in that he promised an open administration, supposedly the opposite of Bush, but he is even more secretive than Bush was.

Awlaki has been a target for some time so the legal justification for taking him out should have been out there for all to examine from the beginning. If the legality receives a serious challenge and he thinks it is essential to continue then Congress would need to pass legislation placing the action on more secure legal grounds.

Unless I hear some disagreement with this conclusion I will assume that all feel this is reasonable.

Next question: For this question let us assume that it would be legal to assassinate Awlaki and Obama is open and honest about the legalities, motives and details connected with it. The next natural question is would such an action be the right thing to do?

This question has already been tossed around like crazy and no agreement has been reached. Instead of asking that question now let us ask this?

If such an action were legal under what circumstances would it be the right thing to do?

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to be a member to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

Anwar al-Awlaki Discussion

This entry is part 15 of 34 in the series 2011C

Blayne: Looks like we have some full circle from freedom to despotism

Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’

Read another article HERE

Duke:
Personally, I don’t think “American citizenship” should be a bullet-proof shield that a terrorist should be able to hide behind. I think the key factor is that good judgment be exercised in any such decisions. Members of the US military take an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States against “all enemies, foreign and domestic”, and I think an overseas American-turned-terrorist falls within that… ah… scope.

I don’t know any behind-the-scene specifics about al Awlaki so I can’t reliably say whether targeting him was good judgment or poor judgment. But note that since taking office, formerly anti-war Obama has authorized precisely the kind of military action that he was previsously quite critical of. His critics of course call it hypocricy, but I disagree. I think Obama simply now has much more information about the threats we face than he did back when he was a senator, to the point where he is now taking actions that would normally be against to his nature.

Dan Yeah, any “citizen” that incites/instigates terrorist plots against his own people/country, can pretty much expect to no longer be considered a citizen of that country (unless he’s a complete idiot 🙂

Murder is murder, foreign or domestic 🙂 if he was a good (bad) ‘target’ if a foreignor, citizenship doesn’t really change that assessment. A rabid dog will kill you, doesn’t matter that yesterday he was your favorite housepet.

Blayne’s Dialog:
Sh Personally, I don’t think “American citizenship” should be a bullet-proof shield that a terrorist should be able to hide behind.

Blayne Its not but it requires a fair trial and a guilty conviction to execute an American citizen.

Sh I think the key factor is that good judgment be exercised in any such decisions.

Blayne The thing your missing is there is no accountability as to whether there is good judgment here without a fair trial. This is America the president has no authority to order the death of an American citizen without a fair trial.

SH Members of the US military take an oath to protect the Constitution of the United States against “all enemies, foreign and domestic”, and I think an overseas American-turned-terrorist falls within that… ah… scope.

Blayne If the man is on the battlefield taking up arms against the military that is one thing, but to order an assassination of a citizen without trial present the evidence is un-American and anti freedom. If he is a terrorist prove it in a trial. This sets a very bad precedent. There is no accountability here. This is no better then Hitler and Stalin ordering the execution of thier citizens without trial it goes against everything America is based on.

(Duke Correction: This statement obviously was not very well thought out; Hitler perpetrated the holocaust during wartime.)

SH I don’t know any behind-the-scene specifics about al Awlaki so I can’t reliably say whether targeting him was good judgment or poor judgment.

Blayne That is the whole point of having a trial. We don’t know and every citizen is entitled to a fair trial so the evidence can be assesed as to his guilt. Just assuming he has information justifying the killing without any verification or accountability simply makes him a dictator pure and simple.

Sh But note that since taking office, formerly anti-war Obama has authorized precisely the kind of military action that he was previsously quite critical of. His critics of course call it hypocricy, but I disagree. I think Obama simply now has much more information about the threats we face than he did back when he was a senator, to the point where he is now taking actions that would normally be against to his nature.

Blayne That is why we have checks and balances to find out. He has bypassed the checks and balances put in place to assure he is acting appropriately. He has illegally taken us into Libya without congressional approval and is now murdering citizens without trial by secret decree with no accountability. This is a serious threat to our freedoms! Congress is also culpable too as they did nothing about it. Its amazing that anyone would consider justifying any of this to any degree.

Duke’s Response:
Blayne: …it requires a fair trial and a guilty conviction to execute an American citizen.

SH: Under normal circumstances, yes. The present circumstances are not normal. The late Anwar al-Awlaki and his group are at war with the United States. How do you propose to apprehend him so that he can be given a fair trail? And if it is not possible to apprehend him, what’s the next best thing a president can do, assuming the threat is real, and assuming his duty is to protect the citizens of the United Stages?

I’m not a lawyer, but what if there is a law on the books that says, once a person has joined a terrorist group dedicated to killing Americans, he no longer enjoys the rights of US citizenship. Would that make a difference to you?

Blayne: The thing your missing is there is no accountability as to whether there is good judgment here without a fair trial. This is America the president has no authority to order the death of an American citizen without a fair trial.

SH: Neither of us are privy to classified information so neither of us can judge whether the circumstances warranted the drone strike or not. So it goes back to whether we trust our elected officials. Would it have made a difference to you if the strike had been authorized by George W. Bush instead of Barack Hussein Obama?

Blayne: If the man is on the battlefield taking up arms against the military that is one thing, but to order an assassination of a citizen without trial present the evidence is un-American and anti freedom. If he is a terrorist prove it in a trial. This sets a very bad precedent. There is no accountability here. This is no better then Hitler and Stalin ordering the execution of thier citizens without trial it goes against everything America is based on.

SH: No better than Hitler and Stalin? Let’s take a look at that:

1) The strike to kill an overseas American terrorist at war with the United States was authorized by a democratically elected president.

2) This particular president happens to be generally anti-war; he is certainly not a mass murderer of the same class as Hitler and Stalin. He has neither a history nor a policy of genocide.

3) Obama authorized the killing of one outlaw terrorist citizen, not millions of innocents, and did so to protect the citizens of his country, rather than to oppress them.

4) Obama can be openly challenged and criticized, and the other two branches of our government can bring action against him, including impeachment. Or we can simply vote him out. Not so with Hitler and Stalin.

5) This is wartime, we don’t have the luxury of due process of law for all citizens who join with the enemy and are bent on our destruction. Neither did Lincoln in his day. Hitler and Stalin primarily conducted their genocides during peacetime.

6) Obama did not try to hide or cover up the strike after the fact.

Blayne, I really think you’re going over to the emotional side a bit too far in saying this is “no better than Hitler and Stalin”.

Blayne: That is the whole point of having a trial. We don’t know and every citizen is entitled to a fair trial so the evidence can be assesed as to his guilt. Just assuming he has information justifying the killing without any verification or accountability simply makes him a dictator pure and simple.

SH: In this case, waiting until the bad guy can be apprehended and brought to trial is impractical and irresponsible if the threat is credible. And Obama is not a dictator; I can argue that in more detail if you really think he is. It is unreasonable to expect any President to reveal classified information in order to verify wartime decisions with the American public. How successful do you think the Normandy landings would have been if there had been public debate about them in advance?

