E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSSources to NBC News are reporting Samir Khan, editor of Inspire Magazine, is another American citizen that was killed in the air strike in Yemen, along with Anwar al-Awlaki. NBC's Bob Windrem reports.
By Pete Williams, NBC News justice correspondent
Is it legal for the federal government to kill a U.S. citizen overseas, someone who has never been charged or convicted of a crime? Civil liberties groups are condemning the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, but many legal scholars say it is justified.
No U.S. court has ever weighed in on the question, because judges consider these sorts of issues exclusively matters for the president.
Anwar al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, with the help of the ACLU, sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta a year ago, when it became clear that the U.S. was targeting the younger al-Awlaki. But U.S. District Judge John Bates threw the case out, ruling that federal courts were in no position to evaluate whether someone was a terrorist whose activities threatened national security and against whom the use of deadly force could be justified.
"This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion -- that there are circumstances in which the executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable," Bates said, quoting an earlier decision on a similar issue.
The ACLU lawyer who handled the case, Jameel Jaffer, said Friday that the U.S. program that targeted al-Awlaki was a violation of both U.S. and international law.
"The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the president, any president, with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country," Jaffer said.
President Obama says the killing of radical, American-born cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen is a "major blow to al-Qaida's most active operational affiliate."
But Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University's Washington College of Law, said U.S. citizens who take up arms with an enemy force have been considered legitimate targets through two world wars, even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.
"Where hostiles go, there is the possibility of hostilities. The U.S. has never accepted the proposition that if you leave the active battlefield, suddenly you are no longer targetable," Anderson said.
In early 2010, the director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, told a congressional hearing that the U.S. was prepared to kill Americans affiliated with al-Qaida, without mentioning al-Awlaki by name.
Vote: Should U.S. be able to kill its citizens overseas without due process?
"If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," by which he meant authority from the executive branch, not the courts.
Blair said the military and intelligence agencies had authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad who were engaged in terrorism if their activities threatened Americans. Since then, U.S. officials have said that al-Awlaki's role in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had shifted from propagandist to operational tactician and strategist.
The State Department's senior legal adviser, Harold Koh, plainly stated last year the Obama administration's view that it had authority to undertake drone attacks in countries where al-Qaida operatives were located.
Radical cleric influenced many plots, US says
"The U.S. is in armed conflict with al-Qaida as well as the Taliban and associated forces in response to the horrific acts of 9-11 and may use force consistent with its right to self-defense under international law," Koh said in a speech to a Washington legal symposium.
Though he did not specifically address the issue of targeting Americans, many legal scholars believe his speech was an implicit statement that U.S. citizens could be legitimate targets.
One of al-Qaida's most influential leaders - Anwar al-Awlaki - has been killed, according to officials in the United States and Yemen. Authorities have confirmed that the radical Islamist cleric died in an airstrike this morning in Northern Yemen. ITN's Sejal Karia reports.
First Read: Ron Paul condemns al-Awlaki assassination
Robert Chesney, an expert on international law at the University of Texas School of Law, concluded in a recent law review article that al-Awlaki could be legally killed "if he is in fact an operational leader within AQAP, as this role would render him a functional combatant in an organized armed group."
Anderson, of American University's law school, said it's important to note that al-Awlaki was not targeted because of his role as an al-Qaida propagandist.
"The U.S. is not justifying this on the basis that it's going after him for incitement. He was being targeted because he had gone operational," Anderson said, adding that he believed the killing was entirely legal.
"My view of this targeted killing is straightforwardly, congratulations, Mr. President," he said.
Leave a Comment:
The US government can kill anyone they damn well please - they are, after all, above the law.
Trust your government, they can do no wrong.
What part of "enemy combatant" don't people understand.
ok genius!!! how would you handle the situation? perhaps you should spend a few years in yemen to see if you prefer one of the islamic governments. then, get back to us and report...
Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process? It happens all the time, even in this country. The news regularly reports police killings that seem unwarranted and the end result of these actions are usually multi-million dollar settlement to the families of the deceased.
In this case, despite being a US citizen, he was also an enemy combatant subject to termination whenever possible. This is what happened and this is the end of the story except for the inevitable and incessant scrutiny from the politically correct.
Dont care. Another one bites the dust. Who's next on the list?
As long as that POS is dead, it's ok with me!
Isn't there something out there that says "I will protect the US from enemies, both foreign and domestic."
I honestly don't think it makes a difference where this terrorist was born. He was a known enemy of the United States. I didn't realize courts were needed for terrorists during a war with them. What part of War against terrorists don't people understand. This article isn't news given it's a war against these extremists that only want to do harm to innocent people. They thrive off of terrorizing people and justify murder with religion. The people like this do not deserve trial. They don't even deserve a swift death.
Anyone in their right mind wouldn't sympathize with a terrorist...
If the American citizen poses no threat to America then, no, they can't be killed without due process. But this isn't the case for this POS. If he isn't a direct threat to America, I don't know what or who is.
Once a 'citizen' chooses to join Al Quaeda, plans the deaths of American citizens, hates America and all it stands for, and spreads his hatred in recruiting others who share his beliefs, he is no longer a citizen and does not deserve the privileges that go along with that title. He deserves the same 'due process' he allows his targets, which is none. He is fair game. period. Let the ACLU, or whoever is trying to make something out of this, protect those who deserve such protection, not this disgusting piece of inhumanity.
Man, I might not agree with everything the current administration does, but old Obama is knocking down senior terrorists pretty damn quickly. Bin Laden, al-Awlaki, al-Shahari, al-Rahman, Kashmiri, just to name a few, and he gave the nod to NATO putting its boot on Gaddahfi's nuts. He's going to need a bigger presidential belt to keep putting notches on.
As far a Ron Paul crying about al-Awlaki being killed, if there is a strong case that the hostile actions of an American is causing the deaths of other Americans, and that first American is beyond the arm of the law, and he still poses an ongoing threat, then he is a legitimate target. It does get a bit thorny when you say, 'well he could turn himself in to have his day in court' because if he did turn himself in, the government could just call him an enemy combatant and squirrel him away in Gitmo without the right to a civilian trial.
Lets see, he was plotting to kill americans siding with our enemy. Wouldn't that be construed as treason, which is punishable by death?
Many of you are saying that he was an enemy combatant, but he never said so. He claimed to not be a member of Al Qaida. He claimed that he was just a spiritual leader. There is no evidence he ever killed anybody. There is no evidence that he actually participated in any actual terrorist act. This man is very different than Osama Bin Laden. Should the government be able to kill anybody they want to kill based on their opinions of guilt or innocence? How do we now somebody is guilty -- just because the FBI says so or the CIA says so? Death orders for anybody who opposes the policies of our current government?
If an influential person is single handedly calling for jihad of a nation, whether a citizen of that country or not, they have become a target. Do we sit around and wait to see what inventive way they intend to kill our President? NO! We do what is necessary to protect him and our nation. This should not even be a discussion. If our President can start a war with Libya without discussion in Congress or Senate, then we can take action on a radical cleric vowed to kill all Americans and its leaders without waiting for that person to show they have the capability.
If we can kill Ben Laden why can't we kill this guy who is invoved in trying to kill american citizens.
Gary Root: You may be acting as an agent provocateur, but I dont know why you should. this POS has decried the USA & its people for decades, he has incited attacks on us (his fellow countrymen) he dresses and speaks the part.
SO unless he is CIA playing a very good part, I have to assume if it looks like a duck......
He chose his path and died for it. He was a traitor , no more, no less. Ron Paul needs to get a grip and shake himself loose from those former Nazis and Birchers that he hangs out with. We would gladly have let his old wrinkled butt go over there and try to bring the terrorist back on his own.There's still Al Zawahiri left , I think. Let's see if Mr. Paul will volunteer to go over and have a conversation with him on our behalf.
"The US government can kill anyone they damn well please - they are, after all, above the law.
Trust your government, they can do no wrong."
huh? Oh, sorry. I couldn't hear you. I was too busy dreaming about p1$$ing on this guys remains.
He renounced his US citizenship decades ago, he's not a US citizen.
Oh Gary Root get a reality check. I think yours is one of the dumbest replies I've seen. Research before you open your mouth. It wasn't an opinion of guilt it was a fact. And he opposed you or any American being able to breath and have a pulse. You liked him so much you go live in Yemen and see how long you last.
Amazing !!.....Not one Feisty,Bev or Navy Comment.....You gotta know they are against the vaporization of this traitor....but they can't bring themselves to say anything negative about "Dear Leader"
He played his hand, deserted his country, planned attacks against his country and then got what he deserved! Any American citizen who has feelings that this terrorist had special rights above say, Osama Bin Laden, needs to get a grip or leave our country.
"Anwar al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, with the help of the ACLU, sued President Barack Obama, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and CIA Director Leon Panetta a year ago, when it became clear that the U.S. was targeting the younger al-Awlaki."
It figures that the ACLU would take the case of a terrorist. I think it's perfectly reasonable to assert the al-Awlaki renounced his citizenship when he took up with terrorists and started calling for the distruction of the US. He earned his full metal jacketed ticket to the celestial dirt nap.
This guy joined the terrorist movement and declared war on the United States.
He relinquished his citizenship at that point as far as I am concerned.
.
I'm a raging liberal but ANYONE on here who blames the US or thinks it "infringes" on our liberty is a raging lunatic. This person (not man) was responsible for killing thousands of Americans. He deserved EVERYTHING he got and more. He may be a US citizen, but in name only.
He called his shot, the SOB got what he deserved.
once this guy became a enemy soldier, he became a target ----------------period.
I concur if the subject born or naturalized in the US goes to a foreign country and renounces US citizenship and recieves a citizen document of another country he is no longer a USC. Also take into consideration that he also acquires the nationality of his foreign born parents if they have not been naturalized in the US, say they were still legal permanent residents , depending on the law ih their country if citizenship is transmitted by the mother (majority of nations) or the father as I suspect would be the case in Arab culture.
For the constitional due process he would have needed to be arrested and in the US. Due process depends on where he lives at the time those rights do not apply in foreign soil therefore Guantanamo.
John-638398 is right. Saves us the expense of hanging the traitorous bastich. And of course the ultra liberal ACLU gets involved. Just once I'd like to see them on the side of the victim. Fat feakin' chance.
You know this guy looks just like the guy that played the Jewel in the movie Jewel of the Nile.
WACO! That's all you need to know.....
On another note, I think it's funny how people seem to think the ACLU is "ultra-liberal" when the organization has defended the rights of American citizens from little black school children to KKK members. The ACLU doesn't care one way or another. They only care about the law and what is legal or not. In this case, I can care less because that traitor gave up his rights as an American citizen when he declared jihad!
The military kills overseas. If you want to kill Americans at home....become a cop.
What part don't you people get that this guy was an American Citizen?Ah Son of a Bitch,but still an American Citizen.He never renounced his citizen ship legally.You have to legally go through a process to renounce your citizenship people.He never did,he just up and left and went to join whatever.
It's not as far as anyone is concerned nor what they think!It doesn't matter what you think.It's the legallity that matters.I don't give a flying rats ass if he was Lucifer himself, it still the legality.
Here's a NewsFlash For You. Take this also into consideration.The government can mark you as a target!It doesn't matter why, but you me and every other person can be marked as target.It doesn't have to be terrorism,it could be for whatever they feel they want it to be.
This has opened up a Pandora's Box to all kinds of CRAP and it's open season as to what the Government can do!You people really don't get it.
What scares me about this, is how will it be used in the future - say we are dumb enough to elect another McCarthy. Just look at how the patriot-act is now being used against Americans, aka right-wing extremist.
I am playing the Queen Tune......."another one bites the dust, and another ones gone........"
Way to Go OBAMA!!!!!!! your not going to get re-elected so you might as well step up the terrorist killing!
Thanks OBAMA.......say, aren't you a Muslim???? killing another Muslim!!! AWESOME DUDE!!!!!
Clearly it is unconstitutional. The man was not charged with a crime or convicted of a crime. No due process, illegal.
I can't really add much to these comments, but the way I see it. The guy became a terrorist living in a foreign country and denounced his citizenship. He knew the consequences. He got what he deserved.
Here's a question people.who was the last American shot by the government on foreign soil?Who?I don't of any in my life time,
Well it sure as hell beats shooting or blowing his ass up here in the States!
Legally, the US Government has no right to deprive a citizen of their life, their freedom, or their property without due process. Our President has no rights over those of any other citizen. Our President is not above the law, nor should he be able to simply order executions without answering to the law for it.
A battle field situation or a situation where killing a perpetrator that presents an immediate threat to life would be the only justified killing.
The killing of an American citizen by the government violates due process. Not that that matters to the government, who are already guilty of numerous murders of Americans here and abroad, as well as high crimes and misdemeanors too numerous to outline in one life, let alone one post.
The significance of this story is that now it's legal precedent that the government can murder you if you are on their "enemies" list. How much of a legal stretch is it that this American is supposedly al-Qaeda and other "enemies" of the state are gun owners, returning veterans, eco-activists, protestors, et al?
I suppose it would have been too American of me to suggest that even this citizen deserved a trial by his peers? Why did the U.S. not apprehend him when he was a luncheon guest at the Pentagon right after 9/11? Oh you didn't know he was at the Pentagon? Why did they not catch him while he was leading a prayer service at the US Capitol? Oh you didn't know that either?
This is murder.
Apparently these bleeding heart liberals have never been in combat nor been shot at. When in combat you don't take time to inquire as to someones nationality. And if you have the opportunity to eliminate an enemy combatant, prior to his/her having the opportunity to kill you, you do it. They certainly are not going to ask what nationality you are.
Get over it!!!
One of the few things Obama is getting dead right is the use of drones to search and destroy enemy terrorists. It minimizes our casualties and costs, and it has to frustrate and intimidate the enemy to not be able to see or hear anything coming, but know its out there. Keep it up Mr Obama!
iPan: It sounds like you really don't like it here in the USA; why don't you do yourself and the rest of us a favor and go somewhere else?
Watch out Gloria, the black helicopters are coming!
After reading a lot of comments, I thought of Mahatma Gandhi's response to a question.
He was asked, "What do you think of western civilization?"
Gandhi answered, "It would be a good idea."
