Al Qaeda Leader Anwar Al-Awlaki Killed in Yemen

Obama telegraphs weakness again
Middle East • Views: 26,008

According to the right wing blogosphere, President Barack Obama keeps sending signals to the Islamic world that he’s weak, and that he encourages the spread of creeping shariah.

He has a novel technique for telegraphing this weakness: systematically, relentlessly killing the leaders of Al Qaeda.

SANA, Yemen — Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who was a leading figure in Al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate and was considered its most dangerous English-speaking propagandist and plotter, was killed in an American drone strike on his vehicle on Friday, officials in Washington and Yemen said. They said the strike also killed a radical American colleague who edited Al Qaeda’s online jihadist magazine and was traveling with Mr. Awlaki.

Many details of the strike were unclear, but one American official said that Mr. Awlaki, whom the United States had been hunting in Yemen for more than two years, had been identified as the target in advance and was killed with a Hellfire missile fired from a drone operated by the Central Intelligence Agency. The official said it was the first C.I.A. strike in Yemen since 2002. Yemen’s Defense Ministry confirmed Mr. Awlaki’s death.

First Osama bin Laden, now Anwar al-Awlaki. How much weaker is this president gonna get?

Meanwhile, crazy uncle Ron Paul today called this an “assassination,” and condemned President Obama for it.

Jump to bottom

288 comments
1 Killgore Trout  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:01:19am

Well, at least he wasn't waterboarded.

2 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:03:01am

He's not a cowboy badass --so he can't be tough.

It's all about perception. I think the Tea Party loves this aspect of Perry. It's a John Wayne American thing.

3 Iwouldprefernotto  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:03:49am

Obama can't win (with the right wingers) but a bad guy is dead. Not a bad day.

4 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:05:26am

re: #1 Killgore Trout

Well, at least he wasn't waterboarded.

ahaha!...
anyway, as for me this stuff is the highlight of this admin so far...inly exception is we should have pulled out of Astan a long time ago....I was disappointed he tried the old surge strategy last year....but droning etc. has worked out very nicely

5 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:05:49am

Ron Paul only supports killing people by neglecting their needs.

6 kwb2003  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:06:08am

C'mon Charles! You know that all organizations get stronger when you kill their leaders. BTW, new outrage of the day:Your text to link...

This one is particularly horrible, according to the blog.

7 brennant  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:07:15am

re: #5 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Ron Paul only supports killing people by neglecting their needs.

THIS

8 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:07:51am

This is in honor of another shit bag terrorist killed by the good ol' USA!

9 Political Atheist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:08:27am

Obamas official response to Al Qaeda pronouncements
is "BOOM".

I like that press release.

10 mr.fusion  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:10:07am

And of course to the Tea Party presidential candidate, Michelle Bachmann, the Arab Spring was a result of Obama's weakness

Allow me to type what everyone else is thinking

Huh?!?!?!?!

11 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:10:24am
According to the right wing blogosphere, President Barack Obama keeps sending signals to the Islamic world that he’s weak, and that he encourages the spread of creeping shariah.

This being the same group which sees the total lack of attempts to seize their personal firearms as a cunning plan to seize their personal firearms.

12 sattv4u2  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:10:52am

crazy uncle Ron Paul today called this an “assassination,”

Only because he's ,,, umm,,,well,,, CRAZY!

13 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:11:48am

Best quote so far:

"A very bad man just had a very bad day."

14 Lidane  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:12:04am

re: #9 Rightwingconspirator

Obamas official response to Al Qaeda pronouncements
is "BOOM".

I like that press release.

Short, sweet, to the point, and no chance of any continuing blather from AQ.

Works for me.

15 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:13:03am

The ACLU of course has a problem with this already...

American Citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi Killed Without Judicial Process

16 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:13:12am

re: #13 NJDhockeyfan

Best quote so far:

"A very bad man just had a very bad day."

Alas: for him, it will be his last.

17 sattv4u2  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:13:32am

re: #13 NJDhockeyfan

Best quote so far:

"A very bad man just had a very bad day."

And it ain't getting better

18 Olsonist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:13:35am

Bush killed Al-Awlaki but if he didn't then Obama didn't have the authority. Something like that.

19 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:13:42am

If Ron Paul was president he would no doubt have invaded Yemen to try to arrest him, peacefully.

20 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:14:41am

re: #12 sattv4u2

crazy uncle Ron Paul today called this an “assassination,”

Only because he's ,,, umm,,,well,,, CRAZY!

clearly, Paul, Palin, Bachmann and some other loonies should have no role in geopolitics....they might make nice pets tho

21 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:14:45am

re: #19 Naso Tang

If Ron Paul was president he would no doubt have invaded Yemen to try to arrest him, peacefully.

And risk another foreign entanglement?

22 Lidane  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:14:50am

re: #19 Naso Tang

If Ron Paul was president he would no doubt have invaded Yemen to try to arrest him, peacefully.

With what military? Luap Nor would be an isolationist president.

23 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:15:16am

re: #21 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And risk another foreign entanglement?

Hey, I apologize for leaving out the /

24 sattv4u2  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:15:35am

re: #19 Naso Tang

If Ron Paul was president he would no doubt have invaded Yemen to try to arrest him, peacefully.

Now that he's IN pieces he can be arrested easier

ONE HEFTY BAG, PLEASE

25 Romantic Heretic  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:16:40am

Well done, Mr. President.

Also, I wonder how the wingnuts manage to continue living. The way they think a trip to the grocery would be dangerous because the food there is federally inspected which means mind control chemicals have been slipped into it.

When everything is a liberal plot life becomes difficult.

On the other hand, they have no trouble feeding their anger and fear addictions.

26 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:16:43am

Isn't there something in the law about having citizenship revoked if operating for an enemy?

27 Simply Sarah  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:17:03am

re: #19 Naso Tang

If Ron Paul was president he would no doubt have invaded Yemen to try to arrest him, peacefully.

No, no. Paul would have allowed the markets convince to al-Awlaki that he should turn or kill himself!

28 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:17:49am

re: #27 Simply Sarah

No, no. Paul would have allowed the markets convince to al-Awlaki that he should turn or kill himself!

Yes, that is what I should have said.

29 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:18:16am
30 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:18:44am

re: #27 Simply Sarah

No, no. Paul would have allowed the markets convince to al-Awlaki that he should turn or kill himself!

Perhaps he could issue letters of marque and offer to pay appropriate bounties and let the free market handle the problem.

31 JeffM70  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:19:39am

This should make everyone very uneasy. The Obama administration just authorized the assassination of a U.S. citizen without due process. All we have is the government's word that Al-Awlaki was a terrorist, the same government that told us Saddam had WMDs.

32 Charles Johnson  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:19:49am

It's not a bad idea to have the discussion about killing an American citizen without due process. This does raise some uncomfortable issues about the limits of presidential power, since Obama reportedly personally ordered this drone attack.

But it's absurd to bring up the "slippery slope" argument here. Anwar al-Awlaki was at war with the United States. He may not have been officially stripped of citizenship, but he clearly renounced his own citizenship by joining a terrorist organization dedicated to mass murder.

There's no reason to think President Obama is going to go rogue and start killing everyone who disagrees with him. I'm not troubled by taking out declared enemies of this country before they can murder anyone else.

33 leftynyc  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:20:49am

re: #10 mr.fusion

And of course to the Tea Party presidential candidate, Michelle Bachmann, the Arab Spring was a result of Obama's weakness

Allow me to type what everyone else is thinking

Something tells me that will be question #1 for her at the next debate.

Huh?!?!?!?!

34 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:22:43am

re: #30 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Perhaps he could issue letters of marque and offer to pay appropriate bounties and let the free market handle the problem.

I think the bounty was there, but in Ron Paul's case it would have to say delivered alive, not dead.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone was paid for this information.

35 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:23:26am

Looks like CAIR isn't too happy either.

..."As we have stated repeatedly in the past, the American Muslim community firmly repudiated Anwar al-Awlaki's incitement to violence, which occurred after he left the United States. While a voice of hate has been eliminated, we urge our nation's leaders to address the constitutional issues raised by the assassination of American citizens without due process of law."

...

36 sattv4u2  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:23:30am

re: #31 JeffM70

I'm not exactly the biggest fan of the President on this site

That stated, Thank You, Mr. President

AND ,, I have no doubt that law abiding American Citizens (read,,, those that have not sided with, conspired with, planned with, trained with and live with ) the enemy have nothing to be concerned about

37 Killgore Trout  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:23:45am

re: #31 JeffM70

This should make everyone very uneasy. The Obama administration just authorized the assassination of a U.S. citizen without due process. All we have is the government's word that Al-Awlaki was a terrorist, the same government that told us Saddam had WMDs.

They also claim we landed on the moon. Liars!

38 recusancy  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:24:11am

re: #35 NJDhockeyfan

Looks like CAIR isn't too happy either.

That sounds like the same thing Charles said.

39 kwb2003  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:25:15am

Wait! Do we know he's dead? Where are the pictures!. Maybe Alwaki is really a sekrit guest in the White House, plotting with Obama and OBL (no pics there either!) the muslim overthrow of the US from from the basement of the soon-to-be erected 9/11 mosk!

40 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:25:28am

re: #31 JeffM70

This should make everyone very uneasy. The Obama administration just authorized the assassination of a U.S. citizen without due process. All we have is the government's word that Al-Awlaki was a terrorist, the same government that told us Saddam had WMDs.

Well at least we know you are not a terrorist since you aren't even aware that we have many, many, examples of A-Awlaki's own word for this; never mind the US government that you distrust.

41 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:25:30am

So what do Lizards think about his being the first U.S. citizen having been approved for targeted killing (and subsequently having gotten killed) by a US President?

42 Lidane  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:27:07am

re: #38 recusancy

That sounds like the same thing Charles said.

Now you've done it. Expect the Geller/Spencer wing to start screaming about Charles siding with America's enemies to bring the creeping Sharia caliphate. Heh.

43 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:27:24am

re: #41 000G

So what do Lizards think about his being the first U.S. citizen having been approved for targeted killing (and subsequently having gotten killed) by a US President?

I could give a rats ass about his citizenship

44 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:27:29am

re: #41 000G

So what do Lizards think about his being the first U.S. citizen having been approved for targeted killing (and subsequently having gotten killed) by a US President?

We could have seen it coming.

45 sattv4u2  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:27:58am

re: #41 000G

So what do Lizards think about his being the first U.S. citizen having been approved for targeted killing (and subsequently having gotten killed) by a US President?