Blayne:
That is why we have checks and balances to find out. He has bypassed the checks and balances put in place to assure he is acting appropriately. He has illegally taken us into Libya without congressional approval and is now murdering citizens without trial by secret decree with no accountability. This is a serious threat to our freedoms! Congress is also culpable too as they did nothing about it. Its amazing that anyone would consider justifying any of this to any degree.

SH: Obama can be impeached, suit can be brought against him, people can take to the streets and demonstrate if they’re outraged. None of these things could happen if Obama was a Hitler or Stalin or dictator, as you have stated.

In my opinion Obama is doing the right thing to promote the spread of democracy in the Libya, even if he did not get congressional approval in advance. There is a very good chance the Republicans would have voted against him just because of party politics. Perhaps Obama felt that it was more important to do the right thing than to follow the right procedure. Democracy in the Islamic world may well be this planet’s best hope for avoiding a nuclear terrorist attack, and for eventual peace between the nations.

You accuse Obama of “murdering citizens”, and I believe that he “killed a US-born terrorist”. Remember, arresting the bad guy and bringing him to trial simply was not a reasonable option in this case.

Let me ask you this: Would you be happier if al Awlaki was able to carry out his plans, with his US citizenship granting him the immunity necessary for him to do so?

Larry W Re:
Secret panel can put Americans on “kill list’

I agree with SH on this one. Once Awlaki joined himself with a group who take up arms against American soldiers, his citizenship is toast. If he gets killed in a fire fight with those enemies with whom he joined that’s ok with me. If he had been arrested in America, then we could investigate respecting normal protections. But he got killed out on a battlefield. Our soldiers cannot be expected to sort out such matters in the field.

I might take this opportunity to comment on one other related item too. The terrorist prisoners from Guantanamo. For those taken on the field of battle, they should not have any right to the protection of civilian courts but must face only military jurisdiction. For those apprehended in non-battlefield situations, they might possible qualify for civilian court jurisdiction. The one-size-fits-all solution applied to them which granted them all the protections of American citizens disturbs me. By the way. Military courts under the UCMJ and under International requirements are quite respectful, in many way even more respectful than civilian courts. But military courts recognize status as combatants and the obligations of combatants. For example, combatants are not allowed to hide by blending in with the civilian population. This form of using innocent human shields is a war crime. The Guantanamo detainees who committed acts of war should have all faced International law of war.

Duke:
The idea I had in mind, but the right words really didn’t come to me at the time, is that Hitler and Stalin largely conducted their genocides on people they were able to take into custody and could have put on trial if they so chose. In the al Awlaki case, as I’ve said before, taking him into custody was not a reasonable option.

Blayne:
Where is the proof convicting this man of all the accusations? Why are you just taking some secret panel or the presidents word for it?

> I’m not a lawyer, but what if there is a law on the books that says, once a person has joined a terrorist group dedicated to killing Americans, he no longer enjoys the rights of US citizenship. Would that make a difference to you? >

If there were such a law it would violate the constitution. But of course this is a hypothetical and does not apply. Show me the law that allows the President to target and assassinate anyone much less an American citizen? Again where is the proof the man is what he is accused of? There is no accountability. Apparently you think it is ok for some secret panel or the president to kill an American citizen with no accountability.

> Blayne: The thing your missing is there is no accountability as to whether there is good judgment here without a fair trial. This is America the president has no authority to order the death of an American citizen without a fair trial. > > SH: Neither of us are privy to classified information so neither of us can judge whether the circumstances warranted the drone strike or not. So it goes back to whether we trust our elected officials. Would it have made a difference to you if the strike had been authorized by George W. Bush instead of Barack Hussein Obama? >

Again where is the accountability? Where is the authority for the president to target and assassinate American citizens? There is none. And no I am not a partisan So it does not matter. GWB has done plenty of illegal things as president he has never been held accountable for. of course this set the precedent for Obama. However it shows me you are partisan. If it was GWB I doubt you would be defending this at all.

> Blayne: If the man is on the battlefield taking up arms against the military that is one thing, but to order an assassination of a citizen without trial present the evidence is un-American and anti freedom. If he is a terrorist prove it in a trial. This sets a very bad precedent. There is no accountability here. This is no better then Hitler and Stalin ordering the execution of thier citizens without trial it goes against everything America is based on. > > SH: No better than Hitler and Stalin? Let’s take a look at that: > > 1) The strike to kill an overseas American terrorist at war with the United States was authorized by a democratically elected president. >

Again where is the authority for the president to authorize the targeted assassination of an American citizen with no proof and no trial?

> 2) This particular president happens to be generally anti-war; he is certainly not a mass murderer of the same class as Hitler and Stalin. He has neither a history nor a policy of genocide. >

I never said he was in the same class as Hitler or Stalin as far as Genocide is concerned however as for being anti-war he has expanded both wars and started another illegal war that pretty much shoots any notion that he is anti war.. The fact remains Secret panels authorizing assassinations of citizens without trial is no different then what Hitler and Stalin did in that regard. Just because he has not massacred millions of his own citizens does not make this act any less dictatorial or pernicious.

> 3) Obama authorized the killing of one outlaw terrorist citizen, not millions of innocents, and did so to protect the citizens of his country, rather than to oppress them. >

Again prove this guy was an outlaw terrorist. And show the authority of the president to authorize assassinations without trial? Just taking thier word for it sets a very bad precedent.

> 4) Obama can be openly challenged and criticized, and the other two branches of our government can bring action against him, including impeachment. Or we can simply vote him out. Not so with Hitler and Stalin. >

He has been by some congressmen for this action and others however the majority refuse to act. Just because congress does not do thier job does not make his actions oklegit. Congress has been failing to do thier job for decades and that is why he can get away with this stuff.

> 5) This is wartime, we don’t have the luxury of due process of law for all citizens who join with the enemy and are bent on our destruction. Neither did Lincoln in his day. Hitler and Stalin primarily conducted their genocides during peacetime. >

Really when was war declared? This guy was not caught on the battlefield taking up arms as an enemy combatant and killed. He was declared a threat in secret and assassinated period. That is unlawful and against everything America stands for.

> 6) Obama did not try to hide or cover up the strike after the fact. >

Yeah because he knows he can get away with it because congress fails to do thier duty and the majority of citizens don’t understand the principles of freedom.

> Blayne, I really think you’re going over to the emotional side a bit too far in saying this is “no better than Hitler and Stalin”. >

Let me get this straight. You are willing to accept some secret decree that this guys is guilty without any evidence no trial and no accountability. I ask where is the evidence and the trail proving this guy is what they claim and convicting him, and where is the authority to assassinate an Americana citizen without trial and I am the one being emotional… Sorry but I have to chuckle on that one…

> Blayne: That is the whole point of having a trial. We don’t know and every citizen is entitled to a fair trial so the evidence can be assesed as to his guilt. Just assuming he has information justifying the killing without any verification or accountability simply makes him a dictator pure and simple. > > SH: In this case, waiting until the bad guy can be apprehended and brought to trial is impractical and irresponsible if the threat is credible. And Obama is not a dictator; I can argue that in more detail if you really think he is. It is unreasonable to expect any President to reveal classified information in order to verify wartime decisions with the American public. How successful do you think the Normandy landings would have been if there had been public debate about them in advance? >

Like I said this guys was not caught taking up arms on the battlefield he was targeted and specifically assassinated based on thier word and nothing else. The fact that people cannot see the danger in such a precedent is very troubling.