As far as I’m concern we are at war against ruthless people
that all they want is to eradicate us as a nation and as human beings;
therefore, it is legal for us to chase them out and erase them from the face of
this earth. The only case that wouldn’t be legal is if we would kill for
example Hugo Chavez (which is not a bad idea) but in the case of these
extremist towel heads I think it is fair enough.
Maybe we're not liberal. Maybe we're libertarian. Maybe we saw action in Bosnia under AFSouth Naples. Of course, the possibility that returning war veterans would be against war is such an unheard of concept that it would be silly to postulate, amirite?
Of course, I can around my house and family and not find a single shell fired from Anwar al-Awlaki. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure this dude didn't actually shoot anyone.
Look in the mirror and say this real slow.....
"Am I informed enough to know what I'm talking about?"
Funny how Democrats railed against Bush for GITMO and not using the judicial system - now rather than even a military tribunal, they just kill them - talk about the height of hypocrisy.
ah, rich in denver, I'm a proud liberal; and I applaud the death of this traitor. Liberals are not making the big fuss - unless someone like yourself thinks Ron Paul is a liberal. Egads.
The ACLU would not - would not represent this type of guy. They are only about making sure that The Bill of Rights is not trampled upon, and this traitor gave up any rights he had as his many sermons called for death of Americans and all things American. No liberal tears for this terrorist.
the gov can...will...and does kill anyone it pleases...civilian casualties in our great crusades are as follows: ww2-50% of all casualties, vietnam 70% of all casualties, iraq 90% of all casualties. casualties = women,children,handicapped, all the people the gov is so concerned about here.
Our military and the President all take an oath to protect the United States of America from all threats domestic or foreign, its in plain black and white and is constitutional
ok. lets take a different angle. He was a casualty of war, wrong place at the wong time, innocent bystander, and YES he does look like the guy in Jewel of the Nile... so "officially" we didn't target him. Just a happy coincadence. That darn drone just hit and we didn't really know WHO we were killing..
To quote the infamous islamic (Major Nidal Malik Hasan) Allahu Akbar!" (God is great!" in Arabic — before opening fire on the Fort Hood soldiers killing and maiming 43 of them. Anwar al-Awlaki, Hasan's former imam, with whom Hasan communicated in the months prior to the shootings. My reply to some of the post against extremist Born in the USA imam Allahh Akbar Anwar, enjoy 1000 virgins. RI Hell, you are not an American, you might have been a citizen, but you crossed the line, got what OBL got, hopefully KSM will be following you soon. Due process what due process did the 43 at Fort Hood and over 3000 during the 9/11 murders. His due process was a Hell Fire missile up is A--.
We can not call ourselves human if we upset or distroy anyone. Every human ( you or me)
needs to desire the same thing for others as for ourselves. If one is angry; a deep breath, cold shower or a walk can be helpfull.
People get rid of Governments who are not just.
Can the US kill a citizen without due process?
A US Citizen has to be a person. This was not a person; It (yes, it...not he) was a terrorist and a monster. A dog should be given more rights than this terrorist!
Tools. I doubt a single one of you could think for yourselves
This is an interesting question, and deeper than most of the posts are indicating.... In this particular case it absolutely seems justified. However, what is to keep some future president from invoking this particular "loophole" to take out anyone they please? Sound far fetched? I have hear many liberals in the past few months compare tea party members to terrorists. What's to keep a president from branding anyone a terrorist and then taking them out because he alone determines they constitute a threat to the country? According to this decision, nothing. In other words, you are guaranteed due process UNLESS the President deems you a terrorist and security risk. Given the rhetoric I've heard from many liberals recently ("Will take the sons-of-bitches out!" - Hoffa) we are not that far away.
He renounced his US citizenship and preached terrorist activities against the US. Should have had a bullet to the head.
MORONS! The question being generated here is not about this guy. Are you people that dumb? The question is about future guys. What if they aren't as open with their hatred and terrorist threats? What if they sit in a foreign country, and plot acts, but never publicly. Can the US attack in those type of situations? What if the suspected guy is living in a home of innocent people, because they don't know about his actions either? Do those living there deserve to die in an attack? These are the things you have to ask yourself when you are debating how lenient you want to be with your gov't sanctioned slaughters.
I would hope that this doesn't become a common occurrence, but in this particular case I believe the right call was made. The problem with it is even if it was right and justified, every single time we allow it to be done this way we put ourselves on the slippery slope. So while I feel it was handled correctly, it is essential for those that are not sure or don't to speak up about it because without that we end up one step closer to it being able to happen to any of us.
I really don't get it. The American government is doing whatever it can to protect the lives of Americans, its citizens. You that are complaining about all the "legal" issues, I believe that you have forgotten the lives taken in new York by this group. I wonder how many of those suicidal boys that flew those planes never admitted that they belonged to that satanic, hellish group called Al.... you got it; and You have also forgotten the many attempts and threats made by those same people against the United States.
Now that one has been killed, all the lawyers, the eased and comforted in American are blaming the executive branch for the death of that man.
Listen people: You are all full of it. I am a christian and I believe that only God can judge and will ultimately judge, but he also gave us wisdom to determine ( rightly of course) how to protect our lives.
I am willing to bet that not one of the complainers in this case, including the ones who came up with this time wasting, ridiculous lawsuit has lost a family member from a terrorist attack.
If you guys are angry so much with America, leave and come live where I live, in a poor country where we believe that America is the greatest country in the world.
Have some loyalty to your president who is getting grayer hair by thew minute trying to protect your lives against terrorists. He needs your loyalty and love, not your scorn and hatred.
God bless
I really don't get it. The American government is doing whatever it can to protect the lives of Americans, its citizens. You that are complaining about all the "legal" issues, I believe that you have forgotten the lives taken in new York by this group. I wonder how many of those suicidal boys that flew those planes never admitted that they belonged to that satanic, hellish group called Al.... you got it; and You have also forgotten the many attempts and threats made by those same people against the United States.
Now that one has been killed, all the lawyers, the eased and comforted in American are blaming the executive branch for the death of that man.
Listen people: You are all full of it. I am a christian and I believe that only God can judge and will ultimately judge, but he also gave us wisdom to determine ( rightly of course) how to protect our lives.
I am willing to bet that not one of the complainers in this case, including the ones who came up with this time wasting, ridiculous lawsuit has lost a family member from a terrorist attack.
If you guys are angry so much with America, leave and come live where I live, in a poor country where we believe that America is the greatest country in the world.
Have some loyalty to your president who is getting grayer hair by thew minute trying to protect your lives against terrorists. He needs your loyalty and love, not your scorn and hatred.
God bless
How do I as an American feel about it? A little bit safer!
What ever “package” was flown and delivered to him was an all-in-one arrangement, judge, jury and executioner. A perfectly legal end to an individual with treasonous motives towards his country of birth.
Since 9/11, America has been at war with terrorists. To the extent that you align yourself with terrorist organizations or actively promote terrorist activities, and are killed as a result, you become collateral damage in our war on terrorism. While the conceptual issue of killing "a random citizen" without due process is an issue worth debating, the killing of this Yemen clown is clearly a non-issue, unless we all want to speculate how many innocent lives were saved by his death. Congratulations to our President for his continued success in killing terrorists.
What if it's you?
I know, I know, until the shoe is on the other foot, nothing your lord and savior (Obama) does is wrong.
But the day some Neo-Con (which obviously excludes Ron), gets in power and uses the exact same power to declare "leftists" in this country "terrorists" (such that they can be assassinated without due process) they'll be screaming for justice. They just have their blinders on right now, that Obama is wielding a power NO PRESIDENT, NO AMERICAN should have over another American (Assassination and no Due Process.)
It's indescribably moronic to not see that all the powers are now in place for a tyranny in America.
A media that operates with complete bias and purposely tries to sway the public opinion.
A Presidential office that can legislate using executive orders.
A Presidential office that can declare wars without congress.
A Presidential office that can execute Americans without Due Process
An Intelligence agency that can monitor all activities of a citizen without a Search Warrant.
A Police force that is increasingly being militarized. (e.g. the NYPD that can now "take down planes")
RON PAUL ISN'T AGAINST THE FACT THIS GUY IS DEAD. HE'S AGAINST NOT OBEYING THE RULE OF LAW AND THE CONSTITUTION TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. THE ENDS DON'T JUSTIFY THE MEANS.
onesoul4u...post 1.6............The lines;"..I will defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies,both foriegn and domestic,...." are the words every soldier says in the 'Oath of Enlistment'.....They are the groundwork for our service,and to the 1% of the country who served,and are still serving,they do mean something........and yeah, the self proclaimed raghead 'warrior' got what he deserved.......(maybe even investigate papa nasser for ties to the sandbox terror camps...)........U.S. Army Disabled Veteran.
I Wonder & Gloria F: I wonder..where do you stand on abortion? Is that okay with you?
Anwar was the operational arm of a militant organization that has declared war on the United States of America. Killing him was no different than when we dropped bombs on Germany's operational command centers or targeted Japanese officers' quarters. Some of you are getting all riled up, calling it a "targeted assassination" -- but really, what's the difference other than accuracy? This could have happened differently, with a different headline: "US Strike takes out Operational Command Post of Al-Qaida." Would that have made it easier to swallow? Bottom line, he was an acting enemy of the US. He was plotting attacks on our citizenry. He was a valid target in a war against terrorism, in a war against Al-Qaida.
Seriously, you people... it must get tiresome walking on egg shells.
He's an American Citizen? I doubt that he had any concerns regarding 9-11! An eye for an eye....you reap what you sow. DO NOT underestimate the American People. We will continue to fight for our freedom. Something that "terrorist" will never understand. I am glad it was a drone killing and that our troops were safe. God Bless America and Our Troops.
you voted for change and now you have it. what part don't you understand? this dude just got 40 virgins, what could be so bad about that.
This guy was as looney, if not more so, as OBL. He recruited foreign fighters to wage terroristic war on his own country. He advocated killing of US citizens, including women and children, if need be. All for the sake of the Jihad or whatever these fanatics call thier twisted beliefs. OBL was our enemy. this guy was our enemy and a traitor.
A self-proclaimed enemy of this country, active actions in waging war on the USA, advocate of mass murdering, and there are still those of you who defend this wacko? I'm all for due course of law, but this guy went beyond our law. In fact, he denounced our law. So, let's celebrate and tell the ACLU that there are legitimate civil liberty cases they need to go after. This one is not it.
As for this traitor's father. Maybe he should have done a better job raising his son. If he doesn't like our treatment of terrorists, he can always move to Iran or Yemen.
WMG-21
Bump
On balance this killing is legal. Too bad this forum is too small, in all respects, so that all facets of this policy can't be debated. His status as a US citizen is irrelevant given his willingness to take up arms against the USA in time of war. Not pulling the trigger himself is also irrelevant--being a political leader, finanicial conduit, even radical imam inciting others, is enough to justify his death.
It would help if Congress would establish for the executive some parameters within which to work in these kinds of cases, but it would have been a mistake for the courts to intervene--war policy is not an Article 3 duty. One bit of advice to the president: Target for death the money men behind the terrorist movement more. These people want to live and profit (economically or politically or???) from their funding of terrorism, but they don't want to die. Kill several, make no big speech about it, and the rest who give money will begin to rethink their support. Some might even call up the CIA and offer to help us root out the enemy.
This may be murder, but at the end of the day it's justified because there's no other solution. If you can't capture him, you can't let him go free, and he's constantly plotting to destroy you, the only logical option is to kill him first.
To Four Points Shy Of Genius,
I think you're four bottles shy of a six-pack. Ron Paul is squawking because this action was taken under Obama. Since he has nothing useful to bash Obama with, he's on his high horse and grasping at straws to take away due credit from Obama for taking out a know enemy of this country.
Ron Paul's crap is another example of politics over what's good for this country. You idiots that go along with grandpa Paul, should be ashamed of yourselves. G. W. bush waged an entire war based on false information. A war that killed many American lives and Ron Paul has the gull to shoot off his mouth!?! WHAT A COMPLETE IDIOT!!
We definitely want him for president. Let's see: "Hey you terrorists, please let us capture you so that we can bring you to trial. We certainly don't want to blow your brains out. Just don't kill any more innocent people. Thank You."
There was a wage of war on terror. These sympathizers are no better than the traitors that have been and still are targeting not just americans but every other nation of the world. This is not a case that is going to help any american, nor any other country that have been victimized by these terrorists opinions of the aclu and will instead backfire on them.
Father or not, if this person was supporting his son or sympathizing with him and his terrorist organization in any way, then he should be treated the same as any traitor that lends support or sympathy to the enemies in times of war and as far as I know, the war on terror is as active today as it was from the first day the United States waged it on the terrorists of the world.
Nothing new here. It's not about citizenry and legal rights. It is about counter-terrorism.
Plots to assassinate usually happen for good reasons, depending on which side you support.
Why is this question even being brought up? He's the one that became a terrorist and was killed in a foreign country making plots for more terrorism. It's over for him. He's dead. Don't need the question about killing him.
That isnt the question, tho. He was clearly a treasonous terrorist POS. The question is Due Process. (Court, hearings, etc...) Which, in a case like this, is ridiculous (i think)... Wipe the POS off the face of the earth.
Well, I have to say this. American lawmen in America killed Bonnie and Clyde in an ambush. Those lawmen literally gunned this people down. American citizens on American soil. I think you could make the argument that Al Maliki was fighting with a enemy force. We have the right of self defense.
Killing him is unquestionably legal. If they wanted to label him a traitor, that would need Due Process. As a terrorist & war combatant, no Due Process is necessary. I won't be losing any sleep over his death.
But this is not a loophole. Please people read the Patriot Act. They specifically left this out of their arguments because it wasn't needed, since he was on foreign soil. But if it was done here in the US, it would still be legal, by invoking the Patriot Act.
For those who still don't know, the Patriot Act gives the government the right to suspend your constitutional rights, without Due Process. In fact, they can grab anyone off the street, throw them in prison & torture them, and never need to answer to any court, or even tell their family where they are. All they have to do is label you a terrorist, which has no Due Process requirements either.
Do you believe this legislation makes us safer? Do you feel safer?
ChadinNYC re:
It sucks being a terrorist.
Also, there has been no such actions against a US citizen, on US soil, since the adoption and subsequent renewal of the 10 year old Patriot Act.
