Yemen Defense Ministry: Anwar Al-Awlaki, Dead [Archive]

R/Tdrvr

09-30-11, 12:53

Well done.

Obviously few people, and no one I care about, is going to shed a tear for this guy but what is going to be our legal threshold and rationale for whacking Americans overseas? I'm definately not for calling off strikes on bad guys just because there is an American present, I even like the rationale that he was in a room with a bunch of bad guys that we were actually targeting.

I assume he was charged with a crime in the US and never showed up for trial. Capital crime evasion enough to warrant a whacking?

Well, he was put on the Order to Kill (?) list by Obama. I would think being directly tied to terrorist acts, such as the Ft. Hood shooting, being a member of AQ and threatening to kill more American citizens would justify it. I'm sure the ACLU will be all over it however. :rolleyes:

IMO, if you're an American, decide to join AQ and threaten to or kill fellow Americans, your citizenship should be automatically revoked. Maybe it was in his case. Who knows?

Belmont31R

09-30-11, 13:06

Well, he was put on the Order to Kill (?) list by Obama. I would think being directly tied to terrorist acts, such as the Ft. Hood shooting, being a member of AQ and threatening to kill more American citizens would justify it. I'm sure the ACLU will be all over it however. :rolleyes:

IMO, if you're an American, decide to join AQ and threaten to or kill fellow Americans, your citizenship should be automatically revoked. Maybe it was in his case. Who knows?

The problem with that is the gov sets the standard for what a terrorist is, and then can just unilaterally declare you a terrorist with loss of citizenship and no due process.

Sorta like how Eric Holder wanted their little no fly list to bar you from gun ownership. Its NOT a good idea to give the gov that kind of power where they can deprive you of rights, a fair trial, and even kill you just because they put you on some list where the burden of getting put on there is up to them with no due process at all.

Im not saying we should not be able to kill terrorists overseas just we need to be careful what new powers the government gets from this, and look at the direction they want to take those powers.

glocktogo

09-30-11, 15:18

Once again, kudos to Nobel peace prize winner Barack Hussein Obama for an extralegal military assassination well done! :)

Spurholder

09-30-11, 15:43

Once again, kudos to Nobel peace prize winner Barack Hussein Obama for an extralegal military assassination well done! :)

:standingovationwhilewearingatuxedo:

Well done.

GermanSynergy

09-30-11, 17:22

Outstanding way to start my Friday. :dance3:

ForTehNguyen

09-30-11, 19:49

Well, he was put on the Order to Kill (?) list by Obama. I would think being directly tied to terrorist acts, such as the Ft. Hood shooting, being a member of AQ and threatening to kill more American citizens would justify it. I'm sure the ACLU will be all over it however. :rolleyes:

IMO, if you're an American, decide to join AQ and threaten to or kill fellow Americans, your citizenship should be automatically revoked. Maybe it was in his case. Who knows?

even Timothy McVeigh got a trial, due process applies to ALL americans. Read all the articles about him "believed" to "inspired" attacks on Americans, and "accused" How orwellian that a US citizen is able to be killed without being charged, without a trial.

Its great to see a terrorist take a dirt nap, but not at the expense of our civil rights. What to stop the govt from labelling a terrorist and killed without being charged or put on trial? There isnt after doing this. It's unfortunate that people would rather soak in this short term victory than see the long term damage this potentially has to our rights. We waterboard someone and people freak out about it then we kill an American citizen abroad without a trial and due process and applaud it?

see related thread:
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=89840

Don Robison

09-30-11, 19:55

Was he an American? He was apparently a citizen of Yemen and Yemen doesn't allow dual U.S./Yemen citizenship so he would have had to renounce his U.S. citizenship in order to get citizenship in Yemen.

Belmont31R

09-30-11, 20:00

even Timothy McVeigh got a trial, due process applies to ALL americans. Read all the articles about him "believed" to "inspired" attacks on Americans, and "accused" How orwellian that a US citizen is able to be killed without being charged, without a trial.

Its great to see a terrorist take a dirt nap, but not at the expense of our civil rights. What to stop the govt from labelling a terrorist and killed without being charged or put on trial? There isnt after doing this. It's unfortunate that people would rather soak in this short term victory than see the long term damage this potentially has to our rights. We waterboard someone and people freak out about it then we kill an American citizen abroad without a trial and due process and applaud it?

see related thread:
http://m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=89840

My belief on this is...is that if you believe our rights are naturally endowed to each person...then those rights should not end at our borders.

Ive yet to see anything on this guy that says he killed anyone or offered anything more than spiritual support to others. So what was the national security issue that meant he had to be killed on the spot?

This is the drum I have been beating for years...but the gov will use any excuse it can to increase its powers and authority. So we have 3k killed on 9/11 yet over 300 million had have their rights deprived in the wake, and now we are executing citizens abroad without any due process.

Belmont31R

09-30-11, 20:01

ForTehNguyen

09-30-11, 20:11

My belief on this is...is that if you believe our rights are naturally endowed to each person...then those rights should not end at our borders.

Ive yet to see anything on this guy that says he killed anyone or offered anything more than spiritual support to others. So what was the national security issue that meant he had to be killed on the spot?

This is the drum I have been beating for years...but the gov will use any excuse it can to increase its powers and authority. So we have 3k killed on 9/11 yet over 300 million had have their rights deprived in the wake, and now we are executing citizens abroad without any due process.

also how many innocent civilians did we get killed looking for this guy. Then on the other side of the coin you have the White House trying to convince Iran to not kill an Iranian minister for refusing to renounce his religious beliefs. Seems like they care more about a non citizen than someone with US citizen status.

Redmanfms

09-30-11, 22:20

Do US citizens get miranda rights scribbled on the front of the AGM-114 or does it interfere with the guidance system?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879

Sniff.

Irony?

The difference between us and them is that we live here and we love our way of life. Trials used to be simple matters that dealt with actual crimes. If someone has waged war against their country by stealing the liberty and wages of decent people, that's treason and a genuine felony (crime punishable by death). A military tribunal would be as good of a trial as any for scum of the first order.

Like the meteoric drop in crime after the Albuquerque police went on strike proved, the justice system protects criminals from decent people, not the other way around. We'd just as soon use badguys as fertilizer.

Sometimes trials are way overrated...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Dachau_execution_coalyard_1945-04-29.jpg/735px-Dachau_execution_coalyard_1945-04-29.jpg

https://www.m4carbine.net/showpost.php?p=1111385&postcount=36

Redmanfms

09-30-11, 22:25

Not that I don't agree with all of you about the horrible precedent this sets, but I find it both ironic and disturbing that some of the very same people in this thread have advocated military tribunals and summary executions for America government bureaucrats and judges who have violated your sensibilities.

Belmont31R

09-30-11, 22:26

Don Robison

09-30-11, 22:28

Renouncement of citizenship is at the approval of the state department.

While that is the most commonly known and accepted it's not the only way.
You may want to look at Title 8 Chapter12; there are a few more ways to lose your nationality.

http://law.justia.com/codes/us/2010/title8/chapter12/subchapteriii/partiii/section1481/

Sensei

09-30-11, 22:51

Ive yet to see anything on this guy that says he killed anyone or offered anything more than spiritual support to others. So what was the national security issue that meant he had to be killed on the spot?

I don't know what you are reading, but this came from a 5-second Google search:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/earlyshow/main20113773.shtml

There are a bunch of other articles from various sources that all say the same thing. Here is my direct answer to your question.