> Blayne: That is why we have checks and balances to find out. He has bypassed the checks and balances put in place to assure he is acting appropriately. He has illegally taken us into Libya without congressional approval and is now murdering citizens without trial by secret decree with no accountability. This is a serious threat to our freedoms! Congress is also culpable too as they did nothing about it. Its amazing that anyone would consider justifying any of this to any degree. > > SH: Obama can be impeached, suit can be brought against him, people can take to the streets and demonstrate if they’re outraged. None of these things could happen if Obama was a Hitler or Stalin or dictator, as you have stated. >

Of course they can happen even to dictator, Just Ask the Former Egyptian dictator and Libyan dictator. Just because our society has not reached the level of Hitlers or Stalins does not justify any dictatorial act like ordering assassinations of American Citizens and is all the more reason to be vigilant when we see such acts so that we never reach that point of a Hitler or Stalin.

> In my opinion Obama is doing the right thing to promote the spread of democracy in the Libya, even if he did not get congressional approval in advance. There is a very good chance the Republicans would have voted against him just because of party politics. Perhaps Obama felt that it was more important to do the right thing than to follow the right procedure. Democracy in the Islamic world may well be this planet’s best hope for avoiding a nuclear terrorist attack, and for eventual peace between the nations. >

Pakistan is has Nukes and they are ruled by a dictator why haven’t we attacked them? Same with North Korea. The myth of the nuclear terrorist attack still prevails. First of all there are no nukes small enough for terrorists to smuggle into the country. The infamous suitcase nukes require aggressive maintenances if they even exist and lost thier viability decades ago again “if” they exist.

Your opinion that the president did the right thing is based on emotion period for you have no idea if anything said is true you are simply blindly trusting him and trying to justify the complete lack of evidence and accountability on his decision.

The American system was specifically set up so as not allow blind trust in a leaders but with checks and balances to hold leaders accountable. If the majority of people accept this sort of lack of accountability and precedent what will they accept next? This is what leads to totalitarianism eventually.

> You accuse Obama of “murdering citizens”, and I believe that he “killed a US-born terrorist”. Remember, arresting the bad guy and bringing him to trial simply was not a reasonable option in this case. >

So why do we have courts? Why not just allow the police to take criminals straight to jail or execute them since they must be guilty of an officer says so? After all do you not trust the police?

Where is the evidence arresting this man and bringing him to trial is not reasonable option? You have nothing but an emotional albeit irrational belief here.

> Let me ask you this: Would you be happier if al Awlaki was able to carry out his plans, with his US citizenship granting him the immunity necessary for him to do so? >

You are making a false argument. First of all you have no evidence of any plan. Second Citizenship does not grant any citizen immunity from committing any crime. There is ample punishment for many crimes however citizens must be tried and convicted of accused crimes first. The fact that people are so willing to set this aside so easily is very troubling.

Again it boils down to evidence accountability and authority. No evidence was ever presented of this mans crimes. There is no accountability of this secret panel and the president has no authority to order the assassination of an American citizen much less anyone else.

John walker was an American citizen caught on the battlefield taking up arms and even admitted he was fighting with the Taliban and the courts ruled he was entitled to a fair trial as a citizen. He ended up taking a plea deal. Jose Padilla was another American citizen who was being held as an enemy combatant and was granted a trial by the courts. The courts have so far consistently ruled American citizens have the right to a fair trial despite the military commissions act. So it looks like the Administration will now just bypass the courts and kill whomever the want on thier word alone…Sigh!

Blayne: Except this guy was not on a battlefield taking up arms.He was specifically targeted and assassinated for allegedly being an Al-Qaeda leader etc. He wasn’t even declared an enemy combatant as far as I can tell. So where is the evidence he was any of these things and where is the authority for the President to order assassinations? Again evidence accountability and authority are all lacking setting a very bad precedent here.

Duke:
Blayne, you’re insisting on things that are simply not practical under the circumstances (publicized proof before taking action, capture & trial instead of drone strike). I don’t have the time to go through a point-by-point again, and I’m fairly confident you wouldn’t agree with me anyway.

If you believe the killing of an alleged terrorist who was a US citizen is such a terrible crime, what are you doing about it?

DaJudge
One quick comment: On America we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty as judged by a jury or our peers. For a corpus delecti there must be a crime, ie harm or violation of right AND damage. “Our” “government” has just proved it is an evil gang of thugs and murderers.

Blayne:
Quoting Duke: Blayne, you’re insisting on things that are simply not practical under the circumstances (publicized proof before taking action, capture & trial instead of drone strike).

Nonsense they do not have to publicize anything first, if he is a suspected terrorist they can arrest him and bring thier evidence to trial pure and simple. There is nothing impractical about that. Drone strike executions should not be replacing trial by jury.

This man was not caught on a battlefield taking up arms against the US. We were simply “told” he was a terrorist and targeted for execution. This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.

> > If you believe the killing of an alleged terrorist who was a US citizen is such a terrible crime, what are you doing about it? > > sh

So you are saying you believe it is ok to kill someone on allegations alone with no proof? As for what am I doing about it? I am trying to educate people who should know better that as Americans we are not supposed to be killing our own citizens much less anyone else without a fair trial as they are innocent until proven guilty.

Duke Response:
Quoting Blayne: Nonsense they do not have to publicize anything first, if he is a suspected terrorist they can arrest him and bring thier evidence to trial pure and simple. There is nothing impractical about that. Drone strike executions should not be replacing trial by jury

It simply is not practical to insert a sufficient force at the right time and place to arrest him if he’s in a foreign country and has a network protecting him.

Quoting Blayne: This man was not caught on a battlefield taking up arms against the US. We were simply “told” he was a terrorist and targeted for execution. This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.

Deadly enemies of the US shouldn’t be off limits because of their citizenship. Capture wasn’t feasible, so that only leaves one option if he’s bad enough that he should be stopped before he can orchestrate a deadly attack on the US.

Quoting Blayne: So you are saying you believe it is ok to kill someone on allegations alone with no proof? As for what am I doing about it? I am trying to educate people who should know better that as Americans we are not supposed to be killing our own citizens much less anyone else without a fair trial as they are innocent until proven guilty.

No proof has been provided to you, but that does not mean there is no proof, nor does it mean there isn’t strong evidence even if it fell short of absolute proof.

Sometimes it’s stupid to wait until you have irrefutable proof, or to not act to prevent an attack before it happens. And sometimes the only options available are likely to piss off people who think guilt cannot be ascribed under any circumstances without proof in a court of law.

Elizabeth Joyce:

Did anybody see the movie “the Day Of The Jackel” or “The Spy Who Came In From The Cold?”

This event is not unprecedented – it just got the “gossip” of publicity.

Blayne: Yes Elizabeth that is what I meant. This is a first in American history where a president announces publicly an assassination of an American without any due process and acts like it is perfectly normal.

Blayne: Quoting Duke: It simply is not practical to insert a sufficient force at the right time and place to arrest him if he’s in a foreign country and has a network protecting him. >

So wait him out what is the rush?

