I would have preferred Osama be tried; but Osama was not an American citizen. Therefore it wasn't a violation of the Bill of Rights.

It is sad that I even have to explain this; none of you will understand the extent of the situation until the dollar dies.

Anyway; my thought still is that a coalition party is very possible in the near future.

Anyway; my thought still is that a coalition party is very possible in the near future.

deadcode, my apologies, I somehow missed this post of yours entirely...does change things up a bit.

(My intention was to point out that the rights of US citizens are being eroded by both major parties.... This polarization has got to stop. Both the Occupy WallStreet and the Tea Party movement have one thing in common. They identify the root of the problem.)

I sympathize with your sentiments here, but I dont see that de-polarizing is going to be of much help, I'll agree the current stand off certainly doesnt help but as you pointed out yourself its not really the core of the problem. The current polarization in my view represents more of a seat grab by the opposing parties, with the pendulum swings becoming more and more intense at each impasse its almost like some strange cathartic round of musical chairs at each election. Ideologically I will lay more blame onto the conservative side for taking a deliberate stance on non-cooperation. Nothing gets done .. blame Obama. Its their watch. People buy into that. At least enuf do. Conservatives dont tolerate as much dissension among the ranks. So they tend to gang up, rally together more, much like the upper tables here at kdice. Its smart really. Dont take my word for it, or because I say so but because its in the dialogue. Simply visit a few conservative forums and you'll see how blatant it is, especially among the christian right wing. Co-operation with liberals is simply OUT. End of discussion. However, once again most of that is really quite irrelevant. The percentage of seat holders who truly give a shit and are truly there to make change are few. I believe the last estimates I seen from a source I trust almost more than anyone suggested that over 50% of the members in congress at any given time have dirt on them that keeps them hamshackled with blackmail. Work with us or you'll be exposed. I wish i still had the source but I dont. Im no longer in touch and swore off this shit awhile ago so im kinda rusty. Nonetheless, your next comment in my opinion does hit closer to home.

(It is the cozy relationship that businesses have with the government and the effect it is having on the stability of both the economy and the country as a whole)

For sure !

(Sure they disagree about the aggressor (OWS thinks that business is attacking government and tea party the opposite); but the important part is that they both agree that the relationship must stop.)

At one time the lines were a little more blurry but over time the erosion set in as business progressively won over. OWS has it right. Plain and simple its become a Wall Street government to the core. We're in serious trouble. All of us. More so than I think most people realize. Banking as an institution was a lot more respectable (and responsible) at one time. Today it faces serious socioeconomic issues at the core. Type A personalities faced with serious addictive problems when it comes to how they operate and conduct their affairs and business. The de-regs literally unleashed this crew to run wild. And now nothing short of serious detox will rein them in.

I see further and potentially catastrophic collapse being the only possible outcome because the solution cannot come from "the problem" itself. Not possible. And perhaps that will be the only way out.

While I admire the OWS effort, its going to take more than hipster sit ins and traffic stopping crowds. Some of em seem educated enough in the problem for sure and it's interesting to watch unfold, but it'll take more than that..

(We can start by auditing the FED.)

lol, like thats gonna happen anytime soon. That would be like getting a peek at where the bodies are buried man.. Cant. Not allowed ! But maybe we can get to it while we're sifting through the ashes. :)

Even Al Qaeda agrees... sad.

Says whose company you're really with dead. Are you so against a black man being president that you'd side with al qaeda over your own country? Is it really true the enemy of your enemy is your friend - is Obama your enemy? Where does your deep seeded loathing come from?

wow, way to throw out the race card. Ass.

Cant imagine Al-Qaeda not agreeing this was a criminal act on the international stage.

That said, International Tribunals are a troublesome affair for the United States overall who as a signatory to International Court of Justice (ICJ) got in hot water with the ICJ itself for its violations against Nicaragua (essentially deemed as terrorist activity) back in 1984. Not surprising, the US no longer recognizes the ICJ as having any authority or jurisdiction over the US when it comes to its foreign affairs.

From wikipedia...

"The ICJ held that the U.S. had violated international law by supporting the Contras in their rebellion against the Nicaraguan government and by mining Nicaragua's harbors. The United States refused to participate in the proceedings after the Court rejected its argument that the ICJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case. The U.S. later blocked enforcement of the judgment by the United Nations Security Council and thereby prevented Nicaragua from obtaining any actual compensation."

* End of Excerpt *

What's interesting about that is the Right wing's common position making no bones about despising the United Nations often denouncing and criticizing the UN suggesting it has no place or even authority to be meddling in the US's foreign affairs. However, US veto powers makes non-participation difficult if not impossible. In other words, the US denounces any International body which aims to intercept any US action or dictate to the US when it comes to its foreign policy - affairs but has no problem forcing other nations to comply by way of UN resolutions when it so suits them. While the US does indeed continue to seek "support" from UN on specific issues this is quite secondary. More importantly the process is intended to "undermine" not only the UN's ability to restrict the United States but congress's ability as well.

More from Center for Economic and Policy Research...

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-&-columns/op-eds-&-columns/us-foreign-policy-establishment-fears-international-criminal-court/

Back to the Future !! .. Wayne Madsen comments on Kissinger (winner of the Nobel Peace Prize... lol) and how some of the historical players (Holbrooke)and their policies still apply today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pK-NNi43JjA

Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul both commenting on Barack Obama's Illegal and unconstitutional (possibly impeachable) actions against Libya.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xB4ywcnyCk

So you guys are discussing, whether the place of birth of this person makes a difference of how we should evaluate this act?

All I gather from the whole shebang is that it is obviously OK for the United States government to kill anyone they please without trial.
Unless they are born in the States themselves, then of course the Bill of Rights applies to them and they deserve a trial before being killed.

As an outsider, I just feel kind of sad that
this discussion somehow hinges on the nationality of that individual.

I always hoped that the propositions of freedom and equal treatment under the law that the United States stand for is a general ideal and not only applicable to a select few.