Along with declaring war on the US, Al-Awlaki recruited the following terrorist who targeted the US: 2 of the 9/11 hijackers, Ft. Hood shooter, Christmas bomber, and the 2010 printer plot. Keep in mind that his contact with the terrorists was proximal to their attacks. In the case of the "Fruit of Kaboom" bomber and the FedEx printer plot, there is strong evidence that he helped with the planning and training. So, there is very strong evidence that he was an operational as well as a spiritual leader. By his own admission, he was actively involved in the recruiting, training, and planning of future operations in the US. Furthermore, he knew that he could surrender at any time to US authorities and remove his head from the kill list. Instead, he decided flee to Yemen so that he could plan future attacks.

Even if you accept Ron Paul's theory that Al-Awlaki citizenship prevents him from being classified as an enemy combatant (which I don't), lethal force is justified to neutralize the immediate threat to American lives. Because he was involved in operations to kill Americans from the shelter of a hostile country that prevented his safe capture, it is acceptable for the foreign services of the US to kill him to prevent further loss of innocent life. This principle is analogous to the police using lethal force to neutralize a barricaded (i.e. cannot safely be arrested) hostage taker who demonstrates an immediate threat to the lives of his hostages. Of course, this analogy is only valid if you believe in principles of self-defense and lethal force to prevent the loss of innocent life which I assume that RP does...

Belmont31R

09-30-11, 22:54

I don't know what you are reading, but this came from a 5-second Google search:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/earlyshow/main20113773.shtml

There are a bunch of other articles from various sources that all say the same thing. Here is my direct answer to your question.

Along with declaring war on the US, Al-Awlaki recruited the following terrorist who targeted the US: 2 of the 9/11 hijackers, Ft. Hood shooter, Christmas bomber, and the 2010 printer plot. Keep in mind that his contact with the terrorists was proximal to their attacks. In the case of the "Fruit of Kaboom" bomber and the FedEx printer plot, there is strong evidence that he helped with the planning and training. So, there is very strong evidence that he was an operational as well as a spiritual leader. By his own admission, he was actively involved in the recruiting, training, and planning of future operations in the US. Furthermore, he knew that he could surrender at any time to US authorities and remove his head from the kill list. Instead, he decided flee to Yemen so that he could plan future attacks.

Even if you accept Ron Paul's theory that Al-Awlaki citizenship prevents him from being classified as an enemy combatant (which I don't), lethal force is justified to neutralize the immediate threat to American lives. Because he was involved in operations to kill Americans from the shelter of a hostile country that prevented his safe capture, it is acceptable for the foreign services of the US to kill him to neutralize the immediate threat to American lives. This principle is analogous to the police using lethal force to neutralize a barricaded (i.e. cannot safely be arrested) hostage taker who demonstrates an immediate threat to the lives of his hostages.

So where are the court records?

glocktogo

09-30-11, 22:56

In international law there is a big difference between someone who puts on a uniform.

Uniformed troops do not get the same legal protections as unarmed people in civilian attire. Granted things have a changed a bit since AQ do not wear uniforms but that is where we need to be careful in what our government can do when it comes to combatants not in uniform AND not presenting a clear and present danger.

I would contend that an avowed AQAP mouthpiece who proselytizes that "believers" should strike out at America, while harboring himself amongst AQAP operatives in an area known for fomenting terrorism IS a clear and present danger to America. He's been tied to MANY terrorist operatives who have either planned and/or perpetrated attacks on innocent civilians, along with attacks on our military.

While we tended to focus on Awlaqi rather than Nasir al-Wihayshi, it's understandable given Awlaqi's past as a U.S. citizen. Most Americans have never even heard of al-Wihayshi. Rest assured, al-Wihayshi would not allow Awlaqi to "hang out" with the AQAP gang if his bona fides regarding America as the Great Satan were not well established.

While I agree that affording the accused their day in court before passing judgement is in the best interests of the country as a whole, I also realize that under extraordinary circumstances, sometimes you just gotta kill a mother****er. Well said mother****er is dead, so can we not just hoist a cold one in celebration before micro-analyzing the political and legal correctness of the act? Damn... :rolleyes:

Belmont31R

09-30-11, 23:02

I would contend that an avowed AQAP mouthpiece who proselytizes that "believers" should strike out at America, while harboring himself amongst AQAP operatives in an area known for fomenting terrorism IS a clear and present danger to America. He's been tied to MANY terrorist operatives who have either planned and/or perpetrated attacks on innocent civilians, along with attacks on our military.

While we tended to focus on Awlaqi rather than Nasir al-Wihayshi, it's understandable given Awlaqi's past as a U.S. citizen. Most Americans have never even heard of al-Wihayshi. Rest assured, al-Wihayshi would not allow Awlaqi to "hang out" with the AQAP gang if his bona fides regarding America as the Great Satan were not well established.

While I agree that affording the accused their day in court before passing judgement is in the best interests of the country as a whole, I also realize that under extraordinary circumstances, sometimes you just gotta kill a mother****er. Well said mother****er is dead, so can we not just hoist a cold one in celebration before micro-analyzing the political and legal correctness of the act? Damn... :rolleyes:

If its such an open and shut case then there should be court records for this, no?

See the gov can say whatever they want to say about anyone they want. That doesn't make it true nor do media reports. Part of us separating from Britain so was we could have fair trials and justice here no matter what someone did.

Just remember as much as this guy is a piece of shit the current people in charge view vets and anti-gov people in similar light. I think letting one POS go to save the rest of us from similar action is worth it. Just wait til they get NICS to include their own list of terrorists and your freedoms are taken away without any due process. Id rather have this dude running around than have our gov have the ability to execute people and take away rights at will.

Sensei

09-30-11, 23:06

So where are the court records?

So we need court records to defend ourselves? Do police require court records to neutralize an active shooter (still using my analogy for the RP supporters who think that he is a simple criminal)?

Keep in mind that he planned most of these attacks in a foreign country without extradition and where he could not be served with an indictment.

Belmont31R

09-30-11, 23:11

So we need court records to defend ourselves? Do police require court records to neutralize an active shooter (still using my analogy for the RP supporters who think that he is a simple criminal)?

Keep in mind that he planned most of these attacks in a foreign country without extradition and where he could not be served with an indictment.

Was this dude shooting people when he was killed?

glocktogo

09-30-11, 23:26

If its such an open and shut case then there should be court records for this, no?

No. This is a military, not civilian action. This guy isn't your local KKK leader with a bullhorn. We also don't hold court in Yemen. If you can't bring the terrorist to justice, you take justice to the terrorist.

See the gov can say whatever they want to say about anyone they want. That doesn't make it true nor do media reports. Part of us separating from Britain so was we could have fair trials and justice here no matter what someone did.

No. A fair trial is what you afford someone who is willing to submit to one. When the suspect is armed and barricaded in a terrorist stronghold in a shithole 3rd world country, you take the fight to him.

Just remember as much as this guy is a piece of shit the current people in charge view vets and anti-gov people in similar light. I think letting one POS go to save the rest of us from similar action is worth it. Just wait til they get NICS to include their own list of terrorists and your freedoms are taken away without any due process. Id rather have this dude running around than have our gov have the ability to execute people and take away rights at will.

No. We're not hiding out in a terrorist stronghold in a shithole 3rd world country while plotting the demise of our countrymen. We have due process because we stand here on our own soil and call out the .gov when necessary. We stand up and scream bullshit when some idiot in a fusion center calls vets & citizens with strong conservative views "potential terrorists". I say that as a liaison officer for my state's fusion center. I don't need "this dude" running around plotting and inciting the killing of my fellow Americans to protect our rights. I'm standing here on our soil to do that. In the big picture, his death will have zero impact on our rights here in America. You can bank on that!

My comments in blue.

glocktogo

09-30-11, 23:28

Was this dude shooting people when he was killed?