I don't feel any less safe.
he wasn't a us citizen, he was a piece of human excrement. a turncoat traitor. Burn in Hell! Good riddens to him and all his kind!
Jihad means "war declared" and that means w-a-r war! The tagets of the jihad cowards are usually innocent citzens and that includes unarmed, unaware citzens like children. ruthless, senseless, meaningless hatered, remember 9-11? So of course the U.S. has every right to seek out the enemy and defend itself!!!!!!!!! Wise up America!!!!!
Anwar al-Awlaki has been consigned to the dustbin of history, which is precisely where he belongs. Both he and his partner in crime, U.S.-born Samir Khan, had already relinquished their rights as American citizens; once they openly renounced their citizenship and publicly declared themselves as al-Qaeda sympathizers and sponsors of terrorism against the country of their origin and other nations, all bets were off.
The case of American-born and naturalized German citizen William Joyce, better known as "Lord Haw-Haw" for his Nazi propaganda radio broadcasts to the Allied forces during World War II, offers some background and precedent for the actions taken against al-Awlaki and Khan:
By virtue of their recorded public actions, declarations, denunciations and pronouncements, both al-Awlaki and Khan had made it abundantly clear exactly to whom and to what cause their allegiances lay. They were men of violence, they dealt in the currency of terror, and they actively promoted a criminal campaign of tragedy, horror and death. Good riddance to both of them.
Since when does the Obammunist Administration pay any attention to our Laws anyway?
Just prior to the start of WWII, many US citizens of German descent went back to Germany, and then joined the Nazi military there. During the Battle of the Bulge in the winter of 1944, some of these English speaking traitors donned American infantry uniforms, crossed over into our lines, and engaged in activities that directly and indirectly cost the lives of American GIs. If YOU were there as a soldier at that time, and saw these people engaged in these activites, what would YOU do? Plead with them to stop? Tell them their constitutional rights and then advise them that they were under arrest? Or.....blow their f'g heads off before they could blow your f'g head off (which is what the real American soldiers did, I wasn't there, too young, but my father-in-law, 101st Airborne, with 2 purple hearts and a bronze star was, and he told me what it was like not knowing if the GI talking to you was a friend or someone ready to kill you, so whatever we can do to eliminate these people, I'm all for it. If you don't like that, then take off for Tibet and become a monk.
Here's the Ministry of Propaganda's Terrorist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5PRLuRNZB0
So now you want a Presidential power that allows the POTUS to assassinate "Terrorists" without Due Process? Now I see why you're for this...
Biden (THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) AGREED with the commentator that the Tea Party (Millions of Americans) are Terrorists.
Of course you Obama minions don't see a problem here!
Oh and here's the clear and concise response from The Great Leaders office: http://www.breitbart.tv/abcs-jake-tapper-challenges-carney-on-legality-awlaki-killing/
Ron Paul is the only way out of this insanity.
Hummmmmmmmm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Great Intellectual Question !~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?"
BUT it's mute for Anwar al-Awlaki isn't it ...... he's already dead !
The article implies that the "executive branch" might do so legally ... I disagree that anyone, other then a elected President by executive order should make that decision legally.
The idea that the United States can simply saying "Enemy Combatant" can assassinate its citizens capriciously is against every tenet we stand for ... Buzzzzz words like this are dangerous beyond reason.
"One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" ....
Was Anwar al-Awlaki a "enemy combatant?" How could you or I possibly know? In days past, I accepted the word of my government ............ not anymore, they have lied to often, and I mistrust them!
It's difficult for me to believe that Anwar al-Awlaki represented any real treat to the United States as a combatant, BUT he did represent a threat as a propagandist & a organizer, and that along with the desire to punish anyone who thinks Anti American thoughts, needs to be taught a lesson.
The death of Anwar al-Awlaki, will have a impact .... on each of us .... it could be any of us next, if we speak out or resist ......
I think the issue here is the definition of "due process." If the intelligence agencies confirmed the threat, the White House lawyers reviewed the data, and the President approved it, there is a process. I think our government has an established process and several reviews before clearing the CIA to kill someone. It's not like some rogue agent just decided to drop a bomb, or the President decided on his own to take this guy out. There IS a process.
This is good news and not debatable in my opinion! But I wonder how many posters on this blog would feel the same way if GW Bush was the President responsible?
Hi, I am the Easter Bunny...nice to meet you. Yea I am sure he claimed a lot of things.
Nothing new here folks now move along, please. Ask Bonnie Parker, Clyde Barrow, Marvin Barrow, Lester Gillis, Charles Floyd, John Dillinger, Kate Barker, Fred Barker, Homer Van Meter, Tommy Carroll, Eddie Green, John Hamiliton (Canadian). Charles Makley, Ford Bradshaw, Al Brady, Herman Lamm, and Wilbur Underhill. All criminals, all killed without a trial. The only difference is with a Predator drone they don't get the chance to resist arrest and start shooting back. BOO FN HOO.
Horse@!$%#. Time to cut out the crack pipe, dude.
I see the pro-lifers are out in full force on this question.
During the US Civil War, the US government killed tens of thousands or more US citizens without a trial. Its called "war". End of discussion. Case closed. This forum should spend its time discussing more practical and realistic questions.
If you are 4 points shy of genius, and you just said THAT, then "genius" (for you) means your goal is an IQ of 85
Since these people are just as much a constant and immediate danger as a guy holding a gun on a cop, I see no issue here. Maybe we should put the drone pilot on paid administrative leave until it's proven to be a "good shot." I think he deserves a nice vacation.
This jerk has been an especial embarrassment to me, because he comes from my home state. Good riddance, and when he found out there were no virgins waiting for him- Priceless.
So, basically, the President is allowed to order the assassination of people with no questions asked.
Make sure to let his buddy Major Hassan know.
It's wrong imo for the American government to invade other countries and tell them this is the way they have to live and do things. America does not rule the world and this is whay so many countries hate and despise America and the American people.
We had no right to invade Iraq, Bush and Cheney fed the people lies to create this war and they should be in prison for war crimes.
America government has blood on their hands just as much as these terrorists do. It was America that created the mess in Central America by teaching and arming the Gorilla's there.
Our government brought all this hate to the rest of us in America, and it's time to clean these corrupt politicians out of government once and for all.
So, the next murderer to go on trial now has a big loophole of an excuse to justify his murder, and get away scot-free... "I suspected he was a terrorist, so I killed him." Oops, we can't argue with that one, he was just doing his civic duty!
We have lots of enemies whom we could apply this same "assassination" action towards, from South Korea to Iran, to certain South American nations. This is simply over the top.
Now that we've committed two assassinations, we have begun an activity that we would be hard pressed to then prosecute should our enemies choose to act against our leaders.
You can believe you are wearing the white hat all you like, liberals have been screaming that we deserved to be attacked because we are the aggressor nation. Now those same liberals are completely silent.
This is wrong for us to do, and it is wrong for others. Assassination is not ok, not ever, at least not in a civilized world. We act like them, we become them.
During World War II many German Americans went to Germany to fight against the United States. The U.S. made no distinction between them and regular German soldier either in the theatre of operations or in P.O.W camps. Furthermore, how many thousands of Americans did the U.S. government kill during the Civil War without due process? The fact that we should not target a legitimate enemy of the United States in a legitimate theatre of operations during a legitimate military mission is absurd simply because he/she hold U.S. citizenship is absurd. If he is going to take up arms against the United States then he will be dealt with as an enemy of the United Statesin the theatre of war regardless of his citizenship status.
Ruled justifiable homicide. Obama is cleaning up a mess left by our former president and vice-president.
Kudos for our military and its Commander. Keep up the good work.
If some lunatic goes on a shooting spree in downtown LA the police can't shoot him dead then because he will have to go through "due process"?!?
Is the mastermind of a criminal act not guilty because he didn't pull the trigger?!?
So we shouldn't also kill a terrorist planning attacks on US CITIZENS just BECAUSE is he a US citizen himself?!?
All you who think the government can't, please answer this theoretical question. "What who you think if he succeeded in committing a terrorist attack and killing someone you love in the process?"
Those of you morons who feel "a little bit safer" because of this murder are deaf, dumb, blind and as stupid as any block of wood.
You are now subject to being killed if someone accuses you of having made certain kinds of statements, and no proof or trial will be necessary. You are not the least bit "safer" becaue of this murder. You are in infinitely more danger because it is now "precedent" that the courts have no say about the constitutionality of the constitution's "due process" clause, which by the way, all you deaf as a post ignoramusses out there, applies to every PERSON, not just to citizens.
The U.S, Constitution explicitly PROHIBITS a BILL OF ATTAINDER, which is, effectively, A LAW AGAINST BEING SOME PARTICULAR PERSON. Contrary to what that Judge ruled, the Constitution does NOT leave an issue like this in the hands of the "political branches" (i.e., the not-the-courts branches, i.e., congress and the president, i.e., the "It's not my table" excuse for being ignored by a waiter or a judge engaged in judicial hand-washing.)
"Bill of Attainder: a legislative act finding a person guilty of treason or felony without a trial."
Bills of Attainder are expressly prohibited by the United States Constitution. If this murder was not a clear violation of the United States Constitution, then nothing is. There is no Constitution any more. All of us who swore to defend and protect it have been made fools of. Those of you still in uniform are fighting for nothing. You're wasting your lives and risking your blood for a gang of thieves who have stolen the franchise and trampled upon it. If we don't uphold our own laws and principles then the entire government isn't worth a warm bucket of spit, nevermind the value of the office of the vice-pretender-in-chief.
So Congress can't pass a Bill of Attainder, but the President can dictate one into existence? Tyranny.
We already live under tyranny.
All you ignorant people praising this action are stupid and bloody. You aren't, all of you put together, worth a single clause in the Bill of Rights, and I will never again risk my life to protect the worm-eaten rag that you yourselves give lip-service to all while caring not a whit about what it says.
I CARED about what it SAYS. I CARE about what it says. But it's been turned into trash, and all you posting here that you approve of this trampling on the U.S. Constitution have turned it into trash every bit as much as the politicians and the queer judges that have spit all over it have.
There's nothing left in it to respect any more. Don't ask me to. You've all sickened me with your deafness, and I've caught it from you. Go ahead and cry. But don't come crying to me.
--JOHN
This pretender has shown that the one and only thing he can do successfully is to commit murder.
And the most nauseating aspect of it is that there are many of those out there who praise him for it.
It would seem then that the pre-election rumors that this creepy churl had been a paid assassin for the CIA were true. That was the explanation given for the fact that nothing whatsoever is known about his history between high school and the senate, that there are no records of his comings and goings, no birth certificate (mock on, you gullible suckers, since he's had plenty of time to forge one and it cannot ever mean anything now. If he could have so easily shown it back in 2008, he would have, and there is no other possible rational excuse for not having done so EXCEPT that the forgery had not yet been so perfected that it was unassailable) no college records (which is beyond jaw-dropping astonishing when the man was supposedly the EDITOR of . . . the Harvard Law Journal??? And not one written word from this person--NOT ONE WORD--but the tripe that was ghost-written for him by Bill Ayers (there is sound technological linguistic proof of that, by the way) and his own one-sided account of his relationship with a man he never much knew (nither verified nor contradicted by the one living relative who was bound and gagged and seen off to her grave in the most remarkably convenient and coincidental pre-election timing after a very carefully controlled isolation from contact with any other human being?????), but we have the testimony of a pilot who said that he saw this man on his way to Africa to conduct an assassination for the CIA (which apparently did not happen). Every known thing about this man is consistent with the life of a paid CIA assassin, including all the gymnastic back-bending that everyone in government did to keep his secrets secret.
Murder. His only demonstrated skill.
Such an act does now very much seem to be right down his alley. Does it not?.
And legions of bloody sycophants to cheer it on.
Sickening. Disgusting. Revolting. Turning of the stomach retching vomitous filth to prove the scripture true:
"The wicked walk on every side when the vilest men are exalted."
The saddest part of it is that you voters have all gotten just what you deserve. Whoever you voted for.
You're CHEERING this?
Yuck! You. All of you.
How is it when the article was posted there were 30 comments and all were praising this violation of the constitution? Media brainwashing the sheeple.
John, treason requires due process.
He is not an enemy combatant. He is a US Citizen. To be considered an enemy combatant he must
1. Be in uniform.
2. Have payment from.
3. Commit action against.
4. Be in an Active War Zone.
To translate for all you kill lovers. We send a Black Opps unauthorized into a country and whacked a US citizen.
Do you think it would take much to do that to someone here? Read about the supermax prison trains, concentrtion camps, body bags and other items staged for the day when they say..goodbye libs.
Right now it is like watching the mouse cheer that the cat ate his brother and not him...while they are all locked in the same room.
When you all wake up after it is too late and the Constitution, which is the only thing separating you from being communist, is burnt....enjoy the dreams of nostalgia.
Ask Pat Tillman if it is legal to kill a US citizen oversea without due process.
Do any one of you have any proof of his guilt, except what you've been told by the government?
If so, please provide it.
It appears?? Would you like it if this was the prosecution's evidence for assassinating you or one of your children or family? Protest is freedom of speech in this country. [ OK this particular SOB probably deserved it ]
Also, you aren't allowed to kill somebody for trying to escape arrest in this country, unless you aim a gun or something similar at the arresting officer, threatening his/her life.
Be careful, you may be next!
Politicians and career desk jockeys can do anything they want. We have drones and video games. In NY our chief of police has his own private 'take a jet down' battery pack along with installed International spy ring. Active telephone probes can listen into your conversation at whim. Hey bush, Carlyle building in California? They are worried about model airplanes in private hands because they themselves know what they do daily with theirs. We have the likes of erik prince, dick cheney, and bush. When you cheat on your wife all your thoughts wonder whether she is cheating on you as well. (goose gander). Democracy run amok. I don't care whether this guy was an American, terrorist or purple. The US government and our military apparatus have long overstepped their legal boundaries. This is what happens when democracy and capitalism run out of control, untethered fraud and corruption.
If I take up arms against my own people, then I deserve to be next. You all need to stop acting like they picked a name out of a hat and killed him just for thrills. This was a man who was, at the very least, encouraging people to murder innocent civilians. Not military personnel, not politicians, but people just like me and you. Is it some misguided sense of goodness or a deep seated self-loathing based self-destructive desire that is guiding your thought process? I only ask because you are speaking out on behalf of a man who would sooner have you killed in front of your children in a grotesque fashion than to give you the time of day.