Doubtful

I'd wager that California Kid (his name escapes me) who has been making the propaganda videos for several years has been on a list

46 Lidane  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:29:07am

re: #41 000G

So what do Lizards think about his being the first U.S. citizen having been approved for targeted killing (and subsequently having gotten killed) by a US President?

He was openly working with Al Qaeda in a foreign country to attack America.

I can't bring myself to have any ethical problems with this, to be honest.

47 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:29:21am
48 JeffM70  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:29:32am

re: #37 Killgore Trout

Please. You're taking my comment to ridiculous lengths. I'm not claiming government conspiracy or that Al-Awalki was innocent. But to kill a U.S. citizen without due process simply because the government said he was a terrorist is to grant the President extensive power.

49 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:29:59am

re: #43 albusteve

I could give a rats ass about his citizenship

Exactly.

50 Big Steve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:30:08am

re: #32 Charles

re: #32 Charles

The problem is that it is a graduated slope. We all feel comfortable because we have a President encased in a political system that we believe would not allow outrageous behavior. Yet citizenship does carry some inherent benefits chief among them being protection under the constitution even when abroad.

51 ProGunLiberal  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:30:28am

re: #45 sattv4u2

Adam Gadahn I think is the name.

re: #47 NJDhockeyfan

Seal Team 6 be awesome. Going to get lunch and be back in a little bit.

52 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:30:45am

re: #48 JeffM70

Please. You're taking my comment to ridiculous lengths. I'm not claiming government conspiracy or that Al-Awalki was innocent. But to kill a U.S. citizen without due process simply because the government said he was a terrorist is to grant the President extensive power.

You have any doubts about that?

53 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:30:48am

re: #32 Charles

It's not a bad idea to have the discussion about killing an American citizen without due process. This does raise some uncomfortable issues about the limits of presidential power, since Obama reportedly personally ordered this drone attack.

But it's absurd to bring up the "slippery slope" argument here. Anwar al-Awlaki was at war with the United States. He may not have been officially stripped of citizenship, but he clearly renounced his own citizenship by joining a terrorist organization dedicated to mass murder.

There's no reason to think President Obama is going to go rogue and start killing everyone who disagrees with him. I'm not troubled by taking out declared enemies of this country before they can murder anyone else.

Heh. Hadn't read this when I wrote my #41.

Couple of questions: How do you strip someone of U.S. citizenship? And if you are not worried about Obama per se, isn't there maybe a better to reason to worry about all of the potential office-holders one could think of? There is always the matter of precedent. I always thought the U.S. President having so little domestic powers was a good thing. Him getting such powers over U.S. citizens seems to change that somewhat. Circumvention of the court system, no?

No, I don't think U.S. citizens will now be killed off at whim by U.S. Presidents now, btw.

Coincidentally, see also Gus' latest pages: Obama: A disaster for civil liberties and The Civil Libertarian Backlash Against Obama 2012 Begins

54 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:31:58am

I saw an argument in Slate that he was killed "ffar from any battlefield". Problem is, in the GWOT, anyone in touch with the terrorists/combattants is part of the "battlefield".

55 sattv4u2  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:32:11am

re: #51 ProLifeLiberal

Adam Gadahn I think is the name.

re: #47 NJDhockeyfan

Seal Team 6 be awesome. Going to get lunch and be back in a little bit.

Yes,, thank you

(don't get old,,, it's terrible on the memo,,,,,, ummm, wait,, what were we talking about??

56 kwb2003  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:32:16am

re: #41 000G
I'm good with it. There's a section in the US law that says that acts of treason can result in loss of your rights as a citizen. I understand your concern, though.

57 Neutral President  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:32:52am

re: #41 000G

So what do Lizards think about his being the first U.S. citizen having been approved for targeted killing (and subsequently having gotten killed) by a US President?

Pretty sure quite a few got .30-06 rounds in their heads in Northern France in the 40s. The Deutsches-American Bund people who fought for the Nazis were American citizens and there was no special orders to capture/arrest them that I know of. FDR might not have said "target these people specifically" but the result was the same if they didn't surrender.

And... on that note. I'm sure Adam Perlman (I'm not going to give him the courtesy of using his fake Arabic sounding name(s) to distance himself from the fact he's Jewish), has had a target painted on his ass since early in the GWB Administration.

58 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:33:17am

Flashback:

ACLU Sues U.S. Government Over Awlaki's Hit List Designation

The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) are suing Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner over the government's decision to put radical Muslim cleric Anwar Awlaki on a hit list and freeze his U.S. assets.

Awlaki, a U.S. citizen now living in Yemen, has been linked to the Fort Hood shootings, the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest 253 and the failed car bombing of Times Square. He is on a U.S. intelligence hit list, and has already survived at least one cruise missile strike. In July, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) formally labeled Awlaki a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" so that it could freeze his assets.

Last month Awlaki's father Nasser Al-Awlaki asked the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights to challenge the government's placement of his son on a list of U.S. citizens who can be assassinated by U.S. forces and intelligence services for ties to terrorism.

Fuck that. He's dead now and the ACLU is still whining about it?

59 Charles Johnson  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:33:17am

re: #48 JeffM70

Please. You're taking my comment to ridiculous lengths. I'm not claiming government conspiracy or that Al-Awalki was innocent. But to kill a U.S. citizen without due process simply because the government said he was a terrorist is to grant the President extensive power.

Al-Awlaki identified himself as a terrorist. He could not have been more clear that he was a self-declared enemy of the United States.

60 Lidane  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:33:41am

re: #48 JeffM70

Please. You're taking my comment to ridiculous lengths. I'm not claiming government conspiracy or that Al-Awalki was innocent. But to kill a U.S. citizen without due process simply because the government said he was a terrorist is to grant the President extensive power.

Except that the government isn't the only one saying he's a terrorist. The guy was openly a part of Al Qaeda and not only produced propaganda for them, but helped to plan attacks here on American soil. That's a pretty open indication that he wasn't exactly a sympathetic figure.

61 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:33:52am

re: #41 000G

So what do Lizards think about his being the first U.S. citizen having been approved for targeted killing (and subsequently having gotten killed) by a US President?

Really, about the same as I feel about John Wayne Gacy's execution or Jeffrey Dahmer's death in prison. Does it matter to me their their deaths weren't ordered by the POTUS? Not one bit.

Monsters among us need to be removed, permanently.

The POTUS ordered the removal of an international Monster. To spin this as some dire attack on the rights of US Persons is way, way off base.

62 kwb2003  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:33:57am

Looks like another US "citizen" was killed in the same raid. Samir Khan, the editor of the Al Quida english rag.

63 CuriousLurker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:35:16am

re: #32 Charles

I'm not troubled by taking out declared enemies of this country before they can murder anyone else.

Nor am I. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

What makes me uncomfortable is who does the defining since there are politicians out there who seem to feel that secularists, non-Christians, gays, liberals, etc. are enemies of this country.

64 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:35:28am

re: #44 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

We could have seen it coming.

Oh, yeah, of course. I have seen it coming for a while now.

re: #45 sattv4u2

Doubtful

I'd wager that California Kid (his name escapes me) who has been making the propaganda videos for several years has been on a list

No, I am pretty sure I am right.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&source=hp&biw=1280&bih=814&q=anwar+al-awlaki+%22first+us+citizen%22&btnG=Google+Search&oq=anwar+al-awlaki+%22first+us+citizen%22&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=s&gs_upl=487l487l0l1487l1l1l0l0l0l0l211l211l2-1l1l0

re: #46 Lidane

He was openly working with Al Qaeda in a foreign country to attack America.

I can't bring myself to have any ethical problems with this, to be honest.

Not so much ethical as legal and political, I would say. I am not lamenting that the man was killed, specifically. I am just wondering about the principle that set the actions in motion, if you will.

65 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:35:28am

re: #47 NJDhockeyfan

Give these boys a raise!

Killed By the Same Unit That Found bin Laden

Huh? Seals don't run drones or the CIA.

66 celticdragon  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:35:40am

re: #48 JeffM70

Please. You're taking my comment to ridiculous lengths. I'm not claiming government conspiracy or that Al-Awalki was innocent. But to kill a U.S. citizen without due process simply because the government said he was a terrorist is to grant the President extensive power.

As Charles said, that is a conversation worth having. However, he was also a very public part of Al Qaeda'a leadership cadre, and made numerous public pronouncement on his criminal acts of war against the United States. His citizenship is not a protection in this case, and there is ample precedent for the lawful targeting of enemy leadership in war, even if that leadership is nominally American (like virtually the entire leadership of the Confederacy, as well as at least 12 German Americans killed in action while fighting for the Nazi's in WW II.)

67 laZardo  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:35:46am

While I am happy that another Al-Q power player is dead, I am now concerned that this could be used to bolster the also-oppressive regime of President Saleh.

[that's my two cents :x ]

68 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:36:45am

re: #63 CuriousLurker

Nor am I. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

What makes me uncomfortable is who does the defining since there are politicians out there who seem to feel that secularists, non-Christians, gays, liberals, etc. are enemies of this country.

read what Charles just posted....they define themselves, a neat clean set up...at that point citizenship is a non issue

69 JeffM70  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:37:10am

re: #40 Naso Tang

re: #52 NJDhockeyfan

Please. Quit with the strawmen. If the word of the government is enough to convict somebody, then why do we have a judicial system at all? This is about whether we as a country want to give the U.S. president the power to kill a U.S. citizen without due process.

70 recusancy  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:37:22am

re: #58 NJDhockeyfan

Flashback:

ACLU Sues U.S. Government Over Awlaki's Hit List Designation

Fuck that. He's dead now and the ACLU is still whining about it?

The ACLU will stick up for you if you're a citizen no matter what you did and no matter your political stripe, allegiance or anything. Whether you're Oliver North or Anwar Al Awlaki.

71 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:37:22am

Mother Jones:

Obama Assassinates U.S. Citizen

Up until now, the Obama administration's policy of sanctioning the assassination of U.S. citizens has been more theoretical than real. Not any longer...

Ughh

72 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:37:37am

re: #67 laZardo

While I am happy that another Al-Q power player is dead, I am now concerned that this could be used to bolster the also-oppressive regime of President Saleh.

[that's my two cents :x ]

It is being used to that end, which is unfortunate. But then again, the GOP sees it as unfortunate that it is being used to bolster Obama's popularity...

73 Decatur Deb  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:37:51am

re: #65 Naso Tang

Huh? Seals don't run drones or the CIA.

What I thought, unless someone laid a ground laser designator on him.

74 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:37:53am

re: #63 CuriousLurker

Nor am I. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

What makes me uncomfortable is who does the defining since there are politicians out there who seem to feel that secularists, non-Christians, gays, liberals, etc. are enemies of this country.

If it's a self-definition, that's very different from an imposed definition.