Was he acting in a movie called The Big Lebowski when he was killed? :rolleyes:

Bolt_Overide

09-30-11, 23:36

Belmont31R

09-30-11, 23:50

My comments in blue.

Im in complete agreement. We need to deny any terrorists any natural born rights....

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/holder-tells-senate-committee-justice-department-supports-more-gun-control

But we gotta define what a terrorist is!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/napolitano-apologizes-offending-veterans-dhs-eyes-rightwing-extremism/

Then we can burn those savages to the ground!

glocktogo

10-01-11, 00:03

Glad to see a terrorist ****stick dead, but....

I find it troubling that some clueless, inexperienced jackass can lie his way into office, blunder his way through being POTUS, and then have the ability to order the assassination of US citizens.

Dont get me wrong, I think this dude should be dead, but I also think we have started down a very VERY slippery slope here.

We were already at full velocity down the slope before he ever took office. Should it really matter what politician happens to be in office when we're all headed down the slope?

Im in complete agreement. We need to deny any terrorists any natural born rights....

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/holder-tells-senate-committee-justice-department-supports-more-gun-control

But we gotta define what a terrorist is!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/16/napolitano-apologizes-offending-veterans-dhs-eyes-rightwing-extremism/

Then we can burn those savages to the ground!

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/0587db53.jpg

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/81016f54.jpg

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/edb86f78.jpg

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj245/BM31R/edb03222.jpg

Very nice family! However, I don't see any bomb making materials or terrorists training in the background? Were those pics taken in Sanaa or Wadi Rafadh?

Belmont31R

10-01-11, 00:15

We were already at full velocity down the slope before he ever took office. Should it really matter what politician happens to be in office when we're all headed down the slope?

Very nice family! However, I don't see any bomb making materials or terrorists training in the background? Were those pics taken in Sanaa or Wadi Rafadh?

Thats the problem with leaving the classification and definition up to one sole entity at which was done here. According to Nepalatano any OIF or OEF vet is a possible terrorist, and Ive had the ATF show up at my door.

Just be careful what powers you give the government because they are not always going to be for this situation as Eric Holder and Nepalatano have already testified before Congress on.

glocktogo

10-01-11, 00:36

Thats the problem with leaving the classification and definition up to one sole entity at which was done here. According to Nepalatano any OIF or OEF vet is a possible terrorist, and Ive had the ATF show up at my door.

Just be careful what powers you give the government because they are not always going to be for this situation as Eric Holder and Nepalatano have already testified before Congress on.

You're not telling me anything I'm not fully aware of. I actually have to work for those fools! My immediate superiors are fully versed on my oath of office and what I understand it to be. One of them made the mistake of trying to explain what rights the government allowed the citizenry to have. I think he actually had fear in his eyes by the time I was done giving him a history lesson on Constitutional law. Fortunately, several of my coworkers were right there beside me and it was a team effort. We have no illusions that they wouldn't throw us under the bus if it suited them. Therefore, we've given them no illusions that we wouldn't drag them under with us! :D

armakraut

10-01-11, 00:49

We have no illusions that they wouldn't throw us under the bus if it suited them. Therefore, we've given them no illusions that we wouldn't drag them under with us! :D

:lol::lol::lol: Now that's funny.

J8127

10-01-11, 10:56

My first reaction was good, glad to be rid of him. However, I am feeling worse and worse about this, as if it really is the culmination of every wrong turn we have taken since 9/11.

The patriot act, the criminilazation of everything, the rampant growth of the federal government, the TSA, 4 trillion dollars spend nation building two worthless shitholes, thousands of servicemembers dead and hundreds of thousands injured, millions of middle easterners dead, and now the President of the United States is able to use the CIA and JSOC to execute American citizens?

No bueno, compadre.

Todd.K

10-01-11, 11:41

My first reaction was good, glad to be rid of him. However, I am feeling worse and worse about this, as if it really is the culmination of every wrong turn we have taken since 9/11.

You are putting way too much into it, I see it as a simple military action. Targeting specific command functions of the enemy is a legitimate and useful tactic. It's no different than targeting Bin Laden or Zarqawi to me.

J8127

10-01-11, 12:00

You are putting way too much into it, I see it as a simple military action. Targeting specific command functions of the enemy is a legitimate and useful tactic. It's no different than targeting Bin Laden or Zarqawi to me.

That's how I felt at first Todd but take a step back and think about what just happened.

The CIA and JSOC, at the order of the President of the United States, executed two American citizens without due process because they might have been terrorists.

According to our constitution, al-Awlaki and his cohort were innocent men that had been proven guilty of nothing by a jury of their peers, but they were executed anyway.

I'm not ok with this. As it's been mentioned before, you or I could end up on that goddamn list just easily because we like guns, and to just think it could never happen is simply naive.

ForTehNguyen

10-01-11, 12:47

hell, the govt even called the guy who made the Liberty Dollars a domestic terrorist. Could they just go out and kill him after being called a terrorist? Hes also an American citizen.

Todd.K

10-01-11, 13:07

innocent men that had been proven guilty of nothing by a jury of their peers, but they were executed anyway.

If you want the protections of the US justice system you should stay within the jurisdiction of the US justice system, not go to enemy territory and be part of a terrorist group that calls for killing US civilians.

Belmont31R

10-01-11, 13:29

If you want the protections of the US justice system you should stay within the jurisdiction of the US justice system, not go to enemy territory and be part of a terrorist group that calls for killing US civilians.

They aren't protections given to us by the justice system. They are rights everyone is born with. Now if they want to declare him an enemy combatant or whatever we have courts. There needs to be strict guidelines and steps taken not just being put on a list. Wheres the checks and balances here? Its a pretty broad power to give one branch of government the unilateral ability to kill American citizens not within our border.

Saying just because someone is outside our borders means the gov can do whatever they want goes against the basic belief that we are born with certain rights.

Im not saying this guy wasn't a bad dude but I don't like the method displayed here, and I don't think our rights get taken away because you're not stepping foot in America at the moment.

ForTehNguyen

10-01-11, 13:43

its funny how some people freaked out when we waterboarded people now when we kill a US citizen without charges filed, a trial, or due process its applauded. I, like anyone else, would like to see a terrorist take a dirt nap but NOT at the expense of our liberty and rights. Its funny, how back in the Bush years many of these politicians including Obama had a cow when Americans were to be eavesdropped without a search warrant. Now when in office, this Nobel Peace prize winner signs unilateral death warrants to kill US citizens and no one says anything.

When The President Can Kill Who Ever He Wants
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnem1Ohm3Q0&feature=feedu

Irish

10-01-11, 14:15

I see both sides of the coin. Happy that a bad guy's taking a dirt nap and conflicted in the fact that he should've been proven guilty and not just got smoked on allegations. Just because BHO said he's guilty doesn't prove shit to me. If we're simply going by allegations, assumptions and finger pointing we should just smoke all the Gitmo prisoners and should've done the same at Abu Ghraib.

We've got plenty of good people who've been proven innocent in prison with DNA after they've been locked up for 20 years. And all this coming from a government that holds no accountability for itself on matters like Fast & Furious and a plethora of others.

I also think we should've captured OBL and given him a trial. He was unarmed and could've easily been captured and whisked away. We would've gotten lots of valuable intelligence from him and proven his guilt beyond a doubt putting all claims to rest.

Definitely conflicted. We gave Saddam Hussein a trial, the Nazis, Tim McVeigh, etc. Happy to see bad guys dead but I think we should capture these "leaders" if at all possible. Obtain valuable intel, prove their guilt and then hang'em in a public square as an example.

During a videotaped message, Paul pointed out that Awlaki “was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody.” The Texas Congressman added that “if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys. I think it’s sad.”
RP has also said that he considers the killing of AAA to be a "net positive" but would rather follow the rule of law.