This type of thing is nothing new. This has been policy throughout 2 world wars. If an American went to fight as an enemy combatant (and it has happened), he was treated as an enemy combatant would be when he was encountered...regardless of where it was. Where there is an enemy combatant there is a chance for hostilities. And they are killed on the spot.
Hosfac,
NO. You are wrong. I am not speaking on behalf of nobody but for myself.
Just like you can not speak on behalf of me but strictly from your own mental constructs. It is however good to ask questions all the while looking in a mirror. Self-destructive? Please, try to be constructive in your speech with me.
READ my statement once again, without injecting your own hatred. Peter said,"Democracy run amok. I don't care whether this guy was an American, terrorist or purple." A government can not turn arms on its own people yet does all the time. If a government does this FOR ANY REASON then you may be next when values change yet again. Military should stay at home and defend not attack in other countries. What part of that do you not understand? Please tell so that I may explain my reasoning for you again.
"Can we" versus "should we" is really a whole set of questions...
Can we legally (and morally) kill a U.S. citizen OVERSEAS without due process? Should we?
Can we legally (and morally) kill citizens IN THE U.S. even with due process? Should we?
Can we legally (and morally) kill non-U.S. citizens anywhere? Should we?
So killing someone legally (and morally) comes down to where they happen to be born? or who they last pledged allegiance to? oe where they are that day?
So killing someone in someone else's sovereign state has no bearing?
What do YOU think? What would a lawyer say? How about your mother? What would your Jesus (or equivalent) say?
My personal take is that we've crossed a dangerous line in fighting terrorism. We first crossed it under Bush and have somehow justified continuing to do so.
Is there a high road here? Do we even know where it is?
And most important... do we even care?
Thanks Marc. Refreshing questions which should be asked and answered so that we may chose the right path for democracy and not tyranny.
They broke the law! get that through your stupid head! it doesn't matter at all if he was the devil himself. it is against the law for the government to take someone's life -- commit murder -- without due process of law.
The constitution explicitly prohibits a bill of attainder. "Bill of Attainder: an legislative act declaring a person guilty of treason or felony without a trial."
This was the moral and legal equivalent of a Bill of Attainder--a thing odious to a free and just people and against the constitution.
Get that though your stupid heads people! It was a violation of the constitution to kill that man! It doesn't matter who he was. you cannot compare that to killing in self defense when a man pulls a gun on you. It was cold-blooded murder! the man was a villain. Yes. I have no doubt of that. but it was cold-blooded murder to declare him a traitor without a trial and to kill him by executive fiat!
"Congress shall pass no ex-post facto law nor bill of attainder." The idea was odious to those who founded this now clearly dead idea of a just government of the people.
If your government can violate the constitution then you are all dead men walking.
Get that through your stupid heads all you idiot moronic stupid dim-witted brainless infantile vengeance-spewing cretins who are cheering an unconstitutional act of cold-blooded murder!
You are
YOU are
YOU ARE as guilty of trampling on the constitution as you accuse that man of being!
How can you be so abominably stupid! You are now as guilty of treason as he was!
You are championing a violation of the constitution, an execution justified by a de facto "Bill of Attainder" that was passed, signed, and ruled constitutional by one, sole branch of government, the executive, which has no legislative nor judicial authority!
You gaggle of stupid mindless brain-dead fools! You are cheering the death and permanent disappearance of the United States of America from the face of the earth!
You despots! You lawless monsters! You traitorous betrayers of everything that you fancy yourselves to be protecting.
You stupid mindless idiots!
Now you DESERVE the gulag that's being prepared for you. Choke on that thought for a while!
NOT IN MY NAME! I WILL NO LONGER CLAIM YOUR RAG AS MY AUTHORITY OR GIVE IT MY ALLEGIANCE.
FROM NOW ON MY RIGHTS COME FROM GOD ALONE, AND TO HELL WITH THE GOVERNMENTS OF MEN. ALL OF THEM.
MURDERERS! HOW THE GREAT CITY HAS BECOME A HARLOT! ONCE RIGHTEOUSNESS LODGED IN HER!
BUT NOW,
MURDERERS!
MURDERERS!
You either support the US Constitution or you DO NOT...
Even the POTUS does do have the authority to pick and choose which Articles, they can IGNORE...
There are even POTUS EOs that make ASSASSINATIONS ILLEGAL...
When you start breaking your own laws, with NO ACCOUNTABILITY, then you are no better than those you have targeted for DEATH...
When a person goes against his country the way he did I don't give a damn if he had been corn feed in Iowa, you lost your rights as an American, so if you happen to fall within the cross hairs and happen to be terminated, SO BE IT ......
gary root rambling incoherent claims about this POS, apparently has not followed up on this POS activity or listen what this POS have said.
Rick: I've queried this in an earlier post and have had no response.
Please provide the proof of his guilt, other than what you've "heard" from the government.
There is ample precedent for the U.S government killing it's own citizens without "due process" when they act as enemy combatants, it's called the American Civil War. There is nothing illegal about killing enemy combatants.
dan42day: I will ask again. Please provide proof he was an "enemy combatant".
Those of you who are crying for blood just because the government says it's so, and without being proven, are reminiscent of barbaric lynch mobs.
When will the human race ever evolve into a higher level?
There are no higher levels. This is it.
Personally, I don't think you would accept anything as proof so why bother gathering it for you? I do, however, believe the government acted in good faith.
Governments lead mobs, not the other way around. We give them the authority to act either through law or de facto in our best interest. I think your idealism is more dangerous to public safety than any President who uses sound judgement to reduce a threat to the general populace.
Hook, line and sinker Jimmy. You swallowed the entire spiel.
TARP, lies into Iraq, has the government revealed to you yet why we are in AfPak? Pork Barreling, no line-item vetoes in legislation, still think representative government speaks for you? Shall I go on?
Jimmy, the government represents the interests of corporations which are pieces of paper from which the elite hind behind. Ever wonder why there are A class shares and B class shares? Let me explain it to you in a simpler way. Imagine a pyramid. We are at the bottom 85%, the government is a thin controlling layer, which according to you "Governments lead mobs, not the other way around." and then there are the benefited ones who hold the A shares in private banks such as the 'federal reserve'.
Imajenny, you're really going to turn this into a left-wing anti-corporate rant? I think I'll let you dodge the issue, build your straw man, and dance around it naked. Have fun!
"We give them the authority to act either through law or de facto in our best interest"
JimTN: What la la land are you living in? "We"? Who's "We"? Are you referring to the corporations and wealthy individuals who actually run this country?
Who's responsible for bringing this country to its knees? You? Is that what you voted for?
Wake up out of that opium field; you're not in Kansas anymore.
I guess the one you are dissatisfied to be living in. Not my fault you don't like it. Perhaps we should change it to the dictatorship of Debi? Would that make you happy?
"We" as in the citizens of the United States. Do you really not know?
They are citizens as well. Should they be denied the rights you have? Oh wait, I get it. You are really just jealous and angry and this is some form of sarcasm. Gotcha.
I don't remember the referendum that came around for that. Do you have a bill number or anything?
I passed through there once. I know I left it because I'm not there now.
"They are citizens as well."
When's the last time a corporation had a colonoscopy, Jim? Until that happens, corporations will never be "people" and the Supreme Court declaring it, doesn't make it true.
"There are no higher levels. This is it."
Ignorance appears to be bliss.
Debi, have you ever seen a corporation run without people? You also mentioned the wealthy so now your nit picking what I say and your own statements to fit your agenda. Give it up, you don't stand a chance against me, you just don't have the brains for it.
You're correct Jim, I guess I just don't have the brains to recognize that cars are required to be run by people too, but you wouldn't classify a car as people.
But then again, maybe I'm wrong again; maybe you would.
Again, you don't get it and now you are throwing logical fallacies at me in a desperate defense. A car isn't made up of people. If you think a corporation is not made up of people, what is it you are afraid of? Is the building lobbying for it's rights? Is it the company charter oppressing you?
Which is it? Is is the corporations that are not made up of people or is it the wealthy that are not made up of people? You defeat yourself with your own argument.
"Is the building lobbying for it's rights? Is it the company charter oppressing you?"
Impossible Jim; again, buildings and company charters are not people.
Quite simple. He was actively plotting attacks from overseas. Not exactly the best place for cops with guns and badges to make an arrest. Besides, it saved the taxpayer the expense of libtard pandering with a trial.
Nope, just rejection of ivory tower libtardism that elevates the life of enemy towelheads over those of the innocent unborn fetus. A reminder of how @!$%#ked-up their priorities really are.
"He was actively plotting attacks from overseas."
harrybrown: I know it's just one of those little messy details people hate to be bothered with, but has proof of your statement been proven in a court of law, just as our Constitution covering American citizens prescribes? Or does the Constitution only apply to some, depending on the rumor and where the information came from?
Debi you seemed to be confused.
You posit that corporations and wealthy individuals run the country, but claim they are neither people nor are they made up of people and even if they were made up of people they shouldn't have the same rights as you. I think you skipped your meds this morning.
Debi: little messy detail.... proven in court of law. Look up in the internet yourself Debi what he preached and advocate. Can you prove that he didn't preach violence. During world war 2, many German-American went back to Germany and fought for Hitler and many Japanse-American went back to Japan to fight against US. Although they are American citizen, it's their choice to fight against The US and get killed. The Constitution protects US citizen but once a citizen takes up arm against the US is a different matter. Every country in the world have laws pertaining it's own citizen takes up arm against his own country and 99% the penalty is death. He is not #1 or # 2 US citizen to die in a conflict. Just prove to all of us here that he didn't advocate or preach mayhem to American citizen.
"Every country in the world have laws pertaining it's own citizen takes up arm against his own country and 99% the penalty is death. He is not #1 or # 2 US citizen to die in a conflict. Just prove to all of us here that he didn't advocate or preach mayhem to American citizen"
wyriz, you are a brainless ass. YOU AND YOUR ILK HAVE NEVER PROVEN THAT HE DID! WOULD THAT YOU HAD! Because it would change everything. But without having presented your proof in a court of law, you have become party to a COLD-BLOODED MURDER. NOT IN MY NAME. I DENOUNCE EVERYONE WHO HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS MURDER!
I do not wish to be part of "your" country if that's what your country can give itself permission to do. I will never be loyal to the things that you stand for if that is any part of what you stand for.
Even YOU know enough to know that LAWS have something to do with this. OUR LAWS prohibit the taking of life-for God's sake, they prohibit the taking of PROPERTY!--WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW. The LAW explicitly PROHIBITS a BILL OF ATTAINDER. "Bill of Attainder: a legislative act declaring a person guilty of treason or felony without a trial." IT IS ILLEGAL IN THIS COUNTRY TO DECLARE A CITIZEN (OR ANY PERSON) GUILTY of committing a crime by government FIAT! Our government BROKE THE LAW! Broke ITS OWN LAW! OUR GOVERNMENT DID NOT PROVE THIS MAN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW, JUST SKIPPED THE TRIAL AND WENT STRAIGHT TO THE EXECUTION.
In 99% of cases the penalty is death and right or wrong people will accept that WHEN THE PENALTY IS LAWFUL. BUT MURDER IS NOT A LAWFUL PENALTY FOR BEING ACCUSED OF A CRIME ABSENT A TRIAL AND A CONVICTION.
And in THIS country IT USED TO BE THE LAW that the burden of proof was upon the ACCUSER, not on the ACCUSED!
Yet you are ignorantly assuming that the burden of proof is on the accused. You have the IGNORANT GALL to demand that someone show you proof of his INNOCENCE? It doesn't matter at all what kind of person that accused man was. WE CANNOT RESPECT THE LAW UNLESS THE LAW IS WORTHY OF OUR RESPECT! THAT is the issue here. NOTHING ELSE! THERE WAS NO TRIAL! HOW CAN YOU NOW ARROGANTLY DEMAND TO SEE ANY PROOF OF ANY KIND?
Whether he was an innocent bystander or the devil himself, you have just given the government your blessing for putting YOU, wyriz, in front of a firing squad just as soon as you can't PROVE that you are innocent of some reckless accusation.
You, wyriz, are a traitor, because you have cheered the trampling of the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder and its inflexible requirement of due process of law. You, wyris, are a traitor therefore, because YOU HAVE BEEN ACCUSED of being a traitor. That means that YOU can be MURDERED WITHOUT A TRIAL under the rules that YOU are applauding.
YOU have betrayed the constitution. Now you've got five minutes to PROVE that you never intended to harm me. Then the government has your permission --YOUR permission, Jackass!--to blow your head off because of my wild and reckless accusation! (Which, I sincerely hope, dear GOD!, that everyone understands was not made in earnest, but farcically and facetiously simply to illustrate the very, very greasiness of the steep slope upon which we all now stand with the pit of death at it's edge! Thanks to a certain stupid murdering jackass! Jackass! JACKASS!)
You stupid ass. Can you see it NOW? I PUT MYSELF IN GRAVE DANGER OF BEING ACCUSED OF SOMETHING OF WHICH I AM COMPLETELY INNOCENT JUST TO PRY YOUR STUPID EYES OPEN, WYRIZ, BECAUSE I SINCERELY DO NOT WISH THAT ANY HARM SHOULD COME TO YOU. QUITE ON THE OTHER HAND. I'M TRYING TO ALERT YOU TO THE VERY DANGEROUS STATE OF AFFAIRS INTO WHICH YOU ARE BLINDLY AND WILLINGLY GOING. CAN YOU SEE IT NOW?
If we don't follow our own laws, we have no right to demand that others do. How could any honorable person obey a commander in chief who has ignored the Constitution and gone criminally beyond his authority to commit an unlawful murder? I cite the principle that was established at the Neuremburg trials in my defense. No, I will not go with you when you go there. I WILL NOT GO WITH YOU. I will never follow any "orders" from a MURDERING thug! This event is the END of THAT chain of command. I WILL NOT JOIN WITH THE MAJORITY TO COMMIT A MURDER! I'M GONE. I'M OUT OF IT. IT'S YOUR GOVERNMENT NOW AND YOU CAN HAVE IT.
ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID THAT YOU CAN'T SEE THAT THAT MURDERING JACKASS HAS JUST GIVEN EVERY FOREIGN GOVERNMENT PERMISSION TO EXECUTE AMERICANS UPON A MERE ACCUSATION OF HOSTILE INTENT? It doesn't bother you that now Iran can drag you out of your home and put a bullet through your head for saying something negative about their government's legitimacy? It doesn't matter to you that now communist China can drag you out of your bed and put a bullet through your head for speaking out against communism?
Because WHETHER YOU SEE IT OR NOT, that is the precedent this stupid murderous ass in the white house has just established.
ARE YOU REALLY SO STUPID THAT YOU CAN'T SEE THAT THE MURDERING JACKASS HAS JUST GIVEN OUR OWN GOVERNMENT PERMISSION TO MURDER YOU WITHOUT PROVING YOUR GUILT?
You stupid ass.
We no longer stand for the rule of law among the nations of this world. Tragic. Horrifying. A descent into wicked decadence and lawless tyranny. The end of all the "best country on earth" nonsense. This is the camel's straw, the end of the "nation of law, and not of men," the end of decency, the end of civil rights.
The end of the world.
You stupid ass.
wyriz: It's not up to you or me to decide what he did or didn't do. That's what our courts are for.
Otherwise, we go back to the time of the lynch mob. They felt their way of justice was valid also.
And by the way, just a suggestion, don't believe everything you see or read on the internet. It's too easy to get fooled.
No confusion on my part, Jim.
Individuals are people; corporations are shells, or "artificial" people:
"corporation n. an organization formed with state governmental approval to act as an artificial person to carry on business..."
TheFreeDictionary
Bottom line, the wealthy control the country.
John3078515, comment #1.139
Why would you call Wyriz an ass and stupid? You are an ASS.
Why don't you move to Pakistan. You must be a foreigner. Not a U.S. citizen for taking a side against the actions of America, which I might remind you, we are engaged in a war. A war against Islamic Terrorists. We will continue to seek out the enemy where ever they might be and kill them. I'm proud of our military for protecting us from the evil of Islam. Are you a Muslim, or just a sympathizer? Why don't you call the United Nations and lodge a formal complaint. Maybe try Amnesty International. Quit your crying you bleeding heart liberal. What chance did Islamic terrorists give Daniel Pearl. I guess cutting his head off was perfectly fine with you. Bye the way John, the Chinese Government can do what ever they want to it's citizens or foreign citizens, as well as the Iranian government. It would figure that you would try to compare America to those to countries. You are the stupid one. If you are an American citizen then maybe you should go on record and denounce your citizenship. If you are not then maybe you should mind your own business and start writing your letters of protest to the U.N. and Amnesty International.
YOU MAKE ME SICK!!!!!!
John3078515,
Chew on this for a little while.
Even by 14th Amendment standards (“All person born or naturalized in the United States, andsubject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”[Emphasis added]), his status as an American citizen was questionable. Both of his parents were Yemeni nationals who never established a permanent domicile here, according to the standard established by SCOTUS in United States v Wong Kim Ark.
When his father completed his university studies here in 1978, 7 year old Anwar returned to Yemen with his parents. At some point during that time, his father became the Agricultural Minister of Yemen and in 1991 Anwar returned to the U.S. to study at the University of Colorado. But he did so with a scholarship from Yemen – along with a Yemeni visa. In light of the fact that (a) Yemen does not recognize dual citizenship, (b) children born abroad of Yemeni citizens must obtain special permission to be declared citizens, and (c) only Yemeni citizens are granted Yemeni passports, it follows that Anwar Al-Awlaki effectively renounced his U.S. citizenship – even if, according to U.S. law, he did not.
His subsequent history as a self-proclaimed – and actively engaged – enemy of the United States is well-documented and needs no repeating here. Awlaki was a proud member of al-Aqaida who got what was coming to him yesterday. Rest in pieces.
Did I mention that YOU MAKE ME SICK!!
Information provided by...BullDog Pundit.
JimTN-3229159
Explains it all jimminycricket... Static in life are we?
Sure, why not. If you can not see how they are connected I can not help you. In a static mind things are not connected. Compartmentalize issues for others all the while sewing your personal agenda thread. Very old strategy. jimmy, you are not invited to our naked dance tonight. Bad boy.
You remind me of that bully in grade school.
Adj.
1.
self-aggrandizing - of or relating to or characteristic of self-aggrandizement
self-aggrandising
2.
self-aggrandizing - exhibiting self-importance; "big talk"
boastful, braggart, bragging, braggy, cock-a-hoop, crowing, self-aggrandising,
Debi
At least now you recognize your error and are willing to go back to the original argument and this time you eliminate the "corporations" part and stick with the wealthy. That I can agree with, however they still have the same rights as you, just more influence with those who want what they have. You don't have it and are jealous of it and are willing to deny the wealthy their rights instead of limiting their influence. Denying them their rights is hypocritical while limiting their influence is smart.
So let's go back to what you originally had a problem with, ""We give them the authority to act either through law or de facto in our best interest." "We" includes all of us, even corporations, who live under the law. If you don't feel like you're a part of the "We the People" then only you can fix that. We have these things called "elections" every year at the federal, state, and local level. If you don't feel you are a part of the "We" then vote to make a change. If you feel your vote doesn't matter and you can affect no change, why are you still here? Obviously, you accept not being a part of the "We."
Imagine,
And you say I remind you of a grade school bully. Your nicknames don't offend me, if that is what you are shooting for, it's very Sarah Palin.
Connected in the same way everything is connected and yet we still call these deflections "straw men." You are moving the topic to what you feel more comfortable arguing about and then claim I'm doing that very thing to you. A very old strategy, kid. Look! I can subtlety belittle people just like you now I just need to be hypocritical about it and I'm your clone! Neat, I already am. Right out of the Michelle Bachman's Strategies for Winning playbook!
I wasn't self-aggrandizing as much as I was noticing Debi's inadequacies. I don't have to lift myself up to look down at her. (Besides, on the original issue I actually agree with Debi and I have stated this elsewhere on this thread.)
Now, now Jimmy, the nicknames are terms of endearment. While,
is NOT and against COH.
I do like the 'kid' though. Made me feel younger. Thanks. You gave my face a smile this morning.
You are so wrong. I have no need to belittle you. You misconstrue calling out facts, based on words from your own mouth, with belittlement. Belittle is what you did with Debi and it was uncalled for and you continue. Bad boy bully, no naked dancing for you tonight.
And, static in mind, we do it again.
And again, Imagine, you deflect off the issue and would rather talk about me. You are loaded with logical fallacies. I must have you scared. What I said about Debi is not against the COH, it is just a statement of fact. It neither belittles her nor does it aggrandize me. Recognizing observed weakness is just an observation, don't kill the messenger. Now if it was untrue, that would be a different story.
Oh wow. You are now the bearer of truth. OK. Jimmy says,
And Imagine says originally, TARP, lies into Iraq, has the government revealed to you yet why we are in AfPak? Pork Barreling, no line-item vetoes in legislation, still think representative government speaks for you? Shall I go on?
Jimmy, the government represents the interests of corporations which are pieces of paper from which the elite hind behind. Ever wonder why there are A class shares and B class shares? Let me explain it to you in a simpler way. Imagine a pyramid. We are at the bottom 85%, the government is a thin controlling layer, which according to you "Governments lead mobs, not the other way around." and then there are the benefited ones who hold the A shares in private banks such as the 'federal reserve'.
Now, lets have a talk about my original post. Wait a minute, how is this deflecting again?
Debi-doo, why are you defending an enemy towelhead who is engaged in terrorist activity overseas? The Constitution doesn't mean jack @!$%# overseas. I really don't care where he was born. Get a clue. But here it is for you again IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
WE DON'T CARE WHERE HE WAS BORN.
Got it?
Did I shout loud enough? You aren't deaf are you?
~
And if we have to do it again, we'll do it again. In spite of bleeding-heart libtard protestations
Oh please show me my logical fallacies. I beg. Show me ONE!
Of your greater than life image in the mirror, yes! I am shaking.
Yes it is when you at first threaten her with your 'superior brain power' then belittle her with a personal attack.
You are basing this observed weakness from which point of view? Yours?
Debi-1314897
Sounds to me Debi has a better grasp on our economic reality then you do.
When you undermine the structuring pillars of our Nation then the house will come tumbling down. No shouting necessary.
And this is about "Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?" Did the government send you a secret memo about why we are in Afghanistan and Pakistan without sending it to anyone else? Do you know the "real" reason? Do I need my tinfoil hat for this one?
I'm against pork barreling, I'm for line-item veto's, I'm against the REINS Act, I'm against Executive Orders acting outside the law or used to create law and thus bypassing Congress, I'm against a President killing US citizens without due process since it is an apparent violation of Articles V, VI, XIV, and possibly IX, but yea, I do think in this instance the government acted in good faith. I never said they always do. You manipulated and broadened my statement so it fits your straw man agenda. Yes, I do think the government speaks for me and I don't believe they always act the way I want them to, what would your alternative be to government or do you just like to spout anti-corp rants?
The purpose of government is to bring order out of anarchy. It doesn't always work as intended, expected, or fluidly and I never suggested it did. I only described the intent. You, however, are nothing but a Kah and Mullins disciple who believes in fairy tales.
Harrybrown1886
Yea, it does. The Constitution protects US citizens at home and abroad. It even protects foreign nationals within our borders which is why they do their water boarding and torture on foreign nationals outside our territory. You guys focus too much on the particular person killed and not enough on the act itself. This sets a dangerous precedent. Would you really want to see President Michelle Bachman with this kind of power? That terrifies me. The President can't even wiretap someone without a warrant. He cannot do it by Executive Order or even in cases of National Security, this has already been established. Yet here we are, allowing him to just write out an order to have a person who is protected by the Constitution killed without any check, such as due process, to that power. I don't want anyone in office with that kind of power, Republican, Democrat, or other. I'm not arguing to protect this guy, I'm arguing to protect us all.
My problem with Debi was that she kept spouting "prove it" and then going off on some anti-corporate thing which has nothing to do with this. It is a childish argument. Proving this guy hated America or was planning to blow something up is not the point. Due process and Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (presumption of innocence) is. The burden of proof is on the President, not us who agree and disagree, and he must show that there was a clear and present danger of imminent harm and the only way to prevent it was with this guy's death.
ImagineAllThePeople
In direct response to Jimmy's misplaced faith in government,
IATP questioned if Jimmy still felt represented by the government's good faith. READ! Didn't you say you were superior than Debi?
My questions were not affirmations Jimmy. You might need your tinfoil Jimmy. I do have a right to respond to any misguided opinion expressed on the Vine Jimmy.
However, your conversation with Debi regarding paper people vs real people was absolutely on topic.
OH Jimmy, just when I thought you could play the rules, there you go again calling people names with no proof what so ever. Now I am really scared of that brain power you mentioned previously.
Hmm, 'to bring order out of anarchy.' How is that working for you? (READ, it is a question)
OK Jimmy, you can take the last word now. I have had fun with you this morning. We are going for our family Sunday brunch. Cheers.
You see how nice you speak with HarryBrown. I even agree with you. I just don't agree with your treatment of Debi. You owe her an apology.
Believing someone acts in good faith in this instance is not the same as having faith in everything they do.
It was certainly implied.
I will when you start reading for comprehension.
It was her topic.
What name was that? A disciple of Kah and Mulliins? You do know they are the ones who first proposed your little Federal Reserve/stock theory, don't you? And you do know their myth was proven to be composed of half truths, unsubstantiated claims, and even contradicted its own premise, yes?
As it is currently designed. How is it working for you?
Debi treated me with hostility first; I was just reciprocating in kind. I owe her nothing.
Again you deflect off of your original post and want to argue about me. I guess that means you have nothing yet again. I'm flattered, but not impressed.
Thanks Imagine. One can only be bullied if they allow it.
After reviewing the subsequent posts of Jim and harry, their so called "patriotism" is such, that although I didn't live during that time, I can witness first hand how the then pseudo "patriots" behaved in Neanderthal fashion against those "enemies" of this country at the time, the "nig_ers", and why they were lynched and hung without Constitutional due process.
When Jim stated , "There are no higher levels. This is it." he obviously was speaking for himself and knew what he was talking about.
Though I was never bullied in my younger days, I seem to remember "bullies" fit certain patterns; usually came from highly dysfunctional homes, education was not emphasized and they wound up working at Joe's Garage for minimim wage later in life, always feeling very frustrated and inadequate.
And the beat goes on.
Debi Debi Debi, you still don't have it.
What I really meant was there were no higher life forms on this planet. We are the pinnacle. That was actually a play on the word "higher" where you are referring to a higher morality I was speaking about the evolutionary tree. The Christian religion would have you believe that when you die you achieve a morality with little effort. In Buddhist philosophy you have to work almost endlessly to achieve that higher level, called enlightenment. What I find funny about what you said to me in reply is that you immediately went on the offensive and became hostile. That to me says you have yet to achieve what it was you were hoping others would, a higher level. Your last paragraph in the above post proves that even more. You and Imagine both play the game of double standards and would rather attack me personally, ad hominem, or diverge onto straw man arguments.
If you notice, you attacked me first after I disagreed with your proposition. In my first reply I said nothing personal about you; I only replied to your arguments. Imagine did the same thing, attacked me personally first. You guys can deny it all you want and try to claim some moral high ground, but you lost it the second you replied to me. That is why I said you don't have the brains for it. Imagine just saw that and thought he could pin me in a corner with it. It is too bad he didn't scroll up further, he could have been worthy of my attentions but as it is he's just a toy i can make dance at my leisure. So, before you and Imagine call me a bully, go look at your own post.
Jim: The man doth protest too much, methinks.
I infer from your silence you admit to your hypocrisy and error. Your surrender is accepted without reservation.
Jim: If you construed my comment as silence, then you correctly assessed yourself to be at your highest level. Good luck to you.
I construed your comment as more of the same hypocrisy. The silence came from you not denying that you were a bully before I was. Good luck to you too.
No JimTN. Contrary to your popular belief, the host nation where the event took place doesn't need to recognize jack_@!$%# as far as our Constitution goes. Had the towelhead been killed inside one of the 50 states and territories, than would be one thing. But outside of that, he's fair game.