75 sattv4u2  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:38:03am

re: #64 000G

He may have been the 1st "assassinated" (aside from WW2, which I would have to research)

BUT ,, you not only stated "killed" but also TARGETED

I'll still wager Adam Gadahn has a bounty, dead or alive

76 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:38:03am

re: #41 000G

So what do Lizards think about his being the first U.S. citizen having been approved for targeted killing (and subsequently having gotten killed) by a US President?

What do you think about an American citizen who joins a terrorist organization which has declared war on the US?

Don't become a terrorist mastermind and no one will attempt to target you for execution.

77 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:38:06am

re: #65 Naso Tang

Huh? Seals don't run drones or the CIA.

yeah something isn't right there...maybe they lased him

78 sattv4u2  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:38:24am

re: #75 sattv4u2

He may have been the 1st "assassinated" (aside from WW2, which I would have to research)

BUT ,, you not only stated "killed" but also TARGETED

I'll still wager Adam Gadahn has a bounty, dead or alive

And I'm not saying "bounty" in the Old West style

79 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:38:46am

re: #57 ArchangelMichael

Pretty sure quite a few got .30-06 rounds in their heads in Northern France in the 40s. The Deutsches-American Bund people who fought for the Nazis were American citizens and there was no special orders to capture/arrest them that I know of. FDR might not have said "target these people specifically" but the result was the same if they didn't surrender.

Well, there's the difference between traditional and asymetric warfare, soldiers versus unlawful combatant, etc.

And... on that note. I'm sure Adam Perlman (I'm not going to give him the courtesy of using his fake Arabic sounding name(s) to distance himself from the fact he's Jewish), has had a target painted on his ass since early in the GWB Administration.

Maybe there is a secret order out on him. Dunno, how would one?

80 celticdragon  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:38:46am

re: #54 ralphieboy

I saw an argument in Slate that he was killed "ffar from any battlefield". Problem is, in the GWOT, anyone in touch with the terrorists/combattants is part of the "battlefield".

The "battlefield" meme is a non issue. Enemy combatants and leadership cadre can be targeted and killed anywhere regardless of present engagement in combat.

See: WW II aerial bombing campaigns, RAF air attack on General Rommel, US shootdown of Admiral Yamamoto in bomber courier aircraft.

81 kwb2003  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:38:57am

Bad pun of the day:
"US finally drills Anwar"

82 reloadingisnotahobby  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:39:09am

It was legal and perfectly executed!!
The Arrest warrant was taped to the nose of the Missile!
...Bold Letters" You've Been Served"!

83 The Questionable Timing of a Flea  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:39:09am

re: #41 000G

So what do Lizards think about his being the first U.S. citizen having been approved for targeted killing (and subsequently having gotten killed) by a US President?

As much as I love civil liberties it seems to me there's got to be some kind of wiggle room when a person so thoroughly repudiates their citizenship and actively works against the government, the nation, and its people.

Set aside Locke and De Toqueville for a second and go back to Hobbes: citizenship is not a Willy Wonka Golden Ticket, it's a part of a social contract. And conspiring to inflict death an ruin on your fellow citizens suggests that someone isn't holding up their part of the deal.

Basically, I think there's a need to have a conversation about this event--it is heavy shit, in terms of precedent, to kill a citizen--but it's going to have to been more that finger pointing and "you shouldn't have done it."

84 iossarian  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:39:21am

re: #70 recusancy

The ACLU will stick up for you if you're a citizen no matter what you did and no matter your political stripe, allegiance or anything. Whether you're Oliver North or Anwar Al Awlaki.

Note that the suit is critical as it establishes whether it is even possible to legally challenge someone's placement on the "hit list".

85 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:39:51am

re: #77 albusteve

yeah something isn't right there...maybe they lased him

Heard before the strike:
"Don't lase me bro!"

86 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:40:00am

re: #70 recusancy

The ACLU will stick up for you if you're a citizen no matter what you did and no matter your political stripe, allegiance or anything. Whether you're Oliver North or Anwar Al Awlaki.

Untroooo!

Liberals! Libbbsss hate America!!!

87 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:40:17am

Treason (IIRC) the only crime sited in the Constitution and the penalty is death.

If we tried him in absentia, would that make everyone feel better?

88 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:40:23am

re: #56 kwb2003

I'm good with it. There's a section in the US law that says that acts of treason can result in loss of your rights as a citizen. I understand your concern, though.

Perhaps there was a piece of paper delivered inside the hellfire missile that said

Dear Mr Alwaki,
your citizenship has been revoked and this was the only way we could deliver this to you. Sorry for the noise.

Sincerely,
President Obama

89 Lidane  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:40:23am

re: #64 000G

Not so much ethical as legal and political, I would say. I am not lamenting that the man was killed, specifically. I am just wondering about the principle that set the actions in motion, if you will.

I think it sets a pretty clear standard, actually.

The American killed here was, for all intents and purposes, an open and avowed enemy of the country. He worked with the same terrorist group that attacked us on 9/11 to keep attacking and killing Americans.

There wasn't going to be any bargaining with a fanatic like that. It's not like a domestic terrorist asshole like McVeigh, since this guy went a whole bunch of steps further. He left America for Yemen and worked hard to push for and plan terrorist attacks here.

90 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:40:25am

re: #69 JeffM70

re: #52 NJDhockeyfan

Please. Quit with the strawmen. If the word of the government is enough to convict somebody, then why do we have a judicial system at all? This is about whether we as a country want to give the U.S. president the power to kill a U.S. citizen without due process.

it's a military operation, not a civil gig

91 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:40:27am

In emphasizing Awlaki's American citizenship the media are at least encouraging an assumption that due process rights are limited to citizens. This is not the case. Everyone who deals with the US government is entitled to due process.
Having said that, due process does not require us to allow a criminal to persist in his crimes just because it is impractical to apprehend him or bring him before a court, and it does not require that an awowed enemy be allowed to wage war against us unhindered. There were valid warrants for Awlaki's arrest. He could have turned himself to the nearest US consulate at any time. Like anyone who resists arrest and presents an imminent danger, he made himself a target.
Ask yourselves this: What will happen if you refuse to go peaceably on a traffic warrant and announce your intention to start shooting at the cops?

92 Obdicut  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:40:53am

Cops are allowed to have 'shoot on sight' orders, right?

93 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:41:06am

re: #69 JeffM70

Please. Quit with the strawmen. If the word of the government is enough to convict somebody, then why do we have a judicial system at all? This is about whether we as a country want to give the U.S. president the power to kill a U.S. citizen without due process.

Why didn't you volunteer to go to Yemen and bring him out, alive?

94 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:41:17am

re: #75 sattv4u2

He may have been the 1st "assassinated" (aside from WW2, which I would have to research)

BUT ,, you not only stated "killed" but also TARGETED

I'll still wager Adam Gadahn has a bounty, dead or alive

The Americans who fought for the Nazis came to me as well, but I can't recall where any of them were specifically targeted.

95 kwb2003  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:41:29am

re: #41 000G

8 U.S.C. 1481 states:

“A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them"

96 JeffM70  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:41:36am

re: #59 Charles

Again, it gets down to whether or not we want the president to have the power to kill U.S. citizens without due process, even if they say they are an enemy of the U.S.

97 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:41:40am

re: #61 ggt

Really, about the same as I feel about John Wayne Gacy's execution or Jeffrey Dahmer's death in prison. Does it matter to me their their deaths weren't ordered by the POTUS? Not one bit.

Monsters among us need to be removed, permanently.

The POTUS ordered the removal of an international Monster. To spin this as some dire attack on the rights of US Persons is way, way off base.

I am not spinning anything. I am just really interested in the issue and how people around here understand it.

To the point: Jeffrey Dahmer got a trial. Judicial review, due process, all that jazz.

Even the judge who dismissed Anwar Al-Awlaki's father's case seemed to admit that this was... different...

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a challenge to the Obama administration's targeted-killing program, meaning the U.S. can continue to go after a Yemeni-American cleric whom it blames for terrorist plots.

The case, brought by the father of cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, raised difficult questions about the breadth of U.S. executive power, but U.S. District Judge John Bates said he couldn't answer them as the father lacked legal standing to bring the case.

The "serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day or another (non-judicial) forum," Judge Bates wrote in an 83-page ruling.

The judge acknowledged the "somewhat unsettling nature" of his conclusion "that there are circumstances in which the [president's] unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas" is "judicially unreviewable."

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

98 CuriousLurker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:41:58am

re: #68 albusteve

read what Charles just posted...they define themselves, a neat clean set up...at that point citizenship is a non issue

I'm talking about legally. Is there a law on the books that says they need to define themselves in order for this to happen? I don't know, do you? I want to know gets to make the call and based on what, legally speaking.

99 sattv4u2  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:42:43am

re: #94 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The Americans who fought for the Nazis came to me as well, but I can't recall where any of them were specifically targeted.

Temple or chest, I would imagine!

/

100 kwb2003  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:42:43am

re: #86 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin
They defended Rush Limbaugh, too.

101 Charles Johnson  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:43:29am

re: #97 000G

I am not spinning anything. I am just really interested in the issue and how people around here understand it.

To the point: Jeffrey Dahmer got a trial. Judicial review, due process, all that jazz.

Even the judge who dismissed Anwar Al-Awlaki's case seemed to admit that this was... different...

[Link: online.wsj.com...]

That sure sounds a lot like "due process" to me. The case was thoroughly reviewed and tested in court. Without capturing al-Awlaki and putting him on trial (not an option) what more would you expect any government to do?

102 Killgore Trout  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:43:39am

re: #71 NJDhockeyfan

Mother Jones:

Obama Assassinates U.S. Citizen

Ughh

They'll be waving signs supporting Awlaki on Wall Street later this afternoon.

103 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:43:39am

The ACLU bring suit might actually clear the situation. When do a person's actions nullify their rights?

104 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:43:57am

re: #35 NJDhockeyfan

Looks like CAIR isn't too happy either.

Due process of law is what happens in places where the U.S. has jurisdiction. Further abroad, especially in Yemen, there prevails what, translated into Arabic, might be called Dar al Harb. In the realm of war, in a lawless land, ordinary civil law does not make sense and does not apply. It cannot apply. And our constitution expressly recognizes the distinction between war (and insurrection) on the one hand, and civil law in a generally civil time and place, on the other hand.

This is not to say that right and wrong go out the window and everyone may do as he likes in war, but it is to say that snipers are not obliged to Mirandize their targets. We're at war with Awlaki's organization. They started that war. Congress, post 9-11, made it official. He's one of their leaders. He's fair game, just like any other enemy combatant. Once upon a time, he may have been a U.S. citizen, but he'd long since forfeited any rights he may have enjoyed as a result of that.