Judge Napolitano has an interesting dialogue with Glenn Beck about the incident. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3xf56nWU0E

variablebinary

10-01-11, 15:55

I wouldn't waste a SEAL team to get this traitor. Why should we risk another black hawk down for one shit head.

He took up arms against the United States. Sought shelter among enemies of the United States in a foreign land.

**** him. Enemy combatants get weapons of war. Don't want bombs on your head, turn yourself in at the nearest American embassy and get your miranda rights and a trail.

armakraut

10-01-11, 16:06

ForTehNguyen

10-01-11, 16:07

youre right, american rights come second to military/law enforcement convenience

Belmont31R

10-01-11, 16:34

I'm wouldn't waste a SEAL team to get this traitor. Why should we risk another black hawk down for one shit head.

He took up arms against the United States. Sought shelter among enemies of the United States in a foreign land.

**** him. Enemy combatants get weapons of war. Don't want bombs on your head, turn yourself in at the nearest American embassy and get your miranda rights and a trail.

Then there needs to be a court that approves such actions. I think we can all agree the dude was an enemy, and the world is better off without him. But all we're saying is we need to look at the implications of allowing the gov to kill people without any due process who are American citizens abroad just because they are put on some list.

Irish

10-01-11, 16:55

He took up arms against the United States. Sought shelter among enemies of the United States in a foreign land.

**** him. Enemy combatants get weapons of war. Don't want bombs on your head, turn yourself in at the nearest American embassy and get your miranda rights and a trail.

When did he take up arms? Is there proof of that or do you believe everything your government tells you?

Also, with what he's been accused of he was really smart to seek shelter outside of America. If not they would just throw him in a jail to rot for years and years and years without even so much as charging him for anything. Welcome to the Patriot Act and the "War on Terrorism". There are plenty of examples of people rotting away at Gitmo and even here on U.S. soil as "enemy combatants" with absolutely no prrof and where they don't get lawyers, trials or anything that our American justice system is supposed to provide them.

In essence I agree with you. Show me proof and not just headline grabbing accusations with no substance. With that in hand I'll pull the trigger myself.

variablebinary

10-01-11, 17:14

Then there needs to be a court that approves such actions. I think we can all agree the dude was an enemy, and the world is better off without him. But all we're saying is we need to look at the implications of allowing the gov to kill people without any due process who are American citizens abroad just because they are put on some list.

Civlian courts should not be litigating war.

This is an issue of war not shoplifting. He is 100% a member of an organization at war with the United States, and guilty of the greatest act of terror in American history, by his own admission.

The instant you become an enemy combatant, you are subject to the full might and wrath of the American military until you surrender, get captured, or get injured and then captured...or you could end up dead.

Sensei

10-01-11, 18:21

Civlian courts should not be litigating war.

This is an issue of war not shoplifting. He is 100% a member of an organization at war with the United States, and guilty of the greatest act of terror in American history, by his own admission.

The instant you become an enemy combatant, you are subject to the full might and wrath of the American military until you surrender, get captured, or get injured and then captured...or you could end up dead.

Exactly!

This issue is where my libertarian tendencies end. On one hand, killing Osama was a crime because we violated Pakistan's sovereignty. On the other hand, we should create some type of civilian court to adjudicate warcrimes committed on foreign soil by a citizen acting as an enemy combatent. Keep in mind these trails would be held in absentia without the defendant ever being served with an indictment. No problem, let me get out my handy pocket Constitution that deals with these matters...

Also, people should not call this unpresidented. Keep in mind that Presidents have used military force on American soil against citizens throughout our history - all without court oversight or objection. It started with Washington and the Wiskey Rebellion. Then, there was that little West Point class reunion called the Civil War.

Finally, for all those people like Ron Paul who claim that we assassinated an innocent American civilian, think very carefully before you make that claim. That means that you knowingly pay taxes to a government, and live under the protection of a country, that murders it's citizens. I for one would be a Canadian if I truly believed this was happening.

variablebinary

10-01-11, 18:51

On the other hand, we should create some type of civilian court to adjudicate warcrimes committed on foreign soil by a citizen acting as an enemy combatent. Keep in mind these trails would be held in absentia without the defendant ever being served with an indictment

Absentia trials are a waste of time and money.

We have Marines for dealing with enemy combatants. Don't want to face them, don't be an enemy combatant.

Belmont31R

10-01-11, 18:52

Sensei

10-01-11, 20:01

I mean if we can just assassinate people with no due process...

Could you please define your use of the term "assassinate." I think this term carries a specific criminal connotation that, when used, has consequences for the airman piloting that drone. It also implies an element of innocesnce for the person who was unjustly killed. For example, I do not consider myself an assassin when I perform my duties as a US soldier. I also do not consider police officers to be assassins when they are forced to kill a citizen who has not been given "due process" in order to prevent further loss of innocent life (something that many of us consider analgous to the killing of Al-Awlaki).

As for the checks and balances question that you ask, the answer is simple - impeachment. If enough people feel that Obama committed a high crime by assassinating Al-Awlaki, they will muster enough votes in the House to impeach him, and then enough votes in the Senate to convict. Meanwhile, all of the service members who participated in the attack would face UCMJ for following the unlawful order that resulted in the murder of an innocent civilian.

This is why I object to and challenge anyone using the term assassinate.

Sensei

10-01-11, 22:30

Absentia trials are a waste of time and money.

We have Marines for dealing with enemy combatants. Don't want to face them, don't be an enemy combatant.

Trials held in absentia are also deemed to be unconstitutional which highlights the irony of the claim that a court proceeding is needed prior to any action against a citizen enemy combatant.

We just disagree on which military branch is best at dispatching enemy combatants ;)

variablebinary

10-02-11, 00:08

Trials held in absentia are also deemed to be unconstitutional which highlights the irony of the claim that a court proceeding is needed prior to any action against a citizen enemy combatant.

We just disagree on which military branch is best at dispatching enemy combatants ;)

Technically, as our expeditionary force, that would be their job, but I get where you are coming from :D

J8127

10-02-11, 00:41

Could you please define your use of the term "assassinate." I think this term carries a specific criminal connotation that, when used, has consequences for the airman piloting that drone. It also implies an element of innocesnce for the person who was unjustly killed. For example, I do not consider myself an assassin when I perform my duties as a US soldier. I also do not consider police officers to be assassins when they are forced to kill a citizen who has not been given "due process" in order to prevent further loss of innocent life (something that many of us consider analgous to the killing of Al-Awlaki).

As for the checks and balances question that you ask, the answer is simple - impeachment. If enough people feel that Obama committed a high crime by assassinating Al-Awlaki, they will muster enough votes in the House to impeach him, and then enough votes in the Senate to convict. Meanwhile, all of the service members who participated in the attack would face UCMJ for following the unlawful order that resulted in the murder of an innocent civilian.

This is why I object to and challenge anyone using the term assassinate.

There is a presumption of innocence because, I don't know, he's innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers in a court of law?

There were SOF personnel on helos loaded up ready to go roll him up and bring him in, instead they just killed him.

Honu

10-02-11, 00:50

Somewhere in Yemen there is a goat in mourning.

Rot in hell asshole.

and about 200 more thinking AHHH my a$$ is safe again

Honu

10-02-11, 00:53

We've never declared war on AQ.

Whats the standard for being declared an enemy combatant, and what are the checks and balances on those decisions?

And Im fully aware of who he is, and what he has done. No one is denying he is not a shit bag who did deserve the ending he got. But we just need to be aware of what powers our government has, and where they can lead to. I mean if we can just assassinate people with no due process and without any balances whats to stop them from taking people 20 miles off shore and putting a bullet in their head? The problem with broad powers like this is they are not always used on the people we all thought they would be, and then what?