You're not gonna change my mind on this, so don't even waste your breath.
Never said they did.
Please see Reid v. Covert. "when the Government reaches out to punish a citizen who is abroad, the shield [of] the Bill of Rights...should not be stripped away just because he happens to be in another land."
Also U.S. v. Tiede as well as U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez
I don't care if I change your mind as long as you understand that legally you are wrong.
Jimmy, is surrendering that important to you? I am in total agreement with you that our constitution stands as an example for all and that legally and morally the US has no business in assassinations. I just don't agree with you calling people names on the Vine.
Yes, you do care. And I don't give a_@!$%# whether it's legally wrong or not. If we have to do it again, we'll do it again.
It is actually EXTREMELY easy to achieve enlightenment. It is EXTREMELY difficult to retain it constantly or permanently. Just let go of all attachments. Unfortunately it is difficult to recognize and acknowledge the NEXT attachment.
I didn't call anyone names Imagine, I just did a comparison between how I reacted to her post and how she reacted to mine. I do remember "bully" being tossed around haphazardly when it didn't apply to me. And yea, surrendering is important because it means the conversation is over and I'm not going to be personally attacked anymore.
Peter, that supports what I said, "work almost endlessly."
Jim, agreed. Science has been working on particle and wave theories for quite a while which appear to validate what Buddhism has been aiming for as Enlightenment and which Jesus also hinted at but which was later polluted by religion. A sublime moment (piece or particle) of love vs a continued wave of bliss.
Letting go of attachments is akin to surrendering. In the quest for enlightenment it is believed that in order to heal the darkness outside one must heal the one within. This would also render attack impossible. In martial arts the force expelled in an attack is actually recycled onto the attacker which is why defense is considered POWER and attack is considered FORCE.
BTW, I am not arguing with you. I am just adding my voice to something which interests me very much and have been a student of for practically all my life. Sorry if this is off topic. Thanks.
Here's a further response from Dr. Paul on this issue: http://ht.ly/6LPrW
And this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKfuS6gfxPY&feature=player_embedded
"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
"I am truly not that concerned about him."
- G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden's whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
Which is texas hunter-ism for "it would be a nice trophy kill but I'm not going to starve if I dont shoot it."
It wasn't in Bush's best interest to kill OBL, because then he would have to get us out of a war that was making certain people money.
Bin Laden wasn't the end game. If it was there wouldn't be terror plots still going on. Still there's an awful lot of people making money. How many folks work for the TSA now? Anybody figure out what we have to do to put an end to this stuff yet?
How about Slick Willy in 1996 being offered bin Laden's head on a platter from the Sudan and turning it down because "...he had committed no crime against America"? Check the link below for details. And before you agree that he had committed no crime against America at that time, consider all the joy (including mine) in the postings here over killing al-Alwaki who had not committed any crimes either.
And terriels, if killing OBL would have been the way of out the war for Bush, why hasn't anyone informed Obama that bin Laden is dead? Maybe people still making money on the wars? Or maybe its just more complicated when a Democrat is President than when a Republican is President?
http://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/clinton-passed-on-killing-bin-laden/
Terriels...You mean the war that is still going on that certain people are making money off of?
This is to revolution is near. What war have you seen or been in? Let me guess, 'NONE'. There is a war in America within our own streets. Become a 'COP', police officer and tell us what you go threw everyday. Who kills who? Yes a revolution is near.
Chicago, if you will read your factcheck link it specifically says that there is no credible evidence that Clinton or anyone in his administration was offered Bin Laden's head on a platter.
chicago, how many links would you like to information regarding Clinton's campaign against bin Laden and al Qaida? I just googled dozens of them in under 10 seconds. I distinctly remember one incident in particular when Clinton ordered strikes in Afghanistan against a "medicine factory" (yeah, riiiiiiiignt) because intelligence identified it as an aQ camp and munitions storage and placed bL there at the time of the strike... later intelligence revealed we missed him by one hour. Can you imagine how history would have changed if we had struck one hour earlier? Of course, by the next day the right was screaming for Clinton's head for strikes in "an ally's" territory and claiming it was all just to cover up for Monica Lewinsky (as if anyone gave a rat's @zz about THAT). So if you're going to dig up the past, at least do your research first. Otherwise, your credibility is zilch.
Obama has made pretty much those same statements, Cannibal.
The credit for getting OBL, and this terrorist and others, goes to the Navy Seals, military strategists, technicians guiding the drones, intelligence units, the men and women of the military risking their lives and performing their duty. Not the one who delivers the news, makes a speech and takes the bows.
Hey, Aggie,
The same can be said about George W. and the Afghan and Iraqi war. The credit for getting Saddam, his sons, for kicking the Taliban's butt goes to the US military, military strategists, technicians guiding the drones, intelligence units, etc., not to one who makes speaches, stands in front of a carrier and makes a compete fool of himself. Is that the point you're making? What's good for the goose is good for the gander....\
How many Aggies does it take to screw in a light bulb? Three! One to hold the bulb, one to turn on the switch, and one to stick his ginger in the socket to see if there's power. Which one are you?!?
I believe that once you become a traitor to the U.S. you can be sentenced to death.
This situation is different from that. Say you had a criminal running from the law in a tank. If we fired a missile at the tank to stop it and the perp. died, it would be legal. This character al-Awlaki, was in a foreign country, in transport with enemies to the U.S.. It is within our legal right to kill him because it was unreasonably dangerous to capture him.
we all make mistake but the press is tops at it they ment to ask HIM that question about the TWIN TOWERS how silly the press but more than that i wonder the ?
tsk tsk without his permission ??????
Confused: You do seem rather "confused". Where did I say anything about Bush deserving credit for and Saddam & Sons?? This topic is about OBL and Al Alwaki. Is it not? And your closing "joke". Ummmm...that's just too old and worn out to be insulting. But "A" for effort.
Sean: Your first paragraph comment says WHAT? "Why are we assassinating OBL and Al Alwaki again?" Huh?
I'm sure the order to take them out has been the standing order from the get go. The intelligence finds them, the military get them in the cross-hairs, the information passed along and order to "pull the trigger" is phoned in. So, yes, OBama did that part, but the sweat, risk, hours/days/months of heavy lifting credit goes to the ones who carry it out. And the same lesser credit goes for Bush regarding Saddam, etc.
Civil Liberties??? get over it! You think this guy sat around worrying that he might kill a Muslim if he blows up a plane.
Just because he was born in this country might give him citizenship, it doesn't make him an AMERICAN! Blow them all up.
I guess his parent came to the US the same way as your parent. But if we need all the
terrorist problem stop, our government should stop from killing everywhere around
the world specially in the Middle East countries. This is no smoke without fire.
@fouad-3142266
Terrorists kill for the pleasure of it, religion is just a smoke screen. What is your holier than thou solution to stop the terrorists from killing? Let me know after you come out of your drug induced fog.
The "solution" is to remove our armies from their lands, stop our funding of the Israeli war machine against Palestinians, and to remain as free and open a society as absolutely possible. Note I said possible. That means something different than "necessary."
The way you stop terrorism internationally is by being a beacon of freedom. A light unto the world if you will. It requires us to welcome the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to breathe free. If muslims are tired or poor or even yearn to breathe freedom, I guess that means them.
I can tell you what DOESN"T stop terrorists. Assassination of pro-western leaders, economic sanctions affecting children and elderly only, corrupt oil-for-food programmes, supplying warring neighboring states with biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons.
Marching armies of darkness across lands people deem holy to prop up murderously corrupt oil fief- and sheikdoms doesn't stop terrorism. Invading countries and mechanizing opium production doesn't stop terrorism. Handing terrorists control of Libyan oil fields doesn't stop terrorism.
LongtimeAmerican, you should probably get off of this forum and head to the sports or lifestyle section where your fake Americana is in better company.
Yeah, problem is if we're not the exact TYPE of 'beacon' that these people want, they'll kill us regardless of how peaceful we are. These types won't stop till all the world believes the same way they do. The same can be said for a number of groups, regardless of which religion/beliefs they may claim.
Gee, DRWHO, how is life in Fantasy Land these days?
Are you suggesting that we don't stop until the entire world believes the way YOU do?
The information I have read sourced directly from these types of guys says that they want our armies out of their holy lands and want us to end our support of Israel. I have also heard speeches from our Presidents claiming they wish to "bring" democracy to foreign nations.
I mean, do you have the ability of reason? Can you abstractly think?
thank you DRWHO1234 for telling it like it is, not how we would all like it to be to protect our frail little egos from having to admit the truth. Most of the folks posting here are utterly clueless to the facts and they don't want to know the truth.
The majority is always wrong. (Asimov)
My solution to stopping the terrorists is simple, pipe in Dr. Phil in Afghan, Iraq and Pakistan. If they don't clean up their acts, were sending Oprah, next.
I've said my two pence and I'm out of this thread after this. It's obvious that I walk amongst the zombies here. Just to sum up my rationale here people, if you have a problem you need to solve you should first identify the problem. Remember primary school when they gave you a reading problem that was replete with useless information and you had to discern the information you need from all of the other information available? Life is like that. There is a lot of information that is ancillary to a particular problem, and at worst, most of the information that you see or read about in news and information segments on TV or the web is analysis predicated on some information set.
What if the primary assumption about that information set is incorrect?
What is the problem we're describing? How do you stop terrorism? That's it isn't it? Well first you have to figure out what "terrorism" is, right? It sure would help if the "terrorists" stated what it is they are "terrorizing" people for..... Maybe terrorism means something like:
Wow! There it is! That's what terrorism means boys and girls. So these terrorists have a "goal" in mind. Now these guys have actually publicly stated numerous times what their goal is. Guess what? It's all there in black and white, plain as a daisy print for anyone to read.
The problem is that people like you don't read what you don't already agree with. You listen and watch and read analysis by pundits. In effect, you're lazy. You don't seek out information that challenges your viewpoint and so in effect you might as well masturbate instead. It has the same effect of making you feel good without you actually having to think.
It's okay if you're a machine. There are lots of rats in this maze. It's just frustrating to be the one-eyed man in the land of the blind. It's especially frustrating to be the one-eyed man in the land of the blind who think they're the ones who see.
Do a little critical thinking. Figure out where your assumptions come from. Question things. Don't be a lemming. Did you know the protests on Wall St have grown ten-fold in two weeks and are now supported by the transportation unions, teamsters, and a whole host of other people? Where is that story? What is it you're actually reading here? Is this news, opinion, or entertainment?
People don't really get that this isn't about al-Awlaki. The supreme court refused to make a ruling on the issue saying that it is reserved to the executive branch. The supreme court is supposed to make rulings regarding constitutionality of issues. Where in the constitution is the president given authority to arbitrarily declare someone an enemy combatant? Remember people this was one of the issue that had us all riled up over the Patriot Act. It seems the courts think the Patriot Act equals the constitution.
and here you are DRWHO, degrading and all high and mighty against anybody posting here that doesn't agree with you. Man are you smart!
No DUFUS he ist stating that all these people are not thinking about this issue correctly.
It is not about the man that was killed .
IT IS THE FACT THAT THIS OPENS THE DOOR FOR ANY PRESDIENT OR MEMBER OF GOVERNMENT THAT THEY DEEM (BY SOME CRITERIA THEY USE) TO KILL ANY AMERICAN THEY CHOOSE.
STOP BEING SHEEP AND SEE THE REAL ISSUE HERE.
STOP DRINKING THE KOOL-AID
All very good points. No one should feel any sympathy for those who take up arms against the United States but this action does bring up troubling issues. And people should be asking these questions:
1. Does the president have the unilateral power to execute any citizen of the United States?
2. What determines an American citizen's status as an enemy combatant?
3. Who makes that determination?
4. Is this power limited to citizens on foreign soil? (What would have prevented Clinton declaring Timothy McVeigh an enemy combatant?)
5. Where is the check and balance on this power?
It seems that courts nowadays rule in deference to the president. But in the past during the Civil War, the Supreme Court rebuked Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus and instituting military tribunals for captured civilian confederate sympathizers. This could lead us down a road that we should not go.
DRWHO1234 : fIRST REPLY WELL SAID
I garanty you and I will bet anything! if US Stops minding other people s business and use more diplomacy rather than support countries like Israel... with weapons and who knows what!
US will be free again and we will never experience another 9/11 again!
Outsiders will continue harming us because we mind too much on their business! we are more like a control freak who cant stop and doesnt know when to stop!
Do you hear Canada having problems lately? NO because they are smart and they take care of their people and they are very Diplomatic. they dont mess with any one and no one mess with them!
US loves to mess with every one and we like to do others dirty job like going to Iraq..
Constitutional principles do not apply in these circumstances. Mr. al-Awlaki voluntarily separated himself from his country and allied himself with a foreign organization that has declared war on the U.S. He actively assisted in attacks on U.S. citizens and the government. These acts strip him of constitutional protections. In the Civil War if the U.S., which considered the succeeding southern states and their citizens to still be part of the Union, had required due process in the killing of tens of thousands of Confederate soldiers slavery would still be an institution in North Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi and the other southern states. The Constitution is the framework of our government and our liberties, it is not a suicide pact.
The fact of the matter is that thousand of Confederate sympathizers were imprisoned without trial in the normal sense. They were held under similar circumstances that detainees are held at Gitmo subject to military courts. And these people who were American citizens were suspected of collaborating with Confederate soldiers in taking up arms against the Union.
The argument for acts like these today sound remarkably similar to the argument made by Lincoln for suspending habeas corpus and imprisonment without trial or due process. Interestingly enough, the 14th Amendment was passed precisely to deal with the issues of citizenship and due process.
And the question still stands; Did al-Awlaki formally renounce his citizenship? His actions against the government shouldn't be taken as a renunciation. For you could say that Timothy McVeigh and a whole host of homegrown terrorist groups on our own soil could no longer be considered citizens.
MikeJ:
Nonsense.
The Constitution is the law of the land. At least it WAS the law of the land. If our own government does not obey it, then it is worthless. Can you say "worthless"? You stupid cretin.
The issue is not who or what that man was. The issue of the RULE OF LAW.
When people like you start making excuses for violating the RULE OF LAW because the end justifies the means, then it is now clearly time for you to be in danger of being declared a traitor and in danger of being executed by the state.