105 kwb2003  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:44:07am

re: #88 Naso Tang

LOL

106 Decatur Deb  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:44:07am

The issue isn't extra-judicial execution for things he has done in the past. He was still engaged in on-going murderous crimes, and was interrupted in mid-career.

107 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:44:08am

re: #96 JeffM70

Again, it gets down to whether or not we want the president to have the power to kill U.S. citizens without due process, even if they say they are an enemy of the U.S.

sure, fine
I like it

108 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:44:09am

re: #58 NJDhockeyfan

Flashback:

ACLU Sues U.S. Government Over Awlaki's Hit List Designation

Fuck that. He's dead now and the ACLU is still whining about it?

This bothers you why?

109 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:44:22am

re: #103 ggt

The ACLU bring suit might actually clear the situation. When do a person's actions nullify their rights?

When they vote Democrat!

/

110 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:44:36am

re: #102 Killgore Trout

They'll be waving signs supporting Awlaki on Wall Street later this afternoon.

As will the tea party /mbf

111 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:44:57am

re: #87 ggt

Treason (IIRC) the only crime sited in the Constitution and the penalty is death.

If we tried him in absentia, would that make everyone feel better?

Come to think of it, I read of that happening in Europe and elsewhere, but has the US ever done that? Can it be done?

112 iossarian  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:45:35am

re: #103 ggt

The ACLU bring suit might actually clear the situation. When do a person's actions nullify their rights?

More specifically, when do a person's actions nullify their right to have legal representation in defending/denying those actions before a court of law.

113 Simply Sarah  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:45:35am

In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure why he wasn't just officially stripped of citizenship well before all this, assuming that isn't actually the case and I just haven't seen mention of it. It seems like there were clear grounds to do it, based on his public statements and actions, and it would have at least somewhat dulled any concern about taking this sort of action against an American citizen.

114 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:46:18am

re: #92 Obdicut

Cops are allowed to have 'shoot on sight' orders, right?

Yes, under strict guidelines.

115 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:46:29am

re: #108 000G

This bothers you why?

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

116 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:46:40am

re: #111 Naso Tang

Come to think of it, I read of that happening in Europe and elsewhere, but has the US ever done that? Can it be done?

re: #112 iossarian

More specifically, when do a person's actions nullify their right to have legal representation in defending/denying those actions before a court of law.

I'm confident that the courts will work it out, albiet, after the fact. The situation needs to be defined in law for future reference.

117 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:46:40am

re: #96 JeffM70

Again, it gets down to whether or not we want the president to have the power to kill U.S. citizens without due process, even if they say they are an enemy of the U.S.

You want safe haven for anyone outside the US, others don't.

118 laZardo  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:46:44am

OT and late but

Rosh Hashanah Kitten.

119 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:47:53am

re: #58 NJDhockeyfan

I support both the targeted killing and the ACLU lawsuit :P

120 Jimmi the Grey  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:48:33am

re: #31 JeffM70

This should make everyone very uneasy. The Obama administration just authorized the assassination of a U.S. citizen without due process. All we have is the government's word that Al-Awlaki was a terrorist, the same government that told us Saddam had WMDs.

I am a little uneasy at the precedent. But that is allayed by the fact that we have documented proof that Al-Awlaki had declared war on his own nation/government, and acted upon that both in word and deed.

Your premise is a 'straw man' argument as presented as I would argue that due process was used, just not the civil courts.

121 iossarian  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:48:39am

re: #116 ggt

re: #112 iossarian

I'm confident that the courts will work it out, albiet, after the fact. The situation needs to be defined in law for future reference.

I agree with the second sentence, but unfortunately, given the general trend of the past 10 years, I have my doubts about the first.

122 Decatur Deb  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:49:04am

re: #119 Sergey Romanov

I support both the targeted killing and the ACLU lawsuit :P

Yes. From this morning:

[Link: littlegreenfootballs.com...]

123 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:49:13am

re: #101 Charles

That sure sounds a lot like "due process" to me. The case was thoroughly reviewed and tested in court. Without capturing al-Awlaki and putting him on trial (not an option) what more would you expect any government to do?

Well, the case was dismissed because there was no legal standing. The judge said that there was no indication Al-Awlaki even wanted a review.

This part still gets me:

The "serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day or another (non-judicial) forum," Judge Bates wrote in an 83-page ruling.

In any case, I am not expecting the U.S. government to have acted differently. But as far as I understand his status was "capture OR kill".

124 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:49:20am

re: #75 sattv4u2

I don't think propagandizing or financial aid pass the threshold, or at least that's what I've read.

125 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:50:22am

re: #119 Sergey Romanov

I support both the targeted killing and the ACLU lawsuit :P

No, it is important to sort out the legalites for future cases. This case shows a gaping whole in our laws. The POTUS needs clear guidelines. Obama didn't have it this time and made the decision without them. One of the jobs of being POTUS. He took a chance.

I believe the courts will show he made the right choice.

126 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:50:24am

re: #113 Simply Sarah

In all honesty, I'm not entirely sure why he wasn't just officially stripped of citizenship well before all this, assuming that isn't actually the case and I just haven't seen mention of it. It seems like there were clear grounds to do it, based on his public statements and actions, and it would have at least somewhat dulled any concern about taking this sort of action against an American citizen.

Congress tried. [Link: www.google.com...]

IIRC, it goes back to issues brought up by WW2 internment/relocation. Sticky.

127 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:50:29am

re: #75 sattv4u2

He may have been the 1st "assassinated" (aside from WW2, which I would have to research)

BUT ,, you not only stated "killed" but also TARGETED

I'll still wager Adam Gadahn has a bounty, dead or alive

He was the first one: [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

128 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:50:45am

there are also rules involving dealing with persons who present a real and imminent threat to other people's lives. I think this case falls under that heading.

The only ruckus is over "due process". I think the term needs to be expanded to include cases like this, as I fear he will not be the last person we might have to take out to ensure the safety of innocent people.

129 JeffM70  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:51:47am

re: #117 Naso Tang

You can't really be so stupid as to think I'm supporting safe havens for terrorists outside the U.S.

130 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:51:54am

re: #69 JeffM70

re: #52 NJDhockeyfan

Please. Quit with the strawmen. If the word of the government is enough to convict somebody, then why do we have a judicial system at all? This is about whether we as a country want to give the U.S. president the power to kill a U.S. citizen without due process.

In Awlaki's case, his own words declare things clearly enough. If we ever got a situation in which a U.S. president announced that a drone strike had taken out, oh, say, an accused polygamous sect leader in Arizona, or a leader of Greenpeace, or what have you, we'd be having a very different conversation. For starters, we wouldn't be having it on the internet, all open and above board.

Go ahead. Say that's ridiculous. Indeed it is. That's my point. Nobody's seriously worried that this, or future, U.S. presidents will take this as a precedent for summary execution by drone strike of domestic criminals or activists-who-push-the-edge and draw the interest of homeland security.

131 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:52:06am

re: #128 ralphieboy

there are also rules involving dealing with persons who present a real and imminent threat to other people's lives. I think this case falls under that heading.

The only ruckus is over "due process". I think the term needs to be expanded to include cases like this, as I fear he will not be the last person we might have to take out to ensure the safety of innocent people.

it's a war...due process doesn't apply...even I get it

132 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:52:08am

re: #123 000G

Just related - how do you feel about trials in absentia?

133 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:52:19am

re: #123 000G

Well, the case was dismissed because there was no legal standing. The judge said that there was no indication Al-Awlaki even wanted a review.

This part still gets me:

In any case, I am not expecting the U.S. government to have acted differently. But as far as I understand his status was "capture OR kill".

Perhaps if the military soldier running the drone said the Miranda rights before firing his missiles then that would satisfy all the lawyers.

134 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:52:28am

re: #124 Sergey Romanov

I don't think propagandizing or financial aid pass the threshold, or at least that's what I've read.

I think we can legally execute the driver of killer's getaway car in some circumstances. How does this differ?

135 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:53:01am

re: #125 ggt

No, it is important to sort out the legalites for future cases. This case shows a gaping whole in our laws. The POTUS needs clear guidelines. Obama didn't have it this time and made the decision without them. One of the jobs of being POTUS. He took a chance.

I believe the courts will show he made the right choice.

Why "no" if you said basically the same thing?

136 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:53:10am

re: #125 ggt

No, it is important to sort out the legalites for future cases. This case shows a gaping whole in our laws. The POTUS needs clear guidelines. Obama didn't have it this time and made the decision without them. One of the jobs of being POTUS. He took a chance.

I believe the courts will show he made the right choice.

It's also a can of worms.
Can the PotUS order drone strikes on militia compounds? A number of them have stated goals of the overthrow of the US government. Not to mention stockpiling weapons. Threat to the public? Maybe, maybe not?
Can o' worms.
;)

137 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:53:19am

Frankly, I'd like a clear indication of when a US Person's actions go from falling under domestic criminal jurisdiction to international military jurisdiction.

138 Decatur Deb  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:53:31am

re: #128 ralphieboy

there are also rules involving dealing with persons who present a real and imminent threat to other people's lives. I think this case falls under that heading.

The only ruckus is over "due process". I think the term needs to be expanded to include cases like this, as I fear he will not be the last person we might have to take out to ensure the safety of innocent people.

He had every opportunity to surrender and face due process. In effect, he was armed and engaged in an inter-continental standoff, and was killed by an inter-continental police sniper.

139 reloadingisnotahobby  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:53:43am

Oh for FU%^s sake!!!
Now we have the Yemenese PISSED at US!
//

140 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:54:05am

re: #112 iossarian

More specifically, when do a person's actions nullify their right to have legal representation in defending/denying those actions before a court of law.

When those actions take the situation out of the realm of domestic law and into the realm of war. We didn't try to arrest the Japanese forces defending Iwo Jima. The situation had, shall we say, escalated beyond the reach of the relatively polite exercise of force that law enforcement has at its disposal.

141 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:54:15am

re: #127 000G

He was the first one: [Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Hey, will you look at that:

under the Third Geneva Convention the civilian loses his immunity from being targeted when he takes part in such activities (armed conflict), which would include for example delivering ammunition, or gathering military intelligence in enemy territory

142 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:54:26am

re: #76 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

What do you think about an American citizen who joins a terrorist organization which has declared war on the US?

Don't become a terrorist mastermind and no one will attempt to target you for execution.

I am not really arguing about that he was an evil fucker, deserved what he got, had it coming and should have seen it coming.

I am more trying to find out about the internal logic of the U.S. government's actions and principles.