> > > > This man was not caught on a battlefield taking up arms against the US. We were simply “told” he was a terrorist and targeted for execution. This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America. > > Deadly enemies of the US shouldn’t be off limits because of their citizenship. Capture wasn’t feasible, so that only leaves one option if he’s bad enough that he should be stopped before he can orchestrate a deadly attack on the US. >

And who do you know he is a deadly enemy? You do not seem to realize you are advocating the execution of an American citizen without trial without evidence on the presidents word alone. What part of that being wrong on every level do you not understand?

> > So you are saying you believe it is ok to kill someone on allegations alone with no proof? As for what am I doing about it? I am trying to educate people who should know better that as Americans we are not supposed to be killing our own citizens much less anyone else without a fair trial as they are innocent until proven guilty. > > No proof has been provided to you, but that does not mean there is no proof, nor does it mean there isn’t strong evidence even if it fell short of absolute proof. >

No proof has been provided to anyone period! That is why our tradition of jurisprudence provides for no citizen being punished UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. What part of INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY do you not understand?

You are advocating that the president has authority to murder people on his word alone. Where does he get such authority? it certianly is not written into any document lawfully defining his authority. Apparently you have no sense of Justice in accepting such unlawful executions. Once again it boils down to Authority accountability and evidence.

> Sometimes it’s stupid to wait until you have irrefutable proof, or to not act to prevent an attack before it happens. And sometimes the only options available are likely to piss off people who think guilt cannot be ascribed under any circumstances without proof in a court of law. >

Proof? There is not even any evidence much less proof. I guess some people will never understand until it happens to them or thier loved ones. So are you talking about the proof that Iraq had WMD’s? Or how about the proof that Bin Laden was the master mind of 9/11 and the supposed Hijackers were all Saudi Arabian yet we attacked Afghanistan? If you do not see the need for proof here in the wake of the governments track record of lying and or lack of proof I don’t know what to tell you.

The only time a court is not necassary is when someone is taking up arms on the battlefield. This man was not he was simply labelled a terrorist with a plot and summarily executed with no evidence even presented. Your whole argument is based on pure assumption this man was a threat and not only do you not have any proof you do not have a single shred of evidence and no way of verifying the presidents word precisely because he has bypassed over 200 years of American jurisprudence designed to give American citizens as fair a trial as possible.

That fact that any American would accept this is just amazing and sad…

Elizabeth Joyce:
Back in the time when the Secret Service was truly secret.

It has been common and unfortunately necessary at times to kill those who are a danger to nations, society, as well as themselves. In a sense, sadly, it has been “normal” in the spy arena , but never publicized.

LWK > This is a first in American history where > a president announces publicly an assassination > of an American without any due process and acts > like it is perfectly normal.

In WWII there were some American citizens of German descent who went to Germany and fought against America. We killed them just like any other enemy without any particular attention to some “due process” an American citizen is supposed to have.

Maybe I am missing something important, but I personally don’t see any reasoning that says that an American who goes and publicly becomes an enemry of the United States and participates in violent acts against the United States has any rights as an American citizen anymore. I doubt the Founders intended any such thing.

I am no supporter of this President, but I had no problem with the killing of this guy, American citizen or not. If an American goes to war against America then I say he is fair game and kill him if you can. No trial, no due process, no rights. Not as far as I am concerned.

JJ:
George Washington executed problem soldiers for much less than this guy we executed. His biographies reveal some actions and discipline that would raise eyebrows today. Here is one account:

During the winter of 1780-1781, George Washington’s troops at Valley Forge, Morristown and Pompton had suffered bitter cold, hunger and inadequate clothing. Also, the soldiers had not received their back pay. The success of the Pennsylvania troops at Morristown who had mutinied in order to bring attention to their condition, encouraged the New Jersey troops at Federal Hill in Pompton to take action to help resolve their grievances. Hoping to demand justice from an apathetic Congress, they mutinied on January 20, 1781.

When George Washington learned of the rebellion, he ordered General Howe to quell it. Sergeants David Gilmore and John Tuttle were executed by a firing squad of 12 mutineers at dawn on January 27, 1781 for their part in the weeklong rebellion. George Grant was given a last minute reprieve from the same fate.

http://www.pomptonlakeshistory.com/events/pompton_mutiny.htm

Blayne: > In WWII there were some American citizens of German descent who went to Germany and fought against America. We killed them just like any other enemy without any particular attention to some “due process” an American citizen is supposed to have. > People keep bringing this up and it does not apply. This guy has not gone to war. He is accused of being a terrorist that’s it. he was not taking up arms on a battlefield, he was not killed in a strike on some enemy strong hold and just happened to be there he was specifically targeted for assassination based on an unsubstantiated accusation period.

> Maybe I am missing something important, but I personally don’t see any reasoning that says that an American who goes and publicly becomes an enemry of the United States and participates in violent acts against the United States has any rights as an American citizen anymore. I doubt the Founders intended any such thing. >

Surprisingly you are missing something very important. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. He has participated in no violent acts that we know of. His only crime worthy of death apparantly has been to be ACCUSED of being a terrorist and summarily killed on that alone.

> I am no supporter of this President, but I had no problem with the killing of this guy, American citizen or not. If an American goes to war against America then I say he is fair game and kill him if you can. No trial, no due process, no rights. Not as far as I am concerned. > So I guess its ok for the president to designate anyone he wants as a terrorist and then execute them without trial no accountability authority or evidence… Amazing… Sigh!

Blayne:
Let me get this straight do you think this justifies executing citizens on the presidents word he is a terrorist threat with no accountability authority or evidence?

What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

This has nothing to do with the situation we are talking about. There was no constitution then and this was military justice against open rebellion during wartime. Even today soldiers sign a contract allowing military justice including execution during war time in some circumstances etc.

Also today they arrest soldiers who do this and try them instead of executing them without trial when technically in some circumstances they could. Like that soldier ho lobbed a grenade into a ten in Kuwait during the first gulf war.

Why this would be brought up at all to try and justify unlawful execution of an American citizen is beyond me.

This guy is not a soldier no evidence has been presented he has taken up arms against the US. His only supposed crime is he is ACCUSED of being a terrorist and killed on accusation alone with no evidence being presented to any lawful court of justice.

Larry W
I have not read any news report on this. But if what you say is true, then they had no right to execute him. If, on the other hand, he was supporting a known gang of terrorists and got killed while they raided the terrorist gang, then I’m ok with that, the guy chose the wrong friends. So I don’t know about this particular situation. But I totally agree with your logic here, Blayne, based upon the facts as you present them. But I also totally agree with Larry K’s logic here too, based upon the facts as he presents them. I know that you would have no problem if that guy got shot while standing with terrorists in a fire fight. So we are all totally together on principles. It’s the facts that are fuzzy.

Blayne: Exactly Larry! That is the point we have no way of knowing there is no accountability here. I have no problem with defending our selves in the manners you mentioned. What concerns me is as far as I can tell this guy was specifically targeted for execution unless I missed something. IOW the drone strike was ordered specifically to take him out based on accusations alone.

Some are leaping to the conclusion the guy is guilty WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. They seem content on one mans word and throwing out the principle of justice that men are innocent until proven guilty.

How does anyone know if this was justified? We have no way of knowing since this has bypassed every principle of justice and is just plain un-American.