It is so very clearly that time, stupid. I'm not ADVOCATING that. I'm just telling you that you have given the governemt the permission to MAKE IT that time. Why shouldn't you be the first to reap what you have sown, traitor?
Traitor to the Constitution and the rule of law. You, MikeJ.
"Congress shall pass no ex post facto law nor bill of attainder." "Bill of Attainder: a legislative act declaring a person guilty of treason or felony without a trial."
Now that a trial is no longer needed to find you, Mike, guilty of treason and deserving to be executed by fiat, have you any last words before your stupidity is brought to a screeching halt? Remember: YOU DID THIS TO YOURSELF. STUPID!
CAN YOU UNDERSTAND IT NOW, STUPID? WHEN IT IS PUT IN STARK BLACK AND WHITE AND MADE NICE AND PERSONAL FOR YOU?
Or are you still as mindless as a block of wood?
Traitor.
During the civil war 300,000 southerners were killed by northerners. Both groups were Americans. No trials were held. I guess it is ok for the government to kill americans without a trial. What is the issue?
Wrong Richard. So very wrong. You are missing a key point about the Civil War: secession.
Now can we go after our urban terrorists? The gang bangers who kill innocent people for a laugh?
We need to get rid of these killers too.
But everybody complained when the CIA brought in drugs to fan the flames and get them to kill each other. ;)
Drugs don't just affect gangs.They are destroying rural America. There's a documentary about illegal drug use that shows what drugs have done to the Kentucky and Broward County on Current tv. Give it a go before making such erroneous statements. The way I see it' the gangs are now bankers, businessmen and congressmen who have done just as much harm as the gang-bangers. Not defending them....but I'm just saying.
It would seem so wouldn't it? Call someone an enemy and exterminate them....gang bangers, tea partiers who are called terrorists, southern baptists, ..... make your own list. The precedent is now there.
Matt - I understand what you mean, but you do you prove someone is a terrorist mastermind? Bin Laden loved to throw out video tapes claiming responsibility for attacks and such, but if the guy you're investigating is playing it low-key, how do you prove he is behind something? Even if you manage to capture a soldier or a messenger, good luck getting them to talk. Chances are they might not even know who they are working for, the way some of these cells are run.
So, drone patrols with urban missile strikes on suspected laughing gang bangers. I foresee no problems there. No proof needed. No time wasted. Just explain to the gang bangers families and loved ones that their loved ones were laughing as they allegedly killed some innocent people. And we needed to "git rid of them". Law, arrest, proof, justice need not be applied. In fact if JIMFORJZS is accused to be a laughing gangbanger killing innocent people why, he/she should be summarily gotten rid of. It's only justified after all.
Yes, in an ideal world he should have been delivered to justice. However it was not practicable. Therefore the justice was delivered to him - the second best option.
By the way, according to one Danish <a href="http://evolvefish.com/comics/index.html" target="_blank">newspaper</a>, the supply of virgins has been exhausted a couple of years ago. ;-)
and according to recent re-translations of early Korans and accompanying pictures, its actually 72 grapes. (note: no smiley. Google it.)
Most religious books can be interpreted to mean just about anything you want. Read their histories.
Excellent point, PeanutGallery, though the best interpretation I have heard of the old scripts for that passage is that it referenced 72 white raisins. I, for one, am happy to buy a box of them for this clown to take into the afterlife, just in case they run out over there across the Styx. Heck, I will even throw in a bottle of water for the fellow. He will likely need it.
al-awlaki the younger was born in the U.S. of naturalize(?) citizens from Yemen. He was waging war against his native country. That would make him a traitor to his native country and therefore legal to target him for elimination! Job is done! He is dead and his parents should be ashamed to have given life to the abomination.
You can't always blame the parents for what their kids do. This was all on him. he was old enough to know what he was doing. We all have to deal with the luck of the draw.Just like those Columbine boys, their parents may have neglected to see what was happening , but they didn't kill anyone .It's sometimes the luck of the draw.
Your point about war is correct.
Al Qaeda declared war on the United States through their actions and pronouncements of Jihad. This is no different than if a sovereign country were to declare war on us, and one of our own citizens joined that country's armed forces to fight against the U.S. We would not call "time out" in the heat of battle to check every enemy combatant to see if they were an American citizen before killing them.
Al Awlaki's was killed in combat in the battle field in a war of his own choosing.
So that in the future, we don't get the Ron Pauls of the world decrying the "assassination of an U.S. citizen", the government should perhaps first take the step of stripping traitors such as Al Awlaki of their citizenship.
I believe that the government has such rights, and if we don't, then Congress should pass a law that permits the stripping of citizenship under certain conditions.
I'm not sure its fair to blame the parents because their son is a traitor. It would have been much better if his parents had dis-owned him rather than sue the U.S. That's what makes these parents shameful.
While we shouldnt blame his parents, the second he chose to hook up with terrorists, he sentenced himself to death
Yeah, treason is punishable by death.
If it has been shown that he is trying to kill Americans, and the Americans get him first then I think it is like self defense. Actually he in targeting Americans, is declaring war on America and should be considered an enemy combatant/ casualty of war.
Here's the Ministry of Propaganda's Terrorist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5PRLuRNZB0
So now you want a Presidential power that allows the POTUS to assassinate "Terrorists" without Due Process? Now I see why you're for this...
Biden (THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES) AGREED with the commentator that the Tea Party (Millions of Americans) are Terrorists.
Of course you Obama minions don't see a problem here!
Just wait till the Neo-cons get power!
this is for all the people with the tin foil hats (you know who you are) the difference between this "target" and what constitutes future targets (read the damn article btw) is he actually planned and initiated terrorist attacks against U.S. citizens on U.S. soil. He may not have pulled the trigger at Ft Hood, or stuffed his underwear with a bomb on Northwest Airlines Flight 253, but Charles Manson never actually killed anybody either. Bottom line, don't plot mass murders and the Govt probably will not bother you, k? cause then you WILL be an enemy combatant, not just mixed up spiritual leader, like those Westboro crazies. (see how fast they get put out of their misery once they cross that line(Waco)) they haven't yet so the constitution protects them, as it should. btw (read the damn article) there was no due process to be had, being that the courts have no constitutional place in matters that are exclusively the executive branch's responsibility, as commander in chief, geez!
Oh and here's the clear and concise response from The Great Leaders office: http://www.breitbart.tv/abcs-jake-tapper-challenges-carney-on-legality-awlaki-killing/
Ron Paul is the only way out of this insanity.
jksopinion
The difference here is that it is OPINION that he was behind the Ft. Hood bomber. It has not been proven in a court of law. Manson had his day in court, along with his family. If the POTUS is going to declare war on a US citizen, for ANYTHING he should first hold court in absentia. If the target is found guilty, then have at the "death from the air". Until then Obama and all the people behind this blatant abuse of the U S Constitution are wrong.
NO. It is not legal to punish a citizen until after he has had due process of law which includes a trial by jury.
The government cannot execute someone just because he has been accused of a crime. Nor can they execute him because he has admitted a crime. A trial is a necessary prerequisite to any lawful judicial punishment.
This is why we have been a free people (in the conventional, worldly sense) for the past two hundred years.
If stupid brain-rotted people like you can justify stripping an American citizen of his rights to a trial by jury and simply execute him on suspicion of treason, then stupid brain-rotted people like you are already guilty of treason by definition and do not deserve a trial either.
If you can't see the line from a to b, then you certainly need to open your blindingly stupid eyes. If anyone had to depend on someone as brainlessly stupid as you are to retain their dignity as a free human being then they would be forever out of luck, as of today a hopeless case.
YOU SICKEN ME, all of you who can't see the difference between "knowing" that someone is guilty of treason and "proving" that someone is guilty of treason in a COURT OF LAW.
You've just given the tyrants permission to herd us all off to Siberia and feed us to the mass graves!
I am so powerfully tempted to add, "DAMN YOU!."
Because no doubt about it, they soon will.
This guy gave up his U.S. citizenship when he became an associate of al-Qaida planning the harm of U.S. citizens stateside and abroad.
Says you. So now you are a constitiutional lawyer like all the other posters.
Well, if the guy did publicly announce he was joining al-Qaida then technically he committed treason, which is punishable by death.
simple; play with fire, you get burned/ shot......
2001... YES ! ! !
Because the guy was a threat to American Security. OBAMA did the right thing...HE SAVED AMERICAN LIVES ! ! ! OBAMA IS A HERO
but....if this happened in 2005.............
2005....NO ! ! !
GEORGE W BUSH should be charged for WAR CRIMES!!! He has NO RIGHT to kill an American without due process. BUSH IS A WAR MONGER.
If only George Bush had the intelligence, insight and cajones to go after the leaders of the perpetrators of 9/11 the way Obama has. Instead he got us into two wars that we are still fighting and still paying for.
Oh you mean go after the corrupt intelligence community and those in our government and Israeli Zionists and Mossad agents that perpetrated 9/11? Good idea!
Get your facts straight.
We didn't need a war. We needed to air drop a small army into Afghanistan and wipe out Al Queda and anybody who tried to stop us. Once we took them out, we should have gotten out. The Russians had demonstrated the futility of a war in that area.
They dont even have oil. That's not a "good war."
northlite,
"If only George Bush had the intelligence, insight and cajones to go after the leaders of the perpetrators of 9/11 the way Obama has."
Let's assume you're correct in your assessment of Bush but if Obumba was president THEN he would have said something such as: let's talk. We can solve this thing by talking. Then we would have really been in trouble.
Sorry but Obumba just doesn't have the insight OR cajones Bush had.
Not just a RetiredSmoker, but a retired thinker as well. The dreadful Bush was not, and never will be half the man that President Obama is. The haters will continue to hate no matter what this good man does.
RetiredSmoker---huh? It was Obama who got Bin Laden...he didn't talk him to death or try to negotiate with him; he told the Seal team --kill him. As to insight--Bush? Yeah, taking all our assetts out of Afghanistan to go into Iraq...that insight just got 4000 young Americans needlessly killed.
stop thinking into this so much.when its right its right.
Obama got Osama? I must have missed where Obama did the intelligence work, trained for the mission, and pulled the trigger that sent the bullet that killed Osama. Brilliant Sueb1.
ok yes props on the terrorists bein taken out. hows the U.S. economy? how r americans, besides the rich, paying their bills and supporting families. oh thats right going more and more into debt. but dont worry obama saves the day again by implementing a plan to reduce the debt by hundreds of billions of dollars over the next 10 years. ok that helps the gov't with foreign relations but that just knocks off the very tip of the iceburg. not to mention it still leaves middle class america going more into debt and the poor even poorer while the rich keep buyin ridiculously priced houses, cars, clothes, yachts etc..... the list continues forever. so yea obama is such a hero......NOT
@jackie stirling, I'm curious. How is the hate you display for Bush any different than someone else's hate for Obama?
How did this turn into a Hate Bush forum?? Oh that's right nothing positive to say about Obama so let's keep living in the past talking about Bush. No Vision...
Once you take up arms, or assist any group against the US, you've basically given-up your citizenship and become fair-game.
Griff,
That's the mantra for the liberals. They can't practice what they preach.
Are You Serious!!!! This terrorist gave up his citizenship when he decided to hunt down and kill Americans!!!!! WTF. These ACLU guys have definitely gone off the deep end!. The damn guy should have been hunted down for treason!! Isn't that part of the oath for citizenship!!!!! Go USA...hunt them bastards down....let justice be served for 911!!
Sorry, but Obama is not a hero for giving the nod to take this guy out, nor is he a hero for giving the nod to take Osama out. It doesn't take courage to sit in a comfy office and watch someone get killed on the other side of the world. Sure, I'm glad these two aren't around anymore, but I'll congratulate the troops responsible for carrying out the missions.
"This <insert person or group here> gave up his citizenship when he decided to hunt down and kill Americans"
Use of this as a legal argument will certainly set a precedent that nearly all suspected and convicted murderers in this country are aliens in this country.
I propose that we then send all these people back to where ever we deem them to be new citizens and shed our government budgets of all incarceration costs by extending this policy to all real and imagined crimes. Without due process.
Heil.
"Sorry, but Obama is not a hero for giving the nod to take this guy out, nor is he a hero for giving the nod to take Osama out." #BrokinArrow
I see it a little differently If the Seals had been slaughtered, or Osama was not there, Obama would have committed political suicide for authorizing the mission. Obama was privy to the plan and was involved in some of the planning of the mission. He could have done nothing - hell, Bush dismantled one of the key teams looking for Bin Laden in 2005. This quote from the BBC news confirms part of Obama's role.
"But, the paper reports, just 10 days before the raid President Obama reviewed the operational plans and the decision was taken to send two more helicopters carrying additional troops, which followed the aircraft carrying the assault team."
If you dislike Obama's policies, fine - but don't distort truths or outright lie to get your point across...it makes you look petty.
I'm personally glad the man is dead. It's already been said, he earned it.
But, really, don't go so hard on the ACLU for taking it to court, because I can see their reasoning. Despite his actions this man was still "technically" a US citizen. I think the ACLU is simply trying to make a statement of not sliding way down that slippery slope where the government could target "undesirable" citizens, government protesters, etc. I don't always, or even often, agree with cases from the ACLU, but their heart is usually in the right place.
BO is a murderer.
So is everyone cheering the death of that alleged terrorist. I don't know, but it's certainly possible that this alleged terrorist was also an actual terrorist. The problem is, we will never know, because THERE WAS NO TRIAL!
When you are the "alleged" terrorist, you will finally get it.
You will all finally get it, sooner or later.
But it will then be too late.
"Stumpy Joe" gets it.
God bless him.
The rest of you are traitors. You all deserve to be shot on sight.
raysj, you must be smoking the weed when you make that post. So Isreal is now responsible for 9/11? Wow, really????? What rock did you climb from under???
US citizen or not, we are at war with those who would attack us and kill our citizens. He as well as many others were proud to claim responsibility for different acts that did just that. Killed US citizens. Sort of like when a suspect pulls a gun on police, he can be shot. This guy can "pull guns" on us so we shot him. Its just we can't always know or see the "guns" he would use to create mass killings.
This is what happens to you when you truly pal around with terrorists.