I have to agree !!!

with the hate and rhetoric against gun toting conservatives what happens if they decide they are the problem ! and certain leaders should be taken out for the greater good !!!

again i am also glad he is gone but they should declare war on these F^@#ing pigs and say OK open season on any of the members

then again the current admin wont do that !!!! he wants it both ways

variablebinary

10-02-11, 01:03

There is a presumption of innocence because, I don't know, he's innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers in a court of law?

There were SOF personnel on helos loaded up ready to go roll him up and bring him in, instead they just killed him.

There is no presumption of innocence for enemy combatants.

You want a trial, walk up to the nearest American Embassy, or military installation with a white flag, identify yourself as a traitorous citizen, and turn yourself in.

Fail to do so, and you'll get treated like every other enemy combatant, meaning you are fair game for killing by whatever means we can reach you with.

Tell me the METT-TC specifics that would determine if it made more sense to send SOF over a drone hit. How many Yemeni AQ loyalists were in the enemy's AO? And very simply, why risk another BHD scenario?

As it stands we killed a high ranking officer in the opposing forces ranks. That's how wars are won, not by dicking around and sending the local flat-foot with an arrest warrant to knock on the bad guys's front door.

And lets not forget we got two so-called Americans in the strike. Don't forget about this other AQ asshole from Queens, NYC Samir Kahn. **** him too.

FromMyColdDeadHand

10-02-11, 02:25

He was an American plant and this was his exfil - at least it would make a better movie than Lions for Lambs.

I frankly don't give a crap if every misguided youth, ex-con come to Muhammed, camel felating American citizen gets a pass on a Hellfire BBQ if it removes one way for the government to stifle American's freedom by going around and targeting Americans. My citizenship is a shield that means that no one gets to **** with me with out due process. Nothing has carried as much weight since the ability to wield a Roman Citizenship.

This arguement was made and lost in the 60s in regards to citizens rights here in America. Frankly, this is the only real 'War Crime' that I have seen the US commit in the last 30 years. Sure this guy was the baddest of the bad- but where does it end?

If he is actively fighting or even plotting and you can get him in a bomb factory or in a room with known bad guys who are legit targets, I have no problems taking out that building- but when you put an American face in the cross hairs you'd better have something more than Barry the Kenyan said it was OK. We give third-world despots more consideration than that.

'But, but -- these are bad guys and we won't use it against us good guys.' Sure, security measures never creap- have fun getting fondled by security at the football game tomorrow.

variablebinary

10-02-11, 03:02

My citizenship is a shield that means that no one gets to **** with me with out due process.

The USA has clearly defined what an enemy combatant is as it pertains to AQ

An enemy combatant has been defined as
"an individual who was part of or supporting the Taliban or al Qaida forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who committed a belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces."

Anwar met the definition of a enemy combatant. I wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet in his brain for even second.

Any suggestion that is some type of slippery slope where anyone that buys a Glock and joins the tea party can get a JDAM dropped on their minivan while going to wal-mart has been listening to Alex Jones for too long.

Obama made the right choice.

VooDoo6Actual

10-02-11, 05:46

Variablebinary writes:

"The instant you become an enemy combatant, you are subject to the full might and wrath of the American military until you surrender, get captured, or get injured and then captured...or you could end up dead."
&
"Any suggestion that is some type of slippery slope where anyone that buys a Glock and joins the tea party can get a JDAM dropped on their minivan while going to wal-mart has been listening to Alex Jones for too long."

Have to disagree on this one.

In reality w/ the dearth of jobs, lack of comity as a codified nation, false flag OPS running along with censorship, media control, eroding personal freedoms/expressions, mind control games going on (labeling Veterans et alia as terrorists etc.), obfuscation & scemantic games, potential Martial Law suspending our constitution & rights by default is not that much of a stretch at all. WE are ON that slippery slope no doubt. I do not watch Alex Jones either.

Here's another example of the conflicted complexity of it all...

http://euro-med.dk/?p=24532

ForTehNguyen

10-02-11, 07:56

Secret U.S. memo sanctioned killing of Aulaqi (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_print.html)

Govt debating with itself and defining the boundaries of its own power, this should turn out well

When The President Can Kill Who Ever He Wants!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw1fNbomd2g&feature=feedu

J8127

10-02-11, 09:42

Any suggestion that is some type of slippery slope where anyone that buys a Glock and joins the tea party can get a JDAM dropped on their minivan while going to wal-mart has been listening to Alex Jones for too long.

I guess this is just where we will have to disagree. I strongly believe in the slippery sloap when it comes to the government. What is an exception today will be the norm all too soon.

What are we if we are a country where the president can kill his own citizens, even if they are shit bags.

HES

10-02-11, 10:42

I have to agree !!!

with the hate and rhetoric against gun toting conservatives what happens if they decide they are the problem ! and certain leaders should be taken out for the greater good !!!

again i am also glad he is gone but they should declare war on these F^@#ing pigs and say OK open season on any of the members

then again the current admin wont do that !!!! he wants it both ways
Gotta agree. The guy was a POS. He did take up arms against this nation. But he was an American citizen and this sets a damned dangerous precedent. This about it, we have a government that has no problem putting into motion events that will result in innocents getting killed to further their political goals (fast and furious). What's to keep the government to expanding thier efforts against any one they consider to ensure undesirable?

Todd.K

10-02-11, 13:22

War, and the way it is waged, is a political matter. If you dislike the way your leaders wage war, vote for different ones. There was a judicial decision made, they didn't think it was a judicial matter.

"the Court finds that the political question doctrine bars judicial resolution of this case."

"excludes from judicial review those controversies which revolve around policy choices and value determinations constitutionally committed for resolution to the halls of Congress or the confines of the Executive Branch"

"the Judiciary lacks the "competence" to make "complex subtle, and professional decisions as to the ...control of a military force,"...the ultimate responsibility for these decisions is appropriately vested in branches of the government which are periodically subject to electoral accountability."

https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2010cv1469-31

They aren't protections given to us by the justice system. They are rights everyone is born with.
Not being killed in war has never been a natural right.

When did he take up arms? Is there proof of that or do you believe everything your government tells you?
The UN put him on their terrorist list. This required enough evidence for the security council to name him a member of AQAP. He do not need to use arms to be a military target, material aid and recruiting made him an enemy combatant.

Could you please define your use of the term "assassinate." I think this term carries a specific criminal connotation... I prefer the "for political reasons" definition. This is clearly not the case here, we determined (I understand the debate about the nature of the evidence being mainly secret) that he posed an imminent threat.

Irish

10-02-11, 13:37

According to our government most people on this forum are terrorists. Don't believe it? Try reading the MIAC report http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/miac-strategic-report.pdf or the FBI's JTTF flyer http://www.rense.com/general17/fly.htm.

It's all in the name of stopping terrorism! :rolleyes: Bullshit! It's all about making billions of dollars for the military-industrial complex and restricting the rights of American citizens through the Patriot Act, etc.

FromMyColdDeadHand

10-02-11, 14:14

The real issue is two things coming to a head at the same time. One is that the nature of these 'wars' is changing so that there is not even the CINC structure found in classic guerrilla warfare. When you can have a cell of one, radicalized and not even directly controlled over the internet the meaning of the words in the definition of 'enemy combatant' like 'support' become potentially very nebulous and inclusive. To a New York Progressive, a 3-gun match is going to be indistinguishable from a terrorist training camp.

The other is that we have the ability to target single individuals like never before. And I think this is the crux of the issue, you can't get a hunting license for an American citizen. Hell, a snail darter has more protection than citizens do if this assasination idea become commonplace. And that is what it is- an assasination - the targeted killing of an idividual for political purposes.