This would be the same as a police officer killing a guy and saying he new the guy was going to murder his neighbor and some saying oh ok the guy was going to murder his neighbor so the killing was ok. No accountability period!

Duke:wrote: > This guy is not a soldier no evidence has been presented he has taken up arms against the US. His only supposed crime is he is ACCUSED of being a terrorist and killed on accusation alone with no evidence being presented to any lawful court of justice.

It seems that judicial procedure and following the letter of the law carries a great deal of weight for you.

The letter of the law has not caught up with the present situation. Laws sometimes fail to anticipate situations that arise, particularly if they are largely without precedent. In such circumstances, we have three fall-backs: Judgement, checks and balances, and democracy.

We hope that our leadership (the president and his advisors) exercises good judgment when there is no rule-book written in advance that covers the situation, like the case of being at war with a nationless organization capable of inflicting disproportionately high casualties on the US thanks to technology.

We have a legislative branch and a judicial branch that can take steps to oppose the actions of the president.

We are a democracy, so we can vote, demonstrate in the streets, write letters, blog, criticize, whatever. Sufficient public outcry will have an effect.

The nature of fighting the world’s premier terrorist network, often operating from countries in which we have little or no presence, precludes such niceties as sending the cops to arrest suspects. The need to maintain operational secrecy means that “proof” is not going to be given to the satisfaction of critics and conspiracy theorists. The enemy’s footsoldiers (the ones who pull the triggers or detonate the suicide bombs) may well be lower-value targets than their leadership. And, time is of the essence if one or more plots are under development or in motion.

At some point it comes down to whether we trust our elected civilian leadership and the intelligence community that is its source of inside information. I do not believe the president and the intelligence community are infallible, but I also believe they know far more than you or I, and that they are trying to do the right thing in carrying out their duty to protect the US. Personally, I’m glad they are not hamstrung by an allegiance to the letter of the law which would allow an American-born terrorist leader to operate with immunity as long as he’s in a country where we can’t send the cops to his house.

Blayne: > It seems that judicial procedure and following the letter of the law carries a great deal of weight for you.

What carries a great deal of weight with me is the principle of freedom and justice that a man is innocent until proven guilty.

Here is the facts

The man has not taken up arms. There is no evidence presented he is plotting. There is no evidence presented there is any immediate threat. There are only accusations with no accountability and an execution based on accusations alone.

Based on the known facts there was no justification to murder him immediately as there was no threat. This would be like a cop shooting your family member and then saying he knew the person was plotting to murder your neighbor. And you saying oh ok I trust your word that killing him was justified….

And seriously do you believe murdering this guy stopped any threat? Like others could not carry out what ever the plot was? Now days you’d think there was a terrorist behind every rock but all the government good guys have stopped every plot. That is ridiculous if terrorists wanted to put us into the stone age it would be a simple matter to take out our power grids with just a few small teams.

The terrorist bogeymen have been the excuse to trample our rights for a decade now and now the president is ordering hits on American citizens with drone strikes on nothing but accusations… Sigh it is amazing we are even having this conversation…

> > The letter of the law has not caught up with the present situation. Laws sometimes fail to anticipate situations that arise, particularly if they are largely without precedent. In such circumstances, we have three fall-backs: Judgement, checks and balances, and democracy. >

You are incorrect this situation has ignored the principle of justice that one is innocent until proven guilty. You have to keep inventing a false scenario to try and justify your emotional belief that this was right. There are no circumstances in this situation that required this action as I have illustrated several times now in my responses. None of the circumstances you describe to try to justify this have occurred in this case.

> We hope that our leadership (the president and his advisors) exercises good judgment when there is no rule-book written in advance that covers the situation, like the case of being at war with a nationless organization capable of inflicting disproportionately high casualties on the US thanks to technology. >

Again you create a false argument based on illusion. There is a rule book for this situation it was ignored. The situation you describe and try to assign to this situation is an illusion. We do not need to hope the leadership has good judgement we have a system of checks and balances that if followed tell us one way or another. When those are ignored and bypassed then we are just flying blind. Putting blind trust in any leader is putting trust in the beast.

> We have a legislative branch and a judicial branch that can take steps to oppose the actions of the president. >

If they do not then they are in collusion with these unlawful actions

> We are a democracy, so we can vote, demonstrate in the streets, write letters, blog, criticize, whatever. Sufficient public outcry will have an effect. >

We are not a democracy we are an oligarchy. Voting has not changed anything significant but made things steadily worse. But the public has to actually make the outcry. However of they do not understand the principles of freedom and justice then they just allow themselves to become slave and thier rights trampled.

> The nature of fighting the world’s premier terrorist network, often operating from countries in which we have little or no presence, precludes such niceties as sending the cops to arrest suspects. The need to maintain operational secrecy means that “proof” is not going to be given to the satisfaction of critics and conspiracy theorists. The enemy’s footsoldiers (the ones who pull the triggers or detonate the suicide bombs) may well be lower-value targets than their leadership. And, time is of the essence if one or more plots are under development or in motion. >

Another false argument, you have not addressed a thing I have said. You just keep repeating the same things over and over that I have already put to bed that do not apply to this situation

> At some point it comes down to whether we trust our elected civilian leadership and the intelligence community that is its source of inside information. I do not believe the president and the intelligence community are infallible, but I also believe they know far more than you or I, and that they are trying to do the right thing in carrying out their duty to protect the US. Personally, I’m glad they are not hamstrung by an allegiance to the letter of the law which would allow an American-born terrorist leader to operate with immunity as long as he’s in a country where we can’t send the cops to his house. > > sh

That’s the problem you “believe” blindly because there is no way to verify that belief as they have ignored the principles of freedom and justice and the checks and balances in our system to ensure they are heeded as much as possible. You have further gone to great lengths to create illusionary scenarios to justify your blind belief. Such blind trust is indeed very troubling.

JJ
Blayne: Let me get this straight do you think this justifies executing citizens on the presidents word he is a terrorist threat with no accountability authority or evidence?

JJ No. That’s not what I said. I posted that example from George Washington’s execution without trial to illustrate that much worse has been done by our heroes. The men Washington executed appears to have been less of a threat than Anwar al-Awlaki is to us.

I agree with you that the law needs to be followed. It does look liked he could be tried for treason as he apparently is advocating a violent overthrow of the United States openly on his web site. Treason has carried the death penalty in the past.

If this guy is a threat that needs taken out then Obama should work within the law to accomplish this. If there is no way to bring him in then perhaps he could be tried in absentia or have his citizenship revoked and treated accordingly.

So, do you agree with George Washington’s executions I cited? If not then what should he have done?

Blayne; Glad to hear it. George Washingtons situation was completely different. There was no constitution and these guys were mutinying.and had a military unit at thier disposal and openly were opposing thier contract as soldiers. I do not necessarily agree with How Washington handled it but he may have had no other choice with a military unit threatening physical revolt. Still if they were able to be captured they should not have been executed without trial.

Duke: hawkiye@…> wrote: >… you have not addressed a thing I have said. You just keep repeating the same things over and over that I have already put to bed that do not apply to this situation

Well that’s not the way I see it, but I’d rather not argue about arguing.