143 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:54:35am

re: #129 JeffM70

You can't really be so stupid as to think I'm supporting safe havens for terrorists outside the U.S.

///////

144 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:54:42am

re: #138 Decatur Deb

He had every opportunity to surrender and face due process. In effect, he was armed and engaged in an inter-continental standoff, and was killed by an inter-continental police sniper.

that is about how I see it. a real and imminent threat to other's safety

145 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:54:42am

re: #119 Sergey Romanov

I support both the targeted killing and the ACLU lawsuit :P

re: #135 Sergey Romanov

Why "no" if you said basically the same thing?

I guess I mis-read something.

I thought you were advocating stopping the lawsuit. I think the lawsuit needs to proceed in order to define the law.

146 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:54:43am

Pickett's men were American citizens when they charged up Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg. Does this mean the Union forces violated due process when they opened fire?

(I probably shouldn't be giving the Confederate revivalists any ideas.)

147 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:54:44am

re: #134 Naso Tang

I think we can legally execute the driver of killer's getaway car in some circumstances. How does this differ?

Because targeted killings don't happen on a whim and there are certain thresholds to be passed before a person is added to the target list. No analogy.

148 _RememberTonyC  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:55:06am

Charles labels Ron Paul "crazy."
I label Ron Paul "evil."

I think we both may be right ...

149 sattv4u2  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:55:11am

re: #124 Sergey Romanov

I don't think propagandizing or financial aid pass the threshold, or at least that's what I've read.

You don't have to be 'the" one firing the gun to get convicted

150 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:55:22am

Anyone think Anwar al-Awlaki looks like the Jewel from The Jewel of the Nile?

151 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:55:32am

re: #136 Varek Raith

It's also a can of worms.
Can the PotUS order drone strikes on militia compounds? A number of them have stated goals of the overthrow of the US government. Not to mention stockpiling weapons. Threat to the public? Maybe, maybe not?
Can o' worms.
;)

We are in a Brave New World. Worms need to be sorted.

Hey, it is what it is. I don't have to like it.

152 iossarian  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:55:55am

re: #140 lostlakehiker

When those actions take the situation out of the realm of domestic law and into the realm of war. We didn't try to arrest the Japanese forces defending Iwo Jima. The situation had, shall we say, escalated beyond the reach of the relatively polite exercise of force that law enforcement has at its disposal.

Right, but it's unclear whether he would have had access to a fair trial even had he turned himself in. That's really my question - say you get put on this list, for whatever reason. What recourse do you have?

153 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:56:03am

re: #145 ggt

re: #135 Sergey Romanov

I guess I mis-read something.

I thought you were advocating stopping the lawsuit. I think the lawsuit needs to proceed in order to define the law.

Which is what I said. Peace :)

154 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:56:04am

re: #137 ggt

Frankly, I'd like a clear indication of when a US Person's actions go from falling under domestic criminal jurisdiction to international military jurisdiction.

How many youtube videos are necessary?/

155 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:56:28am

re: #142 000G

I am not really arguing about that he was an evil fucker, deserved what he got, had it coming and should have seen it coming.

I am more trying to find out about the internal logic of the U.S. government's actions and principles.

if you have not grasped the logic posted here, I guess you'll have to go to a law library

156 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:56:32am

re: #149 sattv4u2

You don't have to be 'the" one firing the gun to get convicted

See above.

157 sattv4u2  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:56:42am

re: #142 000G

I am not really arguing about that he was an evil fucker, deserved what he got, had it coming and should have seen it coming.

I am more trying to find out about the internal logic of the U.S. government's actions and principles.

The face of the enemy changes, how you deal with it also has to change

158 Simply Sarah  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:56:52am

re: #126 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Congress tried. [Link: www.google.com...]

IIRC, it goes back to issues brought up by WW2 internment/relocation. Sticky.

Well, my understanding is that, even under current laws and Supreme Court rulings, there *are* cases where something other than a explicit statement of renouncement could be used as grounds for revocation of the status of being a citizen, but they're limited and effectively are never actually used. That being said, I'm really not well versed in the topic, so I may not have that all right.

159 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:56:53am

re: #142 000G

I am not really arguing about that he was an evil fucker, deserved what he got, had it coming and should have seen it coming.

I am more trying to find out about the internal logic of the U.S. government's actions and principles.

I'm thinking that if you declare yourself an enemy of the state and wage military actions against it, the Government has the right to treat you as an enemy of the state and respond as necessary to those military actions.

160 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:56:56am

re: #151 ggt

We are in a Brave New World. Worms need to be sorted.

Hey, it is what it is. I don't have to like it.

I'm not saying otherwise, it's just that it'll be a most interesting discussion.

161 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:56:59am

re: #131 albusteve

it's a war...due process doesn't apply...even I get it

Yeah, that's that internment issue, again.

See also: Korematsu vs US. Different situation, as EO 9066 was a blanket order based on ancestry. But 14th Amendment concerns, i.e. what could be done to citizens during a time of war, were central.

162 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:57:21am

re: #83 The Ghost of a Flea

As much as I love civil liberties it seems to me there's got to be some kind of wiggle room when a person so thoroughly repudiates their citizenship and actively works against the government, the nation, and its people.

Set aside Locke and De Toqueville for a second and go back to Hobbes: citizenship is not a Willy Wonka Golden Ticket, it's a part of a social contract. And conspiring to inflict death an ruin on your fellow citizens suggests that someone isn't holding up their part of the deal.

Basically, I think there's a need to have a conversation about this event--it is heavy shit, in terms of precedent, to kill a citizen--but it's going to have to been more that finger pointing and "you shouldn't have done it."

Again, I do not think nor argue that Obama's actions and what followed were wrong or even unjustified. I am more interested with putting the common sense justifications into an understanding that provides a lot more depth of context in a legal and political sense.

163 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:57:40am

re: #136 Varek Raith

It's also a can of worms.
Can the PotUS order drone strikes on militia compounds? A number of them have stated goals of the overthrow of the US government. Not to mention stockpiling weapons. Threat to the public? Maybe, maybe not?
Can o' worms.
;)

If these militias were posing an imminent threat to the US and there was no other option to apprehend or otherwise interfere with the threat they posed, then a drone strike might be justifiable.

164 Decatur Deb  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:57:57am

re: #141 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Hey, will you look at that:

under the Third Geneva Convention the civilian loses his immunity from being targeted when he takes part in such activities (armed conflict), which would include for example delivering ammunition, or gathering military intelligence in enemy territory

That provision affected my status when I was a uniformed civilian accompanying our troops. Even though I was wearing a 'Don't Shoot Me' badge, the Russkies and Bulgarians would be within their rights.

165 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:58:12am

re: #155 albusteve

if you have not grasped the logic posted here, I guess you'll have to go to a law library

No, I think there are some intellegent people in here who are actually capable and interested in answering my questions. But thanks.

166 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:58:19am

re: #147 Sergey Romanov

Because targeted killings don't happen on a whim and there are certain thresholds to be passed before a person is added to the target list. No analogy.

Perhaps there are better analogies, but I thought "propagandizing or financial aid " fit the bill for active participation, and this guy did more than that.

167 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:59:10am

re: #137 ggt

Frankly, I'd like a clear indication of when a US Person's actions go from falling under domestic criminal jurisdiction to international military jurisdiction.

I think that's been in question, since the creation of the "enemy combatant" category. It's one of the problems with how to resolve Guantanámo Bay.

168 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:59:17am

re: #136 Varek Raith

It's also a can of worms.
Can the PotUS order drone strikes on militia compounds? A number of them have stated goals of the overthrow of the US government. Not to mention stockpiling weapons. Threat to the public? Maybe, maybe not?
Can o' worms.
;)

Idle talk is just idle talk. If that compound had just ambushed a military convoy and was currently in a hot and heavy firefight with those members of the convoy who had survived the first blasts, then the POTUS, or the commander on the spot, would be fully justified in ordering air strikes.

It's all a question of whether the refined and delicate exercise of force along the lines of law enforcement has any sort of chance, or whether a different and harsher game is afoot.

169 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 11:59:26am

re: #162 000G

Again, I do not think nor argue that Obama's actions and what followed were wrong or even unjustified. I am more interested with putting the common sense justifications into an understanding that provides a lot more depth of context in a legal and political sense.

we are not making sense?...I think you just like to type

170 CuriousLurker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:00:04pm

re: #128 ralphieboy

there are also rules involving dealing with persons who present a real and imminent threat to other people's lives. I think this case falls under that heading.

The only ruckus is over "due process". I think the term needs to be expanded to include cases like this, as I fear he will not be the last person we might have to take out to ensure the safety of innocent people.

Do you know where I can find those rules,or does anyone? I'm curious as to what they are. I know this is pretty far-fetched, but what if "personhood" were redefined as we've seen some of the religious right want it to be? Wouldn't that make abortion doctors a real and imminent threat to other people's lives?

Ditto for the whole creeping sharia absurdity—if someone like Yerushalmi were able to basically outlaw the practice of Islam, would I automatically present real and imminent threat?

171 JeffM70  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:00:19pm

re: #130 lostlakehiker

I don't disagree. But I think it's still an important discussion to be had, despite some here implying I'm a sympathizer or government conspirator.

172 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:00:19pm

re: #89 Lidane

It's not like a domestic terrorist asshole like McVeigh, since this guy went a whole bunch of steps further. He left America for Yemen and worked hard to push for and plan terrorist attacks here.

So you think Anwar Al-Awlaki wasn't really a domestic issue since unlike McVeigh he operated from abroad?

173 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:00:25pm

re: #163 ralphieboy

If these militias were posing an imminent threat to the US and there was no other option to apprehend or otherwise interfere with the threat they posed, then a drone strike might be justifiable.

we light up training camps all over the world....have for years

174 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:01:09pm

re: #169 albusteve

we are not making sense?...I think you just like to type

Some people here make plenty of sense. I enjoy having intelligent conversations. How about you? Do you just like to type, steve?

175 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:01:40pm

re: #165 000G

No, I think there are some intellegent people in here who are actually capable and interested in answering my questions. But thanks.

your question has been answered several times

176 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:01:48pm

re: #166 Naso Tang

Perhaps there are better analogies, but I thought "propagandizing or financial aid " fit the bill for active participation, and this guy did more than that.

Well, I'm not talking about theory but about what I read about the actual process. AFAIK Awlaki was only put on the list after he ceased to be a mere propagandist and began to take part in training and such.

If Gadahn fits this profile, he might be on the list.

177 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:02:27pm

re: #41 000G

So what do Lizards think about his being the first U.S. citizen having been approved for targeted killing (and subsequently having gotten killed) by a US President?

Well, first, I doubt he's the first.