I would posit that an American Citizen cannot be labelled an enemy combatant (a term dropped by Obama by the way). The term enemy combatant refers to irregular forces, which by their very nature are basically impossible to prove.

Todd.K

10-02-11, 15:34

And that is what it is- an assasination - the targeted killing of an idividual for political purposes.
Just because the type of war we are fighting is different than the classical war between nation states doesn't mean it is not a war. The nature of this war means that we target the enemy leadership, because we cannot destroy their ability to continue fighting in the classic way. We have been killing members of the enemy command for some time now and I don't think there was ever a political point being made, just a threat being taken out.

What makes this so NOT the issue some want to make it is the fact there is no attempt to cover up the fact he was a target. We could have "targeted" a different AQAP leader, and then dropped a bomb when AAA "happened" to be in a meeting with him.

We can't know all the details because there are too many TTP's at stake. It was a command decision, and the decision was that AAA posed enough of a threat to be targeted. Five minutes with google on this guy should point to him being a credible threat, and a legitimate military target as a member of AQAP.

I would be more concerned if this came out years latter, or there was public info on AAA, like video of him calling for and praising the killing of Americans.

the definition of 'enemy combatant' like 'support' become potentially very nebulous and inclusive.When he makes videos for AQAP, lives in AQAP controlled territory, and is on the run from terrorist charges in Yemen, I don't see it as being so "nebulous and inclusive".

11B101ABN

10-02-11, 16:52

The USA has clearly defined what an enemy combatant is as it pertains to AQ

An enemy combatant has been defined as

Anwar met the definition of a enemy combatant. I wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet in his brain for even second.

Any suggestion that is some type of slippery slope where anyone that buys a Glock and joins the tea party can get a JDAM dropped on their minivan while going to wal-mart has been listening to Alex Jones for too long.

Obama made the right choice.

Gawd almighty. I like you.

R/Tdrvr

10-03-11, 14:38

We've never declared war on AQ.

No, they declared war on us by carrying out the 9/11 attacks and attacks before 9/11. Was there a "formal" declaration? Of course not, but terrorists don't usually send a letter saying they declared war on your country.

He joined AQ of his own free will.
AQ has stated their intent to kill Americans no matter where or when.
He chose the wrong side and he paid the price for that choice. The day he joined AQ, all bets were off.

Is this any different than say a radical militia group here stating they want to overthrow the government, try to carry out that action and get killed by SWAT guys in the process? Where would be the due process in that scenario?

Todd.K

10-03-11, 14:58

Yes, we did declare war.

That the President is
authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those
nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11,
2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any
future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such
nations, organizations or persons.

(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-107publ40/content-detail.html

R/Tdrvr

10-03-11, 15:00

Todd K

I should have clarified by saying AQ declared war on us FIRST. Executing 9/11 was their declaration.

Belmont31R

10-03-11, 15:01

No, they declared war on us by carrying out the 9/11 attacks and attacks before 9/11. Was there a "formal" declaration? Of course not, but terrorists don't usually send a letter saying they declared war on your country.

He joined AQ of his own free will.
AQ has stated their intent to kill Americans no matter where or when.
He chose the wrong side and he paid the price for that choice. The day he joined AQ, all bets were off.

I know you can "what if" it and say what if gun owners are declared terrorists by Obama and get the same treatment, but that hasn't happened. And I believe unlikely to happen, because that will probably be when a second Civil War or revolution starts in this country.

Im not debating what AQ is or has done. I joined the Army in 2003 so I could go help with defeating them.

Im debating the act of creating a list that one branch of government that allows the same branch to then kill American citizens with zero due process or checks and balances which is what "justice" is supposed to entail. Everyone wants to call it a war and just dismiss all the traditional formal processes.

Tell me which section of the Constitution authorizes the executive to execute American citizens outside of our borders with ZERO checks and balances from the other branches? This is just another made up power people let pass just because the target, this time, was some terrorist accused of crimes. Judge, jury, and executioner all in one.

glocktogo

10-03-11, 16:36

We all know we're on a slippery slope in this country. However, this is less an abuse by the government than many of the abuses perpetrated in the early years of the GWOT. Rendition, torture and intelligence gathering techniques performed under the auspices of the Patriot Act are far greater abuses than the death of an avowed enemy of the United States, who was actively aiding an organization officially listed as an enemy of the United States in a time of war.

The question also arises as to which country Awlaki really owed his allegiance. he was a dual citizen of the US and Yemen. He spent only 18 of his 40 years in the United States and the evidence is pretty compelling that he spent most of his adult years in the United States committing fraud, funding terrorism and actively plotting to commit terrorist acts upon the United States. He himself fraudulently listed his birthplace as Yemen in order to defraud the government for scholarship money. He also fraudulently listed Yemen as his birthplace on his Social Security card application. Do we really have any question as to which country his allegiance was sworn?

Being born in this country automatically grants citizenship by law. However, that doesn't mean you're truly a citizen of the United States. Awlaki was a citizen of Yemen and there's little doubt of that. In the case of Awlaki, the two are mutually exclusive. We killed an enemy combatant in Yemen who was a citizen of Yemen. That he had "dual citizenship" in the eyes of the law is immaterial. Awlaki lived his life outside the law and he died beyond the reach of the law. His undoing was not living outside the reach of a Hellfire missile.

Anyone who likens his killing to a slippery slope that will result in Hellfire missiles falling on US citizens inside the United States or other countries where the law is routinely followed and enforced is grasping at some very wispy straws.

ForTehNguyen

10-03-11, 21:43

Anyone who likens his killing to a slippery slope that will result in Hellfire missiles falling on US citizens inside the United States or other countries where the law is routinely followed and enforced is grasping at some very wispy straws.

you probably also think the Patriot Act will only be used against terrorists, and never for anything else

Belmont31R

10-03-11, 21:55

We all know we're on a slippery slope in this country. However, this is less an abuse by the government than many of the abuses perpetrated in the early years of the GWOT. Rendition, torture and intelligence gathering techniques performed under the auspices of the Patriot Act are far greater abuses than the death of an avowed enemy of the United States, who was actively aiding an organization officially listed as an enemy of the United States in a time of war.

Many aspects of the Patriot Act, as originally signed into law, have been ruled unconstitutional. Not saying its a good law, at all, but just sayig thats how shitty it was when it was signed.

The question also arises as to which country Awlaki really owed his allegiance. he was a dual citizen of the US and Yemen. He spent only 18 of his 40 years in the United States and the evidence is pretty compelling that he spent most of his adult years in the United States committing fraud, funding terrorism and actively plotting to commit terrorist acts upon the United States. He himself fraudulently listed his birthplace as Yemen in order to defraud the government for scholarship money. He also fraudulently listed Yemen as his birthplace on his Social Security card application. Do we really have any question as to which country his allegiance was sworn?

Not really sure you need to take an oath of allegiance to still be protected under due process and other natural rights.

Being born in this country automatically grants citizenship by law. However, that doesn't mean you're truly a citizen of the United States. Awlaki was a citizen of Yemen and there's little doubt of that. In the case of Awlaki, the two are mutually exclusive. We killed an enemy combatant in Yemen who was a citizen of Yemen. That he had "dual citizenship" in the eyes of the law is immaterial. Awlaki lived his life outside the law and he died beyond the reach of the law. His undoing was not living outside the reach of a Hellfire missile.

What makes someone a true citizen? What makes an enemy combat who can be executed so long as they are outside the US? Lots of people lived their lives outside of the law including all of our Founders.

Anyone who likens his killing to a slippery slope that will result in Hellfire missiles falling on US citizens inside the United States or other countries where the law is routinely followed and enforced is grasping at some very wispy straws.