Obviously I don’t have much hope of changing your mind, nor you of changing mine.

I don’t see much point in continuing. Do you?

Dan; I encourage everyone to re-read the the original article Blayne posted thoroughly (and as objectively as possible :-), there seem to be a lot of misconceptions, assumptions and outright LEAPS being made that simply are NOT supported by any information in the original article itself.

http://news.yahoo.com/secret-panel-put-americans-kill-list-041603267.html

LWK hawkiye@…> wrote:

> THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. He has participated in no > violent acts that we know of.

However there is a abundant evidence that he was part of the hierarchy at Al Qaida. He may have not been the one actually planting the bombs, or whatever, but he was in the hierarchy directing and motivating individuals to kill Americans. Let’s say an American went to Germany in WWII and became a part of their upper echelon directing the violent acts of the Germany military. Would he be a legitimate target? Of course he would. It doesn’t matter whether he personally pulled the trigger or just helped those who did.

Like I said,I don’t think the U.S. government violated any real principles or the constitution in killing this guy. As an American citizen you don’t have a right to be part of and supporting and motivating an organization that is killing Americans without being subject to violent retribution, without a trial and without any “due process.”

The only “due process” he deserved was the one he got.

Blayne: Really??? Where pray tell is all this abundant evidence? As far as I can tell there is nothing more then accusations and the president has appointed himself judge jury and executioner and you approve.

Blayne:
As long as you refuse to face the facts of course thier is no point in continuing to plow the same barren ground. The facts are; nothing you have brought up to justify this action applies to this case. There is no evidence no accountability and no authority to justify the killing without a trial. You can create all the false scenarios you like and that does not change these simple facts.

Duke:
An attempt at explaining the likely situation (when we do not have all the facts) is not “creating a false scenario”. You dismiss with a broad wave of the hand without showing what was false in the scenario. That sort of emotional jump is dominating the discussion. But this becomes a secondary argument, that is, arguing about having an argument. So it is non-productive.

Larry Woods

At this point, I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them. As far as I can tell they (all elected officials and their bureaucrats) have sold us out at every turn to Special Interests. Down through the years they turned control of our money supply over to private bankers who proved over and over that they abuse us and enrich themselves at our expense. They’ve sold all public works on sweetheart deals to their cronies. They over taxed us and over regulated us to the point that my small building business was literally sending half of all that came in the front door off to government at various levels. Their taxes and regulations and the accounting and work to keep up with it made it impossible for me to keep my business. The economy they wrecked blew me out of business. Remember George McGovern? He went bankrupt after he retired from the Senate and tried to run a bed and breakfast business with his wife. He blamed his failure on over regulation and on over taxation. Would that he could have learned those lessons before he left office! And he wanted to be our President! They “bailed out” their millionaire cronies but they let me fail. They repeatedly create relationships with other governments and then turn their backs on them which has caused no end of ill will against America. Recently they shoved socialism down our throats in their health care bill that they didn’t even read despite the fact that all the polls showed 60 to 65 percent of Americans did not want it. They created an FDA that works toward anything that makes money for Special Interests and pays lots of taxes but does not allow good medicine. Result, hundreds of thousands of dead cancer victims who are really FDA victims. We have means to cure almost all of them but the FDA won’t allow it. [If you need the cure info, just let me know. Also, most any of the Keysters here can give you that info. As John told JJ in The Immortal series, there are at least four cures out there.]

I could go on and on here, Duke. What makes you think they “are trying to do the right thing”? Also as you said, their intelligence is unreliable plus they deceive us about what they think they know anyway. Actually I believe their intelligence is skewed in many ways.

I can prove by simple logic that they lie. Watch this. If you had power to connect the personal paycheck of Senators and Congressmen to a balanced budget, THE VERY NEXT BUDGET PASSED WOULD BE BALANCED. Do you believe it? You should. They claim it’s impossible and messy and whatever. But the minute their paycheck gets attached to it YOU KNOW they would conquer the problem real quick. You know this is absolute truth. Yet they continually explain they are doing everything in their power to balance the budget. So why was it anyone trusts them to do the right thing?

They are pathological liars. They are in bed with Special Interests for the purpose of taking from us and giving to the Special Interests. They are Democrats, they are Republicans. They have sold us out. They will continue until we learn how to hold them accountable.

They will continue until We the People learn how to hold them accountable. Meanwhile, I do not trust them to make decisions about killing people without due process. Nor do I trust any of their other decisions. But we are stuck with them for now. Despite all this mess, we are far better off than we were just a few hundred years ago.

In the meantime, I seek ways to actually change things for the better, to get them to answer to the majority more often. I think JJ’s book will open some meaningful dialog on this. I also think my MACH1 political plan will help. I’m reading up just now about product branding and Social networking and other ways to get MACH1 before the public so we can start garnering wins for the majority similar to the famous Real Estate tax law brought to California by the people who were sick and tired of funding their state on the backs of little old ladies who had to sell their homes just at a time when they faced their last few years on planet Earth. If the state needs money, they can find it somewhere else! I think they called that Proposition 13. It is a good law. Basically in California, you pay the same tax every year that you own the house. It never changes. It gets locked in when you first buy your house. So explosive growth does not bump out retired folks and other good folks by forcing them to sell their homes. A good law.

A similar majority win was the license tab fees in Washington state which I already discussed here before. I want MACH1 to provide the game plan so many people can pick up the ball around America and make touch-downs for the majority. I want to empower the majority and simultaneously point out the politicians who blatantly go against majority will. WE FINALLY HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE!

Ultimately, after we get good momentum, we go after Read the Damn Bill. Posting every bill for 30 days on the Internet before they are allowed to vote on it will fulfill Obama’s broken promise about a transparent government. But the Special Interest politicians will fight it with everything they’ve got. It will be the hardest won political battle since the Revolutionary War. But it will change the political landscape like a continent wide 9.0 earthquake.

Anyway, Duke, I know your principles are sound. But the facts in this case are hidden so we just do not know if Obama made a responsible decision or not. The fact that the facts remain hidden gives us a pretty strong clue. I could go into much detail about how the states and the federal government are hiding much. About how they bypass due process more and more. One obscure but very telling point is that they no longer require politicians to carry a real bond. The state bonds elected officials now so they don’t have to put up with all those messy restrictions. One more layer of due process out the window. They are going backwards eroding the protections we put in place to protect ourselves from them. Long ago they took away any responsibility they once carried. If their decisions screw you over it turns out it was their mistake, you have no recourse. This is true with judges and with every other layer of government. Another example, they almost never bother any more getting actual warrants for search or seizure. They just get “certificate of warrant” which need not be signed by an elected judge. In effect, they no longer need to show probable cause. Then they can confiscate your stuff under Ill-gotten-gains laws and never return them and they don’t even have to charge you with a crime. This includes properties, autos, airplanes, whatever. There are a million stories circulating on the net with tons of witnesses and victims.