Dunno. I've been thinking about this. Still thinking about this. I have no problem with him, personally, being dead, so now I'm just considering ramifications.

178 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:02:36pm

re: #170 CuriousLurker

Do you know where I can find those rules,or does anyone? I'm curious as to what they are. I know this is pretty far-fetched, but what if "personhood" were redefined as we've seen some of the religious right want it to be? Wouldn't that make abortion doctors a real and imminent threat to other people's lives?

That is exactly the thinking behind the abortion center bombers and abortion doctor killers.

179 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:02:36pm

re: #152 iossarian

Right, but it's unclear whether he would have had access to a fair trial even had he turned himself in. That's really my question - say you get put on this list, for whatever reason. What recourse do you have?

The facts. I'll have character witnesses up one side and down the other. Not testifying to my angelic nature, but that whatever I am, I'm not that. I'll have alibis. There won't be any credible evidence against me.

There's no slippery slope here. It's level ground, but coated with sandpaper and rumble strips.

180 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:02:47pm

re: #114 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Yes, under strict guidelines.

What are those guidelines?

Excellent point btw, Obdicut.

181 CuriousLurker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:02:48pm

re: #74 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

If it's a self-definition, that's very different from an imposed definition.

Yeah, I get that part, but where is it written? Or is it? Is there a law that says if someone self-declares then it's okay, but if not then it isn't? That's primarily what's bugging me at this point.

182 Varek Raith  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:03:01pm

re: #163 ralphieboy

re: #168 lostlakehiker

I'd generally agree, I'm just curious about all the legalese and how people would react to such an action.

183 JeffM70  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:03:23pm

re: #177 SanFranciscoZionist

184 Shiplord Kirel  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:03:25pm

The state of knowledge about actual vs. mythical civil liberties is a disaster in this country.
People believe you cannot hold enemy combatants prisoner without charging them criminally, or fight back against a citizen who is waging war against us by his own admission, yet they have no problem with Wal-Mart security goons holding people for hours before they call the police, or local cops seizing property and money and refusing to return it even after due process.

We need some education here, and fast.

185 reloadingisnotahobby  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:03:42pm

No President operates with out the Justice Dept...
They gave him the thumbs up ...or
said it's the right thing to do...and we can handle the heat!

186 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:03:44pm

Another libertarian has a problem with killing this terrorist leader...

Gary Johnson: Awlaki was 'entitled to due process'

Gary Johnson joined fellow Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul in criticizing the drone killing of U.S.-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, saying he had "mixed feelings" about the strike since he believed Awlaki to be "entitled to due process."

We are going to be hearing about 'due process' for weeks now.

187 lostlakehiker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:04:02pm

re: #171 JeffM70

I don't disagree. But I think it's still an important discussion to be had, despite some here implying I'm a sympathizer or government conspirator.

Just so we're clear, I don't put you in either category.

188 engineer cat  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:04:11pm

clearly, this obama shouldn't get any credit since this anti-terrorist strike was made possible by intelligent bush era restructuring of capital market regulations

obviously

189 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:04:13pm

Clearly, he did the right thing de facto. Whether or not he did de jure, will have to be determined.

The concern is not over this particular case, but in using it as precedent.

190 iossarian  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:04:27pm

re: #179 lostlakehiker

The facts. I'll have character witnesses up one side and down the other. Not testifying to my angelic nature, but that whatever I am, I'm not that. I'll have alibis. There won't be any credible evidence against me.

There's no slippery slope here. It's level ground, but coated with sandpaper and rumble strips.

The ACLU case mentioned above refers to the fact that it is apparently illegal to represent a person on the "frozen assets" list. So your character witnesses might never see the courtroom, and there might be no-one to challenge the evidence brought against you. That's my point.

191 JeffM70  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:04:49pm

re: #186 NJDhockeyfan

you say that is if to have such a discussion is a bad thing.

192 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:05:01pm

re: #175 albusteve

your question has been answered several times

I had several different questions, none of them answered by you. Is there a special reason you feel the need to interject and let me know I should rather stfu?

193 CuriousLurker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:05:03pm

re: #178 ralphieboy

That is exactly the thinking behind the abortion center bombers and abortion doctor killers.

That's exactly my point. Their ideas are way out there, but not unheard of, hence my discomfort.

194 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:05:19pm

re: #180 000G

What are those guidelines?

Excellent point btw, Obdicut.

Usually in response to a known danger; spree killer, sniper, etc. They very between jurisdictions.

195 Decatur Deb  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:05:31pm

re: #152 iossarian

Right, but it's unclear whether he would have had access to a fair trial even had he turned himself in. That's really my question - say you get put on this list, for whatever reason. What recourse do you have?

Turn yourself in at an embassy. "You have the right to remain silent..."

196 JeffM70  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:06:11pm

re: #187 lostlakehiker

I know.

197 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:06:12pm

re: #184 Shiplord Kirel

The state of knowledge about actual vs. mythical civil liberties is a disaster in this country.

And you have the right to own a gun and defend your home, but the State of Indiana has ruled it is illegal resist police who enter your house without a legal warrant...

198 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:06:38pm

re: #191 JeffM70

you say that is if to have such a discussion is a bad thing.

With the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, I have no problem of how it was carried out. It needed to be done.

199 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:06:47pm

re: #184 Shiplord Kirel

The state of knowledge about actual vs. mythical civil liberties is a disaster in this country.
People believe you cannot hold enemy combatants prisoner without charging them criminally, or fight back against a citizen who is waging war against us by his own admission, yet they have no problem with Wal-Mart security goons holding people for hours before they call the police, or local cops seizing property and money and refusing to return it even after due process.

We need some education here, and fast.

well said, and timely

200 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:07:09pm

re: #177 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, first, I doubt he's the first.

That's what I read pretty much everywhere. Any evidence that he's not?

Dunno. I've been thinking about this. Still thinking about this. I have no problem with him, personally, being dead, so now I'm just considering ramifications.

Same here.

201 Political Atheist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:07:24pm

re: #32 Charles

It's not a bad idea to have the discussion about killing an American citizen without due process. This does raise some uncomfortable issues about the limits of presidential power, since Obama reportedly personally ordered this drone attack.

But it's absurd to bring up the "slippery slope" argument here. Anwar al-Awlaki was at war with the United States. He may not have been officially stripped of citizenship, but he clearly renounced his own citizenship by joining a terrorist organization dedicated to mass murder.

There's no reason to think President Obama is going to go rogue and start killing everyone who disagrees with him. I'm not troubled by taking out declared enemies of this country before they can murder anyone else.

I'm glad it was not under Bush. we would be hearing war criminal or worse all over again, and again ad nauseum. As much as I might disagree with him on say, FBI GPS devices without warrants, he can take out out sworn enemies as he sees fit. Fine with me.

202 iossarian  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:07:37pm

re: #195 Decatur Deb

Turn yourself in at an embassy. "You have the right to remain silent..."

See my #190 - my concern is that the very accusation brought against someone seems to undermine their ability to contest that accusation in court. Of course, this is the same problem that "enemy combatants" face.

I would be perfectly happy with a situation in which someone could, as you say, turn themselves in, and be guaranteed "due process".

203 Decatur Deb  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:07:58pm

re: #189 ggt

Clearly, he did the right thing de facto. Whether or not he did de jure, will have to be determined.

The concern is not over this particular case, but in using it as precedent.

The ACLU suit is valuable because it might help clarify all of that.

204 CuriousLurker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:08:12pm

re: #177 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, first, I doubt he's the first.

Dunno. I've been thinking about this. Still thinking about this. I have no problem with him, personally, being dead, so now I'm just considering ramifications.

This.

205 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:08:37pm

re: #45 sattv4u2

Doubtful

I'd wager that California Kid (his name escapes me) who has been making the propaganda videos for several years has been on a list

Adam Gadahn. Ne Pearlman.

My mother feels so bad for his mother.

206 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:08:52pm

re: #198 NJDhockeyfan

With the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, I have no problem of how it was carried out. It needed to be done.

I think most ppl here would agree that whatever decision a court might take, this case is safely lawful. The thing is to clarify other potential cases.

207 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:09:01pm

re: #197 ralphieboy

And you have the right to own a gun and defend your home, but the State of Indiana has ruled it is illegal resist police who enter your house without a legal warrant...

And, how has that worked-out for them?

208 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:09:48pm

re: #128 ralphieboy

there are also rules involving dealing with persons who present a real and imminent threat to other people's lives. I think this case falls under that heading.

re: #170 CuriousLurker

Do you know where I can find those rules,or does anyone? I'm curious as to what they are.

IIUC, "Imminent threat" as it applies to individuals is a more of a 1st Amendment/incitement to riot issue. See: Brandenberg vs Ohio (1969). The bar is set quite high for what "incitement" is, but I do not think incitement was the issue with al-Awlaki.

The things you're talking about -- the same old predictable bigots trying to target us based on their social hangups -- those would be straight-up 14th Amendment, equal protection issues, and pretty easy to smack down given various SCOTUS rulings of the post ww2 era into the present.

209 Decatur Deb  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:10:01pm

re: #202 iossarian

See my #190 - my concern is that the very accusation brought against someone seems to undermine their ability to contest that accusation in court. Of course, this is the same problem that "enemy combatants" face.

I would be perfectly happy with a situation in which someone could, as you say, turn themselves in, and be guaranteed "due process".

Agreed. That's why I support civil liberties challenges to the post-9/11 laws.

210 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:10:22pm

re: #185 reloadingisnotahobby

No President operates with out the Justice Dept...
They gave him the thumbs up ...or
said it's the right thing to do...and we can handle the heat!

Enh... remember John Yoo?

211 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:10:33pm

Glenn Greenwald brings up 'due process' as well...

The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality

212 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:10:33pm

re: #203 Decatur Deb

The ACLU suit is valuable because it might help clarify all of that.

Exactly!

213 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:10:39pm

re: #70 recusancy

The ACLU will stick up for you if you're a citizen no matter what you did and no matter your political stripe, allegiance or anything. Whether you're Oliver North or Anwar Al Awlaki.

They are stubborn about that, and usually manage to piss off everyone at least once.

214 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:11:25pm

re: #213 SanFranciscoZionist

They are stubborn about that, and usually manage to piss off everyone at least once.

But they won't touch a 2nd Amendment case.

Strange that.

215 Charles Johnson  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:11:42pm

re: #176 Sergey Romanov

Well, I'm not talking about theory but about what I read about the actual process. AFAIK Awlaki was only put on the list after he ceased to be a mere propagandist and began to take part in training and such.

If Gadahn fits this profile, he might be on the list.

Adam Gadahn renounced his own citizenship and burned his passport in one of his Al Qaeda videos.