Ask the Vicky Weaver about that one. Oh wait she was shot while holding her infant in her arms (who also died) and the gov paid millions in restitution over NFA weapons case.

Blue is mine.

glocktogo

10-03-11, 23:46

you probably also think the Patriot Act will only be used against terrorists, and never for anything else

You must have missed the third sentence of my post. Might want to reread that one.

Blue is mine.

Sorry, but if you're comparing Awlaki to the Founders, your argument just got really lame. IIRC, Vicky Weaver was killed with a rifle, not a missile. Whether we like it or not, how you kill someone in this country matters. The real injustice there was not the payout, but the DOJ's refusal to prosecute their own troops (FBI, ATF). They're still refusing to properly investigate and prosecute criminal misconduct within their ranks and should be relieved of their duties in that area.

As for an oath of allegiance for due process, I'm not sure either, but that doesn't invalidate my argument. BHO is more white than black, but he gets to decide what race he is and goes with black. If Awlaki wanted to identify as a Yemeni citizen, who are we to argue that right? As for so called "natural rights", those are forfeit when you conduct yourself with disdain and disregard for the natural rights of others.

variablebinary

10-04-11, 00:19

The day he joined AQ, all bets were off.

Pretty straight forward actually, irrespective of whatever spin is being put on this issue.

Furthermore, many of us took the oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Al-Awlaki was both rolled into one.

Irish

10-05-11, 12:29

I've got no dog in the fight and am about to head out for the day but I thought this was interesting. http://www.yemenpost.net/Detail123456789.aspx?ID=3&SubID=4148&MainCat=3

More than 25 leaders from the Awaliq tribe, the tribe of Anwar Awlaqi, reached Jawf on Sunday to see the remains of the body of Anwar, however, no body resembling his was found.

Amongst those who went to the province was his father, a former minister and university dean.

Tribal leaders in Jawf told the family that Awlaqi was not killed in the attack.

Tribes in the province say there is no proof that Awlaqi was amongst the killed and DNA tests on the remains of the five killed can prove that.

An al-Qaeda senior leader also denied the claims that Awlaqi was killed and said that he will soon come out with a statement to prove that.

The Awaliq tribe has not officially announced the death of their fellow tribesman, Anwar.

Yemen and US announced that Awalqi was the prime target in the US drone attack last Friday.

Belmont31R

10-05-11, 12:42

You must have missed the third sentence of my post. Might want to reread that one.

Sorry, but if you're comparing Awlaki to the Founders, your argument just got really lame. IIRC, Vicky Weaver was killed with a rifle, not a missile. Whether we like it or not, how you kill someone in this country matters. The real injustice there was not the payout, but the DOJ's refusal to prosecute their own troops (FBI, ATF). They're still refusing to properly investigate and prosecute criminal misconduct within their ranks and should be relieved of their duties in that area.

As for an oath of allegiance for due process, I'm not sure either, but that doesn't invalidate my argument. BHO is more white than black, but he gets to decide what race he is and goes with black. If Awlaki wanted to identify as a Yemeni citizen, who are we to argue that right? As for so called "natural rights", those are forfeit when you conduct yourself with disdain and disregard for the natural rights of others.

You don't get to just one day decide you are no longer a citizen.

Just because you live outside of the law doesn't mean you no longer have any rights. Under our Constitution you cannot lose yours rights/liberty without due process of law. I think that should be respected even outside of the country, and not doing so is saying the government does not have to respect any citizens rights as long as they aren't within our country. Again whats to stop them from taking someone 20 miles off shore and executing them?

Remember the governments excuse for holding other people indefinitely and not treating them as POW's was because they are not uniformed troops acting under sanction of a legitimate government. So we're not at war because the people we are killing are not prisoners of war so they are enemy combatants, and citizen or not we can just kill whoever we want for any reason in other countries as long as we put them on some list someone made up.

Remember Eric Holder was pushing for NICS checks to be cross referenced against the no fly list which there is no due process for. So there is precedent for them wanting to apply the list w/ no due process doctrine even within our own country. Im not cool with how fine a line they are walking, and wanting to deny citizens in America rights because they got put on a list.

Remember Obama is the one that is friends with William Ayers...a guy who advocated for sending people to reeducation camps and postulated that up to 25 million Americans would have to die in their commie revolution and take over of the US. Im not going to give their ilk a single tool to even scratch the surface of the shit these people dream about. He has had Czars and other people close to him advocating Eugenics and selective medical care based on the needs of the state. Giving these same people the power to execute citizens just because they are not on our soil at the time is dangerous, and further gives them incentive to keep pushing for more powers.

Irish

10-05-11, 12:51

Awlaki was a nobody. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/opinion/20johnsen.html

Belmont31R

10-05-11, 13:01

With respect to my Founder's comment it was because the British government viewed them the same way we are viewing citizens who turn terrorist. They were not treated as POW's, and were also not given due process of law. The British took to burning their homes out, killing their families, and numerous other acts meant to squelch out the "insurgency" and kill the terrorists.

Im not comparing the righteousness of what the Founders did to what AQ is doing. Just saying if you believe the law should apply equally to everyone what American AQ members have done should not have any bearing on what rights we acknowledge they have or not even recognizing any at all. If you won't acknowledge the rights they do have, just because they are out of the country, then no other citizen has any rights when it comes to the US government when outside of the country. We are then relying on the government to judge our actions within a single branch being judge, jury, and executioner all in one. Thats not how our system of governance was put forth, and we're in essence gifting the government new powers none of which are listed in the Constitution...basically created out of thin air.

Magic_Salad0892

10-05-11, 13:47

You don't get to just one day decide you are no longer a citizen.

Even if you join Al-Qaeda?

I understand the slippery slope thing.

But in this case, we didn't kill an American Citizen. We killed a member of a known terrorist faction responsible for recruitment, and training.

You give up your American rights, when you start training people to kill your countrymen.

I'm with variablebinary, on this one. However, I agree with you as well.

.. I you understand what I'm getting at.

Belmont31R

10-05-11, 14:03

Even if you join Al-Qaeda?

I understand the slippery slope thing.

But in this case, we didn't kill an American Citizen. We killed a member of a known terrorist faction responsible for recruitment, and training.

You give up your American rights, when you start training people to kill your countrymen.

I'm with variablebinary, on this one. However, I agree with you as well.

.. I you understand what I'm getting at.

You guys can say he gave up this or that all you want but none of that is legal or coded law.

http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

All of that talk about not being a citizen or giving up your rights is just made up fluff with no legal bearing.

And no he did not join a foreign military. Remember our government views terrorists as enemy combatants not POWs. POWs would be from a legitimate foreign government which AQ is not, and why we can detain them indefinitely according to legal precedent.

Again not saying I don't think he was not a bad dude but we need to stick to preservation of rights, and look at the big picture when it comes to gifting our government powers not listed in the Constitution. The ramifications of these powers can do things no one supporting this obviously never imagined, and be aware of people around the president who he has been friends with for a long time think of us. To kill one dude, you're giving folks that said 25 million Americans would have to die for communist revolution, the power to execute citizens abroad with zero oversight, due process or checks and balances.

One AQ guy is not worth giving the government that power and tool.

Irish

10-06-11, 10:33

A secret panel decides who lives and dies... http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE79475C20111005?irpc=932

Todd.K

10-06-11, 12:03

Irish

10-06-11, 13:12

It seems you have serious concerns about the way your elected officials are fighting a war.

I do and I think it's my obligation and duty as an American to question the motives and actions of people in government. I'm all for open and honest debate and am not afraid to be proven wrong or having my line of reasoning changed. Without discussion and disagreements we'd all be stuck on a single train of thought and I'm happy to be enlightened.