When I was young my heart swelled with pride when I saw a cop or a fireman. Now I see symbols of those who abused my niece because she simply asked for a warrant before she let them in. I see those who abused my brother by throwing hundreds of dollars of vitamins in a sink full of water so they would spoil because a neighbor thought they might have seen a marijuana plant in the window. This was at a time when marijuana was equivalent to a speeding ticket in Washington state. They also totally destroyed lots of stuff like cutting up his mattresses and throwing everything on the floors. For those of you who thought the Gestapo was defeated in WWII, you’re wrong. I like Jefferson’s approach to all of this. Our job is not to empower our government more, but to bind their hands from mischief. I could go on for hours like this but what’s the point? Just stating the problem over and over won’t help. But MACH1 and Read the Damn Bill can help and JJ’s insights can help. So that is where I put my thoughts and energies now. Using the platform that my music brings, The Brotherhood of Light Muse, I support these political measures so at least my energy does not just go away with the wind.

Duke:
I don’t believe our leadership is all evil, nor all good. Few people and organizations are entirely one or the other, so that leaves open the possibility that their motives are good in this case.

If you google “Al Awlaki”, you’ll see that he apparently was a very competent bad guy, considered largely responsible for the Yemen branch of Al Qaeda becoming its most active branch and generating several recent attacks on the US. But there is no “proof” in a form that would satisfy a determined skeptic.

Blayne:
On the contrary I have addressed each of your scenarios in detail several times now and have brushed nothing aside. You admit there is no evidence and then claim your pure speculation is not false…

It is not emotional and it is not secondary. It is primary that all the things in place to avoid killing and punishing people without any evidence or a chance to defend themselves have been ignored.

Your acceptance of it based on your own speculation is what is an emotional attachment. I am looking at the known facts you are purely speculating. yet I am being emotional?

Will you deny that you have no way of knowing what happened? Will you deny that no one outside of the President and a few of his henchmen know what happened? Will you deny that we have things in pace to avoid such things and they were completely ignored? etc etc.

Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me?

Blayne:
Good post larry!

Duke I am not praising Larry’s post here because it agrees with me so I can get one up on you. I am praising it because it is truth.

You have fallen for a trick the government has been using for decades to justify their subversion of the principles of freedom.

The demonize someone then kill them. Like the Waco incident. They Said Koresh was a child molester and had illegal weapons. Then they laid siege to them and attacked but claimed they were shot at first etc. It came out later no illegal weapons were found and there is no evidence he was a child molester. Also evidence was shown that the government fired first. People knew it was BS but then they made it look like they were defending themselves etc Their are thousands of cases like this that did not get the notoriety of Waco.

Here they just did the deed and demonized the man after the fact and even admit they targeted him for assassination. this is a significant step further away from the principles of freedom and justice. At least with Koresh they tried to act like they were defending themselves. Now they just order a hit and claim he was a terrorist.

Even if this guy really was a terrorist we cannot allow this sort of thing to continue. Can you not see the potential for abuse here? And with the governments proven track record of lying cover ups and false flag operations this is is particularly troubling.

Duke:
hawkiye@…> wrote: > > > On the contrary I have addressed each of your scenarios in detail several times now and have brushed nothing aside. You admit there is no evidence and then claim your pure speculation is not false…

You have not addressed the impracticality of capturing an Al Qaeda leader in Yemen. You have not addressed the possible time-critical aspect of stopping him. You have not addressed the issue of enemy leadershp being a higher-value target than footsoldiers. You have not addressed the need for operational secrecy in counter-terrorist operations. You have not addressed the fact that your position would probably have Al Awlaki operating at will indefinitely, safe behind his American citizenship.

> It is not emotional and it is not secondary. It is primary that all the things in place to avoid killing and punishing people without any evidence or a chance to defend themselves have been ignored.

Round and round we go. I’m all for following the law and proper procedure, but this is a highly unusual situation. Apparently it has only come up once in the ten years since 9/11.

> Your acceptance of it based on your own speculation is what is an emotional attachment. I am looking at the known facts you are purely speculating.yet I am being emotional?

I am focusing on the specific realities of the situation, instead of at the emotional outrage at the attack on a treasonous American citizen (who obviously spits on his citizenship), not to mention the emotional disdain you’ve hinted at that someone could actually see things different from you.

> Will you deny that you have no way of knowing what happened? Will you deny that no one outside of the President and a few of his henchmen know what happened?

Thank you for acknowledging that neither of us know what happened. That makes your speculation no better than mine.

> Will you deny that we have things in pace to avoid such things and they were completely ignored? etc etc.

This situation is different from your ideal scenario where the bad guy can be arrested and brought to trial, and time is not an issue.

> Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me?

Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was not justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anytyhing but a false scenario? Enlighten me?

Blayne:
So if I put a up website that made you look like a terrorist and the government killed you based on that it is k with you? After all there is no proof that would satisfy a determined sceptic? Nothing like blind faith…

Come on Duke you know better then that…

Duke:
If you really think Al Awlaki’s association with Al Qaeda is a ficticious long-term elaborate internet hoax, then there is a very large disconnect between your perception and mine.

I’m starting to think that if the government told you the evidence they had against Al Awlaki, you would have already made up your mind to reject it in advance.

Blayne:
I have addressed it several times. But one more time for you. Your speculation and assumption there is a real threat is not grounds to kill an American Citizens. Therefore there is no expediency in capturing this guy. You are basing this scenario on speculation with no evidence to support it what so ever so it is not a valid argument. Also as I have said do you really believe that even if this guy was who THEY CLAIMED he was that killing him somehow removed the threat and others would not continue to carry it out?

> > It is not emotional and it is not secondary. It is primary that all the things in place to avoid killing and punishing people without any evidence or a chance to defend themselves have been ignored. > > Round and round we go. I’m all for following the law and proper procedure, but this is a highly unusual situation. Apparently it has only come up once in the ten years since 9/11. >

You do not believe in following the law you are trying to justify circumventing it. No its not unusual again you are basing your conclusions on assumptions with no evidence ever presented anywhere period. So your argument is not valid. Every time we go around on this you continue to speak as if it is a forgone conclusion that his guy is what he is accused of. It is not that is the point of trial.

In America we do not kill people based on assumption speculation and accusations. Your continued dodging of this fact speaks to your emotional attachment to the issue. I don’t care what your beliefs are about our leaders. I and every other America should not have to depend on yours or anyone’s “belief” for our safety from our own government. We should be able to depend on a fair hearing of all the evidence and a fair chance to defend ourselves. That has slowly been eroded away and this is a huge spike in the coffin of such fairness freedom and justice.

> > Your acceptance of it based on your own speculation is what is an emotional attachment. I am looking at the known facts you are purely speculating.yet I am being emotional? > > I am focusing on the specific realities of the situation, instead of at the emotional outrage at the attack on a treasonous American citizen (who obviously spits on his citizenship), not to mention the emotional disdain you’ve hinted at that someone could actually see things different from you. > No you are not focusing on any reality of the situation. You are not sticking to know facts. You have projected your own huge assumptions into the situation creating a false scenario and then used it to try and justify you emotional belief. >

You keep bringing up that you think I am being emotional yet I am the one sticking to known facts while you speculate and project your feelings into the situation. You need to take a good hard look in the mirror my friend.

I have nothing against you personally my friend. We have met and I think you are a good guy. My astonishment is that any American could not see the danger in allowing the president to order a hit on an American citizen based on unsubstantiated accusations.