[Link: articles.cnn.com...]

216 reloadingisnotahobby  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:11:51pm

re: #203 Decatur Deb

The ACLU suit is valuable because it might help clarify all of that.

Carity is a good thing....I can only imagine the bureaucratic B.S.
The POTUS waited on to take out OBL!
If this streamline the process...it's a good exercise!!!

217 Simply Sarah  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:12:22pm

re: #213 SanFranciscoZionist

They are stubborn about that, and usually manage to piss off everyone at least once.

I'm pretty sure "Manage to piss of everyone at least once" is their motto. Makes them an easy target much of the time, but we're certainly better off for it.

218 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:12:33pm

re: #194 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Usually in response to a known danger; spree killer, sniper, etc. They vary between jurisdictions.

Hm. I need to do some research on this.

219 recusancy  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:12:58pm

re: #184 Shiplord Kirel

The state of knowledge about actual vs. mythical civil liberties is a disaster in this country.
People believe you cannot hold enemy combatants prisoner without charging them criminally, or fight back against a citizen who is waging war against us by his own admission, yet they have no problem with Wal-Mart security goons holding people for hours before they call the police, or local cops seizing property and money and refusing to return it even after due process.

We need some education here, and fast.

Who believes this?

220 Darth Vader Gargoyle  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:13:09pm

re: #214 ggt

But they won't touch a 2nd Amendment case.

Strange that.

The Bill of Rights is full of individual rights, except the 2nd, that one is obviously a states rights issue...
//

221 CuriousLurker  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:13:16pm

re: #203 Decatur Deb

re: #208 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Thanks. I really need to educate myself on this. Work beckons...BBL.

222 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:13:36pm

re: #215 Charles

Yeah I know. I'm not talking about the citizenship issue in that comment.

223 recusancy  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:13:56pm

re: #214 ggt

But they won't touch a 2nd Amendment case.

Strange that.

[Link: www.aclu.org...]

224 Achilles Tang  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:14:08pm

re: #188 engineer dog

clearly, this obama shouldn't get any credit since this anti-terrorist strike was made possible by intelligent bush era restructuring of capital market regulations

obviously

Al Gore should get the credit, after all what would Al-Alwaki be without the internet?

225 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:14:14pm

re: #118 laZardo

OT and late but

Rosh Hashanah Kitten.

It's still the second day of Rosh Hashanah. And he is still awful cute.

226 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:14:15pm

re: #220 rwdflynavy

The Bill of Rights is full of individual rights, except the 2nd, that one is obviously a states rights issue...
//

The Supreme Court disagrees!

Actually, the 2nd Amendment has it's own Lobby Group--several actually. It doesn't need the ACLU.

HA!

/

227 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:14:29pm

re: #186 NJDhockeyfan

Another libertarian has a problem with killing this terrorist leader...

Gary Johnson: Awlaki was 'entitled to due process'

We are going to be hearing about 'due process' for weeks now.

Ironically, from some of the same people who otherwise have massive problems with the concept as it applies to, say, immigrants who were born on US soil.

Can't speak for G Johnson on that but if Glenn Greenwald is considering him for president then he's a very good candidate for an eyeroll-generator, from my pov.

228 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:15:19pm

re: #138 Decatur Deb

He had every opportunity to surrender and face due process. In effect, he was armed and engaged in an inter-continental standoff, and was killed by an inter-continental police sniper.

Suicide by SEAL?

229 Decatur Deb  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:15:38pm

re: #218 000G

Hm. I need to do some research on this.

re: #221 CuriousLurker

re: #208 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

Thanks. I really need to educate myself on this. Work beckons...BBL.

Careful. If one more lizard expresses the need for more study we lose our Intertubes accreditation.

230 sagehen  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:15:56pm

re: #214 ggt

But they won't touch a 2nd Amendment case.

Strange that.

Not strange at all -- there's a huge, well-funded organization specifically dedicated to the 2nd Amendment. The ACLU takes cases that if they don't do it it won't get done.

231 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:16:07pm

re: #139 reloadingisnotahobby

Oh for FU%^s sake!!!
Now we have the Yemenese PISSED at US!
//

Yemenis.

232 Lord Baron Viscount Duke Earl Count Planckton  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:16:30pm

MONGO NEEDS LEARN
GO SCHOOL
BYE

233 Sol Berdinowitz  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:16:36pm

re: #231 SanFranciscoZionist

Yemenis.

Yemeni Cricket!

234 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:16:49pm

re: #188 engineer dog

clearly, this obama shouldn't get any credit since this anti-terrorist strike was made possible by intelligent bush era restructuring of capital market regulations

obviously

If we'd had prayer in schools, it would have gotten done a lot sooner!!

235 recusancy  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:17:09pm

re: #230 sagehen

Not strange at all -- there's a huge, well-funded organization specifically dedicated to the 2nd Amendment. The ACLU takes cases that if they don't do it it won't get done.

[Link: www.aclu.org...]
Given the reference to "a well regulated Militia" and "the security of a free State," the ACLU has long taken the position that the Second Amendment protects a collective right rather than an individual right. For seven decades, the Supreme Court's 1939 decision in United States v. Miller was widely understood to have endorsed that view.

236 reloadingisnotahobby  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:17:56pm

re: #231 SanFranciscoZionist

Oh...Thanks...
But will this effect my overall grade in English??
LOL

237 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:18:09pm

re: #146 Shiplord Kirel

Pickett's men were American citizens when they charged up Cemetery Ridge at Gettysburg. Does this mean the Union forces violated due process when they opened fire?

(I probably shouldn't be giving the Confederate revivalists any ideas.)

I think under the circumstances that could simply be chalked up to self-defense.

But the example does point to the problem--how the hell do you fight a war with a loose confederation of NGOs? We are learning.

238 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:18:18pm

re: #215 Charles

Adam Gadahn renounced his own citizenship and burned his passport in one of his Al Qaeda videos.

[Link: articles.cnn.com...]

Heh. I am sure that was not the legally proper way to do it.

As a German citizen, I'd have to jump through a lot of legal and bureaucratic hoops to get rid off my citizenship if I wanted to.

239 iossarian  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:18:19pm

re: #233 ralphieboy

Yemeni Cricket!

[Link: ypl-t20.blogspot.com...]

Warning: shit website.

240 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:18:49pm

re: #231 SanFranciscoZionist

Yemenis.

I was wondering about that.

Either way, it doesn't sound right. Yem - n - knees.

'I gotta anyemnknee --gotta go see the doc about that"

"Lots of ayemenknees growing in the garden"

241 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:20:49pm

re: #229 Decatur Deb

Oh noes, people who do not yet know everything! The shame! ///

242 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:21:00pm

re: #238 000G

Heh. I am sure that was not the legally proper way to do it.

As a German citizen, I'd have to jump through a lot of legal and bureaucratic hoops to get rid off my citizenship if I wanted to.

According to the State Dept, this is the way to do it.

[Link: travel.state.gov...]

No one seems to be saying for sure whether Al-Awlaki did this.

243 reloadingisnotahobby  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:21:19pm

re: #238 000G

As a German citizen, I'd have to jump through a lot of legal and bureaucratic hoops to get rid off my citizenship if I wanted to.

Come on....no ones that POPULAR!!!
LOL

244 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:22:02pm

re: #218 000G

Hm. I need to do some research on this.

Its been a topic of debate for years.


The new rules of engagement

Criminals intent upon random killing culminating with suicide present an extremely difficult task for first responding law enforcement officers. Traditional police containment and negotiation type tactics have proven ineffective in stopping a preplanned murderous rampage. It has been generally considered an operational failure when just one innocent victim is killed during an aggressive police rescue response. The inherent reluctance of law enforcement to accept any casualties to innocents during rescue operations actually creates a defensive delay in response, while other less hazardous options are considered. This delay works in favor of the suicidal predators’ planned activities, greatly increasing the likelihood of a higher casualty count.

In the case of suicidal terrorists holding children hostage, releases of some hostages is a planned and calculated event, conducted to allow the terrorists more time to secure the scene of the ultimate carnage while allowing the media sufficient time to broadcast the final mass murder. Delay in establishing close physical contact with suicidal predators can result in granting the criminals additional time to locate and isolate victims while arranging the crime scene in a manner that maximizes death and carnage to the innocent victims, the rescuing officers, and themselves. A running gun battle at the beginning of the event is preferable to allowing suicidal predators the opportunity to control the environment and set up the scene for the ultimate massacre. The first responding officers can have a tremendous positive difference by interrupting the criminal(s) during the early stages of a planned mass murder/suicide event, and ultimately can prevent the mass murders from occurring.

245 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:22:24pm

re: #136 Varek Raith

It's also a can of worms.
Can the PotUS order drone strikes on militia compounds? A number of them have stated goals of the overthrow of the US government. Not to mention stockpiling weapons. Threat to the public? Maybe, maybe not?
Can o' worms.
;)

We need a bigger can then. Declare Yeman the 51st state de post facto!
//

246 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:22:35pm

re: #186 NJDhockeyfan

Another libertarian has a problem with killing this terrorist leader...

Gary Johnson: Awlaki was 'entitled to due process'

We are going to be hearing about 'due process' for weeks now.

Well, yes, we are.

I think people will line up according to their general political wont on this, but I don't think it's a bad thing that we discuss it, a lot, and from all angles.

We really are fighting a new kind of war. The ethics of it have to be a topic of discussion.

247 NJDhockeyfan  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:23:11pm

Well I have to do some actual work. I'm glad another terrorist has become a skid mark in the annals of war on terror.

Have a nice day :)

248 recusancy  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:23:35pm

re: #246 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, yes, we are.

I think people will line up according to their general political wont on this, but I don't think it's a bad thing that we discuss it, a lot, and from all angles.

We really are fighting a new kind of war. The ethics of it have to be a topic of discussion.

Ethics. What are you a terrorist lover!?? ///

249 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:23:38pm

re: #245 oaktree

We need a bigger can then. Declare Yeman the 51st state de post facto!
//

ANNEX THEM!
///

250 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:23:58pm

re: #200 000G

That's what I read pretty much everywhere. Any evidence that he's not?

No. But I have a suspicious mind about what Presidents order to be done on dark nights when the world is on fire.

251 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:24:07pm

re: #242 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin

From that link:

Persons intending to renounce U.S. citizenship should be aware that, unless they already possess a foreign nationality, they may be rendered stateless and, thus, lack the protection of any government.

German government would not allow citizens to become potentially stateless: You have to provide evidence that you will have another citizenship to fall back on. Interesting…

252 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:24:19pm

re: #244 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Its been a topic of debate for years.