Government and it's powers should be held on a short leash and not allowed to run amok. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, one of the most important protections in our Bill of Rights says in part: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”

The concept of due process goes all the way back to the Magna Carta, (1215) in which King John promised that ”No free man shall be taken or imprisoned or disseized or exiled or in any way destroyed…except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.”

According to the US government, al-Awlaki was murdered because he "inspired" others to attack the United States through his preaching over the internet. He was also supposedly personally involved in planning the activities of the "underwear bomber." No evidence of his guilt has ever been released, it's all secret, along with the list of individuals marked for death by US authorities.

Yet this alleged "terrorist" wasn't always so notorious, right after the 9/11 attacks he was summoned to Capitol Hill to lead a prayer vigil for Muslim congressional staffers, and was invited to the Pentagon to lecture on Islam. The idea was to find a "moderate" Muslim, who was "vetted" by the authorities, to "reach out" to the Muslim community, Fox News reports. The event was reportedly a luncheon, during which al-Awlaki denounced al-Qaeda, and, although "harassed" by audience members, "handled it well," according to one eyewitness.

When asked to justify the constitutional law professor/president’s open defiance of the Fifth Amendment in ordering the murder of a U.S. citizen without trial, the White House press secretary refused to respond. As the Washington Post put it, “The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.”.

Any American, whose “preaching” purportedly “inspires” a terrorist act is now fair game for our CIA assassins. The first time we take out an American citizen on American soil, on the mere suspicion that he may be a “terrorist,” our legal eagles will point to the al-Awlaki case as justification. That a citizen of this country may be put on a list that marks him for death, without public trial, seals the doom of our old republic.

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." - Thomas Jefferson

Disclaimer: Some of these are my own words and some I copied from articles I've read due to time and not being as eloquent with my own use of the english language. Regardless of that my thoughts mirror those I've chosen to use.

ForTehNguyen

10-06-11, 16:35

those in support of the methods used, do yall support this?

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list' (http://news.yahoo.com/secret-panel-put-americans-kill-list-041603267.html)

VooDoo6Actual

10-06-11, 19:38

Secret panel with secret agendas is a slippery slope that cannot be good no matter what.

Any time there's a sanctioned/unsanctioned assassination, the agenda/motive/totality of evidence/FACTS (not RUMINT/HUMINT/False Flag OPs etc.) need to be crystal clear, Bacarat Crystal Clear imo.

Seen it too many times in my days to blindly or TACITLY accept that as policy especially coupled w/ the corruption/collusion/conspiracies that OVERTLY exist these days.

Specifically speaking in regards to Alwalki, it is the issue of his citizenship w/ regards to due process rather than enemy comabatant of war that has SOME people raising the issue.

I'm OK with this situation's ending. It's the sliperry slope that we now go down in future regarding DUE PROCESS etc. that has my concern.

Sensei

10-06-11, 20:28

It seems you have serious concerns about the way your elected officials are fighting a war. Oversight for elected officials is the people. Congress authorized the Executive to use force against AQ. Judicial dismissed it as a political issue. So all three branches are involved.

If it makes you feel better the same jurisdiction and due process concerns have been argued about for Piracy for a long time. I don't think the nationality of a pirate was ever a concern when fighting them, maybe if they were captured.

POW's can only be uniformed and fighting under a flag. POW's are generally held for the duration of hostilities, that is indefinite until peace is made. Have we made peace with AQ?

You are exactly right Todd - Alwalki's citizenship is immaterial to this discussion. I'm actually surprised that Ron Paul (someone who touts his fidelity and understanding of the Constitution) tries to push his citizenship in this matter. In fact, the Constitution does not confer protections based on citizenship or nationality. The 5th Amendment specifically says "No person..." and SCOTUS has granted protections to non-citizen defendants who are accused of a crime. Therefore, granting these protections to 1 combatant (i.e. Al-Awlaki) would require that other combatants be afforded the same protections based on the fact that the Constitution does not discriminate based on nationality in criminal matters. This argument is a major reason why the Bush administration resisted any semblance of a criminal stance in its dealings with AQ and pushed to have their agents declared enemy combatants. It is also why placing them on trial in NCY would cause a constitutional crisis (are they combatants that you can bomb or criminals that get Meranda rights).

It is also why the courts refused to intervene when Al-Awlaki's father approached them to save his son from the hit list. The courts cited their lack of jurisdiction over military conflicts and would not even consider the case. That's right, the courts determined that Al-Awlaki's standing as a criminal ended the minute that Congress authorized Bush's military action against AQ. So, you have all three branches of govt having a role in Al-Awlaki's fate.

variablebinary

10-06-11, 23:47

He wasn't executed or assasinated.

He was a casualty of war. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like hellfires on your head, don't join AQ.

Considering the amount of college professors that sympathize with AQ and fail to get hit with drone strikes, I don't see any slippery slope at all.

Belmont31R

10-07-11, 00:00

It is also why the courts refused to intervene when Al-Awlaki's father approached them to save his son from the hit list. The courts cited their lack of jurisdiction over military conflicts and would not even consider the case. That's right, the courts determined that Al-Awlaki's standing as a criminal ended the minute that Congress authorized Bush's military action against AQ. So, you have all three branches of govt having a role in Al-Awlaki's fate.

His father would not have standing before the court. To be heard before the court you have to have suffered some injustice personally or other similar situations. You can't, even as a relative, make a case for someone else just because you are a relative. See the reasoning behind their decisions around the Obama birth certificate fiasco for further understanding.

And Im not sure people are not understanding this but no one has said the dude could or should not have been killed just the method used that arrived at that conclusion. If SCOTUS has authorized the killing of citizens because Congress said its ok then looking at the big picture we need to look at the FURTHER consequences of that. We have a president who is friends with a guy who said that 25 million Americans would likely have to be killed when the lefties take over once and for all, and who went to church with a pastor who thinks AIDs was invented by the (at the time) white US government to kill black people. I would like a little more rights protection than Congress saying its ok to kill citizens and thats the end of that.

Belmont31R

10-07-11, 00:01

J8127

10-07-11, 01:21

He was a casualty of war. Nothing more, nothing less. If you don't like hellfires on your head, don't join AQ.

This is the line of reasoning responsible for more of our problems then I can count. Don't like x? Don't do y! Even though most of the time x is illegal and y is, but the government does it anyway.

Sensei

10-07-11, 13:48

His father would not have standing before the court. To be heard before the court you have to have suffered some injustice personally or other similar situations. You can't, even as a relative, make a case for someone else just because you are a relative. See the reasoning behind their decisions around the Obama birth certificate fiasco for further understanding.

And Im not sure people are not understanding this but no one has said the dude could or should not have been killed just the method used that arrived at that conclusion. If SCOTUS has authorized the killing of citizens because Congress said its ok then looking at the big picture we need to look at the FURTHER consequences of that. We have a president who is friends with a guy who said that 25 million Americans would likely have to be killed when the lefties take over once and for all, and who went to church with a pastor who thinks AIDs was invented by the (at the time) white US government to kill black people. I would like a little more rights protection than Congress saying its ok to kill citizens and thats the end of that.

You are partially correct about the standing issue, but the actual ruling by Judge Bates goes further into the judiciary's role in armed conflicts. He goes on to say, "The court only concludes that it LACKS CAPACITY to determine whether a specific individual in hiding overseas, whom the Director of National Intelligence has stated is an ‘operational member’ of Al Qaeda’s Yemen branch, presents such a threat to national security that the United States may authorize the use of lethal force against him."

This is the part that I am referring to. I share your concerns about Obama's judgement. However, elections have consequences and he appears from my limited perspective to have gotten it right on this one instance.