> > Will you deny that you have no way of knowing what happened? Will you deny that no one outside of the President and a few of his henchmen know what happened? > > Thank you for acknowledging that neither of us know what happened. That makes your speculation no better than mine. >

What is it I am speculating on? I have stuck to the known facts name something I have speculated on

> > Will you deny that we have things in pace to avoid such things and they were completely ignored? etc etc. >

> This situation is different from your ideal scenario where the bad guy can be arrested and brought to trial, and time is not an issue. >

You keep saying this but there is no evidene much less proof to support it. The situation is only different in your fantasy scenarios. Therefore there is no evidence there is any time factor. You whole argument is based on a fantasy Duke period and is defeated right there.

> > Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me? > > Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was not justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anytyhing but a false scenario? Enlighten me? >

Absolutely I will deny it. It is not speculation to say someone should not be killed without a fair trial and the evidence presented etc. it is a fact! Also there is no need to disprove something that has not been established as fact in the first place by any reasonable means of establishing a fact. That is the whole point of innocent until proven guilty. You can’t prove a negative it is up to the accuser to prove guilt not the accused to prove innocence.

That would be like me saying you are guilty of theft now prove you are not. You would say I you don’t need to prove I am not because you have not proven I stole something.

Blayne:
Oh there is no doubt there is a huge disconnect between you and me on this one. I never said I think the government did a fictitious web site. I was just making a point on the need to verify evidence. If you think because something is on the internet it must be true then I have some everglades land in Florida I’s like to make you a deal one… 😉

> I’m starting to think that if the government told you the evidence they had against Al Awlaki, you would have already made up your mind to reject it in advance. >

Why would you think that? Seems you are projecting your emotions on to me now…

My whole point has been that before we allow the government to order hits on Americans willy nilly the evidence needs to be presented FIRST accordance with law. If we just take the governments word for it that everything was on the up and up then we are nothing but slaves to dictatorial powers.

Blayne:
Quoting Blayne ” Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me?”

Quoting Duke “Will you deny you are completely speculating on why this was not justified? When there is no evidence how is your speculation anything but a false scenario? Enlighten me?”

Blayne I thought this deserved more attention. Duke claims I am speculating why this killing was NOT justified.

Fact: this man is “accused” of being a terrorist and plotting against the US.

Fact: No evidence is presented in any lawful manner to support the accusation.

Fact: The president has no authority to Kill Americans on Accusation alone nor does any other American government officer or otherwise.

Fact: The man was not killed on a battlefield taking up arms against the US.

Fact: He was not killed as collateral damage on a strike on some enemy enclave.

So Duke my question is how are these facts speculation?

Speculation: He is a terrorist and or Al Qaeda leader

Speculation: Time was of the essence or he would harm Americans

Speculation: He was guilty and deserved it.

Hopefully that clarifies what is fact and what is Speculation.

Duke:
If nothing else, I think we’ve proven that there’s no point in my repeating myself yet again. Someone has to get off the merry-go-round at some point. You may have the last ride my friend.

Judy:
Quoting Blayne In America we do not kill people based on assumption speculation and accusations. Judy Americans kill people who we have declared war on. We have declared war on terrorists and our intelligence has evidence placing him in ka-hootz with the terrorists (our enemy in the war on terror). If we are at war with ducks it would not be wise to walk like a duck, quack like a duck, and put a big red target on yourself that says, “I am a duck”, and stand in the middle of a bunch of ducks while they are shooting at them. If the guy was not a duck then he should have quit acting like a duck and dressing like a duck during duck season. Blame him for being stupid instead of blaming the Americans…all we did was declare war on ducks.

Blayne:
We have not declared war since WWII

Our intelligence told us there were WMD’s in Iraq to, there weren’t. They also told us the North Vietnamese attacked us in the Gulf of Tonkin. They now even admit that was lie the attack never happened they did it to justify the war. By the way we never declared war on them or Korea or Iraq or even Afghanistan or even some terrorist organization.

Assuming an American citizen is guilty on UNSUBSTANTIATED accusations and killing them is completely un-American and unlawful and defies every principle of justice!

You are you basing your conclusions on NOTHING BUT SPECULATIONS! You have no way of knowing if any of the accusations against this man are true because none of the principles of freedom and justice were followed. No authority no accountability and no evidence!

At best they had authority to put out an arrest warrant and wait for an opportunity to apprehend him and bring thier evidence to trial.

Anyone who accepts this is endorsing the ability of the president to put out a hit an an American citizen on nothing more then unsubstantiated accusations.

Ruth:
I had a look at this man’s photo.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-awlaki-killed-yemen

For what it’s worth, from viewing this above picture and this man’s eyes I feel that he is a very sad man and that he is also a very scared man. His aura or face is a lot softer than say a terrorist like Osama Bin Laden. I get the feeling he was forced into doing what he had to do in his life, and that if not for his Father and connections, then he would have taken an entirely different path in his life than the one he had to have and live. (But of course, I could be way off base here.)

I think that he knew he was going to die, either by the Americans or the Terrorists and that is why he had such sadness in his heart because his choice to live was going to be an early death either way?

Perhaps the 7 year old boy within him loved America, but then when he moved back home, he grew up in that institutionalized mind set of hating Americans?

It seems that quite a few people who develop into or are terrorists are sent to America so that they become seen as Americans and learn as much as they can about Americans or have dual citizenship. If you want to get at your enemy or beat your enemy then you have to dress up like your enemy and learn as much about their lifestyle etc as possible.

Here is an interesting thing:

“Al-Awlaki was called an Islamic fundamentalist, and accused of encouraging terrorism.[41][49][53][54] He developed animosity towards the U.S. and became a proponent of Takfiri and Jihadi thinking, while retaining Islamism, according to one research paper.[55] While imprisoned in Yemen, al-Awlaki became influenced by the works of Sayyid Qutb, an originator of the contemporary “anti-Western Jihadist movement”.[56] He would read 150–200 pages a day of Qutb’s works.

He described himself as “so immersed with the author I would feel Sayyid was with me in my cell speaking to me directly”.[56]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayyid_Qutb

He may have been possessed by Sayyid Qutb? Which would account for this statement made about him on Wiki:

“Douglas Murray, executive director of the Centre for Social Cohesion, a right-wing think tank that studies British radicalization, says his followers “will routinely describe Awlaki as a vital and highly respected scholar, [while he] is actually an al-Qaida-affiliate nut case”.[11]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

It would definitely influence his mind set by studying so intensely the Qutb’s works.

So he might have like two different personalities. He could have swung between the two extremes of the pendulum between his love for God and his incorporated beliefs and hatred for Americans which was influenced by Sayyid.

Blayne, I believe you like Ron Paul from what I remember reading from your past posts?

Do you feel that your thinking could have been influenced by Ron Paul’s accusations at all in this matter?

“Paul, a Texas congressman known for libertarian views, says the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki on Yemeni soil amounts to an “assassination.” Paul warned the American people not to casually accept such violence against U.S. citizens, even those with strong ties to terrorism.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44730771/ns/politics/

Robert:
The Bastard was a GOD DAMN TERRORIST, he deserved what he got.

Blayne:
Thanks for bolstering my point Robert. All you that have disagreed with me now realize you are in agreement with good ole Robert here so take that… LOL!

 

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here