The new rules of engagement

I wish I could have a way to make a practicle addendum to my living will.

If my acccidental death helps to prevent a Whacko killer from succeeding, please, by all means, take the chance.

253 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:25:51pm

re: #250 SanFranciscoZionist

No. But I have a suspicious mind about what Presidents order to be done on dark nights when the world is on fire.

stuff that leaves no evidence, no trail and certainly no accountability for the POTUS

254 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:25:58pm

re: #214 ggt

But they won't touch a 2nd Amendment case.

Strange that.

Well, sort of. They are First Amendment fanatics, first and foremost.

255 iossarian  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:26:41pm

Got to go - have a great weekend, everyone!

256 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:26:54pm

re: #250 SanFranciscoZionist

No. But I have a suspicious mind about what Presidents order to be done on dark nights when the world is on fire.

rewards and responsibilities of the job only the POTUS has . . .

257 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:29:12pm

re: #254 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, sort of. They are First Amendment fanatics, first and foremost.

Every Amendment should have it's own Lobbying group.

Kinda like every dog should have a kid.

:)

258 albusteve  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:29:34pm

re: #254 SanFranciscoZionist

Well, sort of. They are First Amendment fanatics, first and foremost.

yeah, they are all bent out of shape because the Bernalillio County police held their graduation ceremony in a church....Albuquerque
[Link: www.krqe.com...]

259 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:29:49pm

re: #240 ggt

I was wondering about that.

Either way, it doesn't sound right. Yem - n - knees.

'I gotta anyemnknee --gotta go see the doc about that"

"Lots of ayemenknees growing in the garden"

I usually hear "Ye-MEH-neez".

260 Political Atheist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:29:57pm

re: #214 ggt

But they won't touch a 2nd Amendment case.

Strange that.

Well they take it as a collective right, not an individual one. They may or may not come around the the SCOTUS point of view. I made the argument that in every other instance they go for the broad definition of our rights. But not in the 2nd.

261 Feline Fearless Leader  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:30:48pm

re: #238 000G

Heh. I am sure that was not the legally proper way to do it.

As a German citizen, I'd have to jump through a lot of legal and bureaucratic hoops to get rid off my citizenship if I wanted to.

Are a lot of those hoops there due to mandatory military service requirements?

262 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:32:10pm

re: #259 SanFranciscoZionist

I usually hear "Ye-MEH-neez".

I think you can get shots for that.

263 Gretchen G.Tiger  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:33:56pm

Well, the former Monster Puppy, now Bother Puppy needs a bath.

He is prancing in a show again tomorrow.

Thinks he is so special.

chat wit' you-all later.

264 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:34:13pm

re: #253 albusteve

stuff that leaves no evidence, no trail and certainly no accountability for the POTUS

Well yes. The fate of the fictional Abdul ibn Shareef comes to mind.

But we did this in daylight, which changes the game, and the issues that need to be discussed.

265 Decatur Deb  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:34:34pm

re: #257 ggt

Every Amendment should have it's own Lobbying group.

Kinda like every dog should have a kid.

:)

The 18th was covered:

Image: 07winfield25.JPG

266 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:34:55pm

re: #261 oaktree

Are a lot of those hoops there due to mandatory military service requirements?

No, the hoops are pretty much all due to Germany not wanting its citizens to end up stateless. So you have to make things super tight, which gets complicated by Germany not wanting its citizens to acquite another country's citizenship either. But if you voluntarily serve in another country's military forces AND you have that country's citizenship, you automatically lose your German citizenship.

267 Kragar  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:35:58pm

re: #265 Decatur Deb

The 18th was covered:

Image: 07winfield25.JPG

Image: tumblr_lfwm23BT3v1qcyb09.jpg

268 SanFranciscoZionist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:36:05pm

re: #257 ggt

Every Amendment should have it's own Lobbying group.

Kinda like every dog should have a kid.

:)

I am a hard-core Thirder.

Used to joke about how I wouldn't even let my brother-in-law nap on the couch, but now they are divorcing, and it's less funny.

269 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:36:34pm

re: #248 recusancy

Ethics. What are you a terrorist lover!?? ///

Ethics!

Sounds very French!

270 reloadingisnotahobby  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:37:11pm

re: #267 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Image: tumblr_lfwm23BT3v1qcyb09.jpg

No SHIT!!!
Who's buying?
Shall we flip a coin?

271 engineer cat  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:37:38pm

"...the image that made everyone sit up and take note yesterday afternoon was the following image of hundreds pilots from United airlines showing up at the protest in their uniforms:

United/Continental pilots march on Wall Street..."

[Link: crooksandliars.com...]

if the baggers take a second off from their favorite hobby of I Hatez Libberuls To Pieces, they may remember that they also hate the tarp and resent wall st as much as anybody else.

272 Political Atheist  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:38:34pm

For a wing nut/moonbat free take on the legalities of the killing see Wired.

273 reloadingisnotahobby  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:39:14pm

re: #265 Decatur Deb

The 18th was covered:

Image: 07winfield25.JPG

No Argument there...nope..I got nothin!

274 OhCrapIHaveACrushOnSarahPalin  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:40:37pm

re: #271 engineer dog

if the baggers take a second off from their favorite hobby of I Hatez Libberuls To Pieces, they may remember that they also hate the tarp and resent wall st as much as anybody else.

Well, they did. Supposedly.

That is, until they were commandeered by Koch and Armey think tanks into frothing at their House reps in favor of insurance companies.

Stupid dupes.

275 reloadingisnotahobby  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 12:40:53pm

Here comes another storm...
If I could send some weather to Texas I would!
Here's to a great weekend!!

276 Hal_10000  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 1:07:53pm

re: #59 Charles

Al-Awlaki identified himself as a terrorist. He could not have been more clear that he was a self-declared enemy of the United States.

Then why not have a quick hearing just to at least have a process? If his guilt is that obvious, establishing it in some sort of legal process should be a snap. I worry when the government simply can't be bothered with taking simple steps to assure us that our rights as citizens are not being violated.

277 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 1:16:28pm

re: #31 JeffM70

This should make everyone very uneasy. The Obama administration just authorized the assassination of a U.S. citizen without due process. All we have is the government's word that Al-Awlaki was a terrorist, the same government that told us Saddam had WMDs.

Actually, we have much more than just the government's word on Al-Awlaki having been a terrorist.

And it's also important to note that while it constitutionally is the same government, it is indeed a different administration (although some may see the Obama administration as having more in common than not with the Bush administration when it comes to foreign policy).

278 Hawaii69  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 1:27:48pm

In the general sense, Ron Paul has a point. We've gone down a slippery slope when it comes to how we deal with American citizens.

In this specific case, though, it falls pretty flat. I think al-Awlaki stopped
responding to his court summons a while back.....

279 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 1:31:20pm

re: #132 Sergey Romanov

Just related - how do you feel about trials in absentia?

Ooops, sorry, oversight, forgot to answer: I don't have any particular feeling about them. I don't think they are entirely problematic. Physical proximity does not seem to be an essentially legal function.

The way that I understand the American court system, though, is that without standing of a plaintiff, there will be no trial.

280 (I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was)  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 1:34:59pm

re: #141 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Hey, will you look at that:

under the Third Geneva Convention the civilian loses his immunity from being targeted when he takes part in such activities (armed conflict), which would include for example delivering ammunition, or gathering military intelligence in enemy territory

That is pretty significant, although I believe the Geneva Conventions are essentially international law and thus only apply between countries, not between a citizen and his or her country. Basically, this relieves the U.S. (or any other country) from legal backlash when they go after foreigners (i.e. the citizens of another country) who act in the described way towards them, no?

281 Mattand  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 2:41:17pm
According to the right wing blogosphere, President Barack Obama keeps sending signals to the Islamic world that he’s weak, and that he encourages the spread of creeping shariah.

He has a novel technique for telegraphing this weakness: systematically, relentlessly killing the leaders of Al Qaeda.

I LOL'd. Great summation.

282 Tigger2  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 4:50:00pm

re: #41 000G

So what do Lizards think about his being the first U.S. citizen having been approved for targeted killing (and subsequently having gotten killed) by a US President?

As far as I'm concerned he quit being a citizen and became a enemy of America when he joined up with Al Qaeda and started targeting Americans.

283 ThisisMatt  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:31:21pm

re: #15 NJDhockeyfan

I have a problem with it. The government has no right to kill citizens without due process, and it pains me to no end that I am in agreement with the libertarians and the ACLU.

284 ThisisMatt  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:32:47pm

re: #278 Hawaii69

The only problem is he was never convicted of a crime. Why doesn't this scare more people?

285 Decatur Deb  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 5:37:45pm

re: #284 ThisisMatt

The only problem is he was never convicted of a crime. Why doesn't this scare more people?

When a cop shoots an amateur who is holding a Glock on a 7/11 clerk, he is killing someone who was never convicted of a crime. Alwaki was engaged in active continuing efforts to kill Americans. If he had surrendered he would have been worthy of trial.

286 OIFVet  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 8:14:28pm

Gotta say I'm very conflicted on this. On the one hand, I applaud President Obama for his efforts in continuing to take down such devoted enemies. On the other hand I don't think his desire to withdraw would enable us to perform such actions. The libertarian in me would have liked us to take both Osama and Awlaki alive for trials, or at least to have tried them in absentia before their executions. Good riddance, and good for Obama in making the right call.

287 OIFVet  Fri, Sep 30, 2011 8:25:06pm

re: #285 Decatur Deb

When a cop shoots an amateur who is holding a Glock on a 7/11 clerk, he is killing someone who was never convicted of a crime. Alwaki was engaged in active continuing efforts to kill Americans. If he had surrendered he would have been worthy of trial.

I don't think they are the same. On the one hand, directly the police officer has to choose between an innocent civilian and a trial. On the other, from what I understand, we could have taken Osama alive. I do not know enough about Awlaki to know if we could have taken him alive, and do not regret his execution, but I think if we have the ability to capture such a person alive we should.

288 RogueOne  Sat, Oct 1, 2011 4:37:14am

re: #276 Hal_10000

Then why not have a quick hearing just to at least have a process? If his guilt is that obvious, establishing it in some sort of legal process should be a snap. I worry when the government simply can't be bothered with taking simple steps to assure us that our rights as citizens are not being violated.

It is more expedient to kill them rather than have to face career threatening questions over their detainment and treatment.


This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh
A Closer Look at the Eastman State Bar DecisionTaking a few minutes away from work things to read through the Eastman decision. As I'm sure many of you know, Eastman was my law school con law professor. I knew him pretty well because I was also running in ...
KGxvi
9 minutes ago
Views: 27 • Comments: 0 • Rating: 0