He wasn't killed or targeted. He happened to be in the proximity of a where a drone and it's weapons system was conducting exercises, and died as a result of massive trauma from shrapnel and flying debris. Get your facts straight, Williams. (who obviously has gotten tired of having nothing positive to write about that can be attributed to Obama or the Senate with regards to domestic issues)
Oh the ACLU I knew I smelled a fart in the air.
The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves. Whatever happened to Due Process?
He helped orchestrate terrorism against the United States......that's enough due process for me........
One (some did) could argue that MLK promoted terrorism and was a destabilizing force by inciting others to act against the established government People easily forget that at the time a significant portion of our citizens even believed that to be true. Suppose he was ordered arrested and fled to Canada, then the President at the time was a nut job and ordered his death as an enemy combatant, where would the checks and balances be in this process to say NO?
Our constitutional system was set up to prevent the government from taking action against its citizens without due process because we came from a country where the king could execute someone on a mere whim. Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it.
They had plenty of time to try this guy in absentia and IMHO should have then at least our system would have been preserved for a day when the President may not be as trust worthy.
He was "proccessed" and it was due...next stupid question...
His due process was the legal determination applied to an combatant for the enemy. Like the article said, it is no different than we encountered in previous wars. His status changed when he went from exercising his right to free speech to active participation in planning and executing terrorist actions. he knew what the stakes were. He just never thought the US would actually get him.
The severity of the crime is not the issue. American citizens are not guilty just because the police, or the mayor, or the president, or the CIA, or the FBI says so. American citizens are only guilty of a crime once tried in a court of law (with a jury of their peers) in a court of law. The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki was a murder of an innocent American citizen. As citizens we are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
The person who ordered this killing should be charged with murder and unconstitutional use of government powers.
gary i really doubt thats how you would feel if he blew up your home town and some of your relatives. did you not read the article? it said the courts do not deal with terrorists thats strictly decisions made by the executive branch and out of the judicial branch's hands. quit being so close minded
Mike P101, that may be the most moronic response here. I know you're just parroting someone else's words, but you should have been able to stop yourself. One plus one does not equal 748. No one with a functioning brain would connect Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to anything violent. Every story about this now deceased terrorist explains that he was off limits as a religious figure. It was only after becoming operational that he was targetted for death. He was also a US citizen living in another country while promoting violence against the country he left. I'd love to see a sane comparison of that with one of the most important men in the history of the world. Pro-tip: You won't find one.
This is why this country is being torn apart,whack jobs like you and those that say what the u.s. did was wrong. Who are you people? War is kill or be killed.
So why are we arresting them here and trying them in civilian courts? What's the deal? The law means what we say it means when we say that it means it so sit down and shut up or you're next? We need to take our country and get it back on the right track before it goes too much farther askew.
Sorry TCarter, Mike's history was right on. Some people were very terrified by MLK and the whole civil rights movement. No one person should get to decide who lives or dies.
Well, if he is a confirmed terrorist, then he is commiting treason, and would have been convicted and executed anyway.
We probably just saved money keeping him out of court.
no ONE person did, it was the intelligence community along with help from the Yemen Govt, and no..mike is not right, Maybe compare to early Malcolm X. but Dr King was about peace the ENTIRE time
A traitor deserves death. Especially one who masterminds the death of American citizens.
Fort Hood was a massacre egged on by this dead American traitor. He has made his bed, know he gets to sleep in it,eternally.
God bless you, Gary Root, for having the courage to speak the truth.
However much we may despise what he represented, that American citizen was murdered in cold blood.
And for all of his loathsomeness he has nevertheless instantly become the instantiation of a legal precedent that n ow hangs over every other American citizen that is or will ever be like the sword of Damoclese.
And the murderer is living in the White House, the person who demoted all of us from our presumed place at the head of the world's table, and turned us all overnight into the common rabble that inhabit any two bit tin-pot dictatorship.
We are all the less safe now because of that murder. Our constitutional protections have all evaporated. Our citizenship now means nothing. How sad, to learn, after more than 60 years, that it has all meant
nothing.
And that the government we once fought for is now our enemy.
I did not say that we are its enemy.
I said the government is now our enemy.
But the people who are here to cheer the murder don't make any rational or moral distinctions anyway.
And they still can't see that this is what they are cheering. How could they possibly understand the distinction that I just made?
May you all rest in peace, people. After the government sends its paid assassins for you because you said the wrong thing to the wrong person at the wrong time, regardless of how innocent your words may actually have been at that fateful time when you sealed your fate.
But, in reality, that time was today, wasn't it? When the government gave itself the power to declare you worthy of death by presidential fiat and then make you so, and you stood up to cheer that it had become so strong and decisive. And your foolish words today aren't the least bit innocent (are they?) however much they may be profoundly gullible, naive, and stupid.
If you want due process, then stay on American soil when you do your deeds. He left here because he didn't believe in our concept of "due process", thus he & we should not expect it to be granted.
The only problem here is that the right-wing must oppose anything this president does, regardless of right or wrong. If this was bush there would be fireworks and beer parties. American's realistic, but far from stupid.
I am an Expat --- so you are saying the government should be able to come and kill me without a trial just because they say I have done something?
G.R.
Are you serious or were your parents also brother and sister????
the gov't didnt just say he did somethin genious they have/had proof. not to mention they didn't even bat an eye at him when he was a propagandist for al quaida they waited until he became a combatant. if it was me i would taken him out for being a propagandist. who knows how much or what kind of info he gave them before he was "murdered" as these do gooder pansies keep saying
God bless America and our founding fathers for giving us the right to bear arms and the freedom to say what we want. However, the arms amendment is for our protection and our right of free speech is for self expression. No where is there an amendment for turning against your country and taking up arms in a foreign "territory" with the express purpose of killing Americans. That is treason. I am thrilled that for once my tax dollars went for a good cause. I felt the "Americans turned terrorists" got all of their due process as that drone was churning across the sky. I felt relief knowing the world is better off with a direct hit. Thank you.
Right wing? Really!
Gary,
I heard you were a sickly child.
Have you been suffering from brain damage all of your life?
Dave,
I'm glad that you've posted, now the rest of the group can see the person who has been conspiring with al qaida to plan domestic terrorist actions. as will be reported in the mainstream media, we know that you have inspired millions of potential terrorists. and those emails between you and the ft. hood shooter... wow, you were responsible for a lot of deaths. we know that you were plotting against the us, so don't bother to try to defend yourself, you won't have a chance - we control the message. the good news is, when you see the flash of that rocket swishing toward your small head, things will go dark in an instant. you won't even be able to think about all of the deletery comments and insults that the highly educated independent thinkers on this forum will throw at you. adios terrorista.
Republicans complaining, REALLY!!! So, G O P does stand for GREED OVER PATRIOTISM. Hey, if you like them so much, go live with them. Don't look up, Gary!!
Dave...
Hi, it's your neighbor Scott. We just had an emergency meeting of the Brentwood Vistas homeowners association, and given the overwhelming evidence presented in the national media of your involvement with al-queda and plotting against our country, we've decided that we're okay with president Obama wiping you off the map. In your next life, you should really be more careful about what country you plot against. Goodbye. P.S., I won't be returning that sprinkler that I borrowed last week.
don't give G.R. any credibility he is just a Troll, and what's wrong with this country
Fred, if you think that the "only" problem here is some petty partisan bickering, then you are the ass end of a jackass, which might explain why you are too blind to see that you are staring down the barrel of a gun and cheering that fact.
Well, if you are an American citizen, and you join the enemy fighting and plotting attacks on the USA, YES, you are a traitor and can be considered a valid target.
starbuck, Did you see the evidence that PROVES Al-Awkaki did anything wrong? Or did you just read on MSNBC that he was suspected of being behind the Ft Worth shooter and the underwear bomber. There is no PROOF that he is behind even the cartridge bombs, only supposition. He never made video tapes claiming responsibility. Osama admitted to being behind 9-11.
I'll bet all you people that are for this Constitutional abuse were just peachy keen with Nixon's "hate list"? Or do any of you even remember Nixon? He made a list of people he thought were a ""political danger, on that list was Paul Newman, Jane Fonda, and reportedly a little old lady. If he was not forced out of office, under the "suspected terrorists" justification used by the White House, he could have had any of those people exterminated. Most of those people were speaking their minds, some did nothing at all.
During the Vietnam war, Jane Fonda spouted pro-communist drivel. While I don't agree with her views, she has the right to say them. But her words about and to American military men being held at the Hanoi Hilton were considered treason. If Nixon had been Obama, she would now be dead. But it was not to his benefit to kill her, as it is to Obama and his War on Terror.
http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.asp
http://www.americancivilrightsreview.com/govlieswatergate.html
Just say in public you want to kill the president; what happens then? You don't have to be anywhere near him or have a weapon or anything else.
If you are in a terrorist organization, you have a big bull's eye between your eyes. He was in a country beyond the control of the USA and so, beyond it's protections also. He got what he deserved.
Argue about something useful like the decriminalization of drugs.
If Jameel Jaffer didn't have his head so far up his b*tt, He would recognize that the idiot he so proudly defends was a terrorist who incited others to harm Americans. It is our right to defend ourselves, even if it means taking out the threat before he personally kills someone. If Al-whacky believes what he tries to convince others of, he is in a better place with all the virgins (hopefully males).
Once he gets to the virgins, wouldn't he be surprised if they were all CAMELS!
He probably already did the camels...... (sorry...I know....)
Or grapes. Read the NYT version so I'm not accused of being a hater. _http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/04/opinion/martyrs-virgins-and-grapes.html
He got one 72 year old Virgin :)
hunter,
with that kind of logic, next time you have a fight with your "significant other" or anyone else you might not like or be angry with and you say violent words in the heat of anger, such as "I'm going to kick your a$$." You can just be blown away because you just made a terroristic threat. No trial, no proof that you were really going to do harm, just words. Good luck with that.
BYW with this legal interpretation, any protestor; the Wall street protestors, or the Wisconsin Union protestors fit the definintion and could be summarily executed and according to Obama's actions, with out trial.
http://definitions.uslegal.com/t/terroristic-threat/
The Deputy Secretary of State for legal affairs is Harold Koh, not Hold Koh -- nice reporting. Why is it every time I read a news article that deals with information I'm already familiar with, the article's got it all wrong? It makes me worry about absolutely everything else I read.
Cuz the media cant be bothered by annoying facts-- like how words are spelled.
It's a pretty weak argument when your rebuttal is based on a minor typographical error. Do you have any first-hand knowledge of the situation, or are you referring to your familiarity with the lies propagated by the administration and the mass media?
So where are the checks and balances in the system? Where does the President draw the line in saying someone who is a citizen is an enemy combatant away from the battlefield? Does that include a citizen who owns a gun and has a different opinion? A reporter who is reporting things the President decides endangers the country by his showing things the military is doing that could be an embarrassment?
I'm all for killing terrorists and this guy almost without question deserved what he received, but the killing of Amercian Citizens who are not in a war zone and without due process is troubling. We should have tried this guy in court when he was first listed as an enemy combatant and then if found guilty he's fair game. Our rights were and still are being fought and died for, so why do people so willingly give them up just because someone says it's for our safety??? It's a slippery slope when we give ONE person the authority to impose the death penalty on a US citizen.
We didn't even have him detained or in custody. He had slipped through our grasp once before.
Clinton got crap for not pulling the trigger on Bin Laden for crying out loud.
Clinton got crap for treating it as a criminal matter, just like this thread. The same people tried again on 9/11/01.
Bin Laden was not a citizen.. big difference. Also you do not have to have someone in custody to try them.
Mike P101, I would agree with you except that he joined al-qaida and was enlisting people to join in his jihad against us. That makes him, in my mind, an enemy combatant--citizen or not. Had he been where we could have gotten him through legal channels, we should have; but, the alternative to that was sending in troops to get him and put their lives in danger. We went into Panama to get Noriega, if that was legal because his drug dealing inflicted harm on Americans, then going into Yemen to get a self-avowed al-qaida terrorist (who has thus declared war on us) is or should be our right.
i agree but at the same time no one would think twice about this guy being killed if he was not born in America. just because of that fact everyone is freakin out about the due process. if he was born in yemen this headline would read more along the lines of obama downs another terrorist just because its getting close to re-election n all the obama supporters(confused they might be, yes) want to keep him in office. so i say screw due process the man was working with al quaida, remember the ones responsible for 9-11, and should be taken care of just like the rest of them
Another case of the tail wagging the dog.Tell these civil liberties groups to stick it where the sun don't shine.This bum lucked out.It was fast.Unfortunately he didn't suffer.He caused enough suffering to other people.Good riddance.You should you rot in h--l you traitorous ba---rd.
I agree with the President's order to kill this scum bag even if he was a US citizen. I laud the President just like I laud President Bush for his policy of enhanced interrogation (water boarding, etc.,) to extract vital information. I see a lot of the liberals that wanted Bush and Cheney tried in the world court for water boarding and the rendition of captured terrorists are now hailing Obama for taking out an American Citizen.
When he was taken out, I believe that President Obama running to the microphone to announce it was wrong and was nothing more than political posturing. It should have been kept quiet, or at least let the Yemen government or military take the responsibility for the hit, and don't even mention the CIA and Special Ops forces and drones. The U.S. has over the years taken out some very bad guys with covert operations but the Presidents never ran an held a news conference.
Now that President Obama can openly order the assassination of an American citizen in a foreign country, can a foreign country now order the assassination of one of their citizens on American soil?
Does this now establish a precedent for future Presidents to put out kill on sight orders for American citizens abroad or even on American soil.?
If a man stands on the corner of Time Square. He says out loud that the United States government is evil. The American people are all evil. That they should all die. Tells everyone that they should rise up and stop those that are evil and kill them all. The authorities are justified in placing a bullet between his eyes? No maranda? No arrest? No trial? Just one bullet at the bridge of the guys nose?
If you say yes, then what about this senareo. You in another state did not witness this. Instead, you were told this by the government official that put the bullet betwen the guys eyes. You accepted their word that such things were true. Is that right?
And if you still say yes, here is the next question. At most, this President has 5 years left (assume he wins his election). In doing this twice now, he has given the Office of the President a precident. Do you want this precident in the hands of the next George Bush? In the hands of the next Richard Nixon? Think about that. What would Richard Nixon due with such a power when he thought that those he was illegally tapping were traitors to the United States? President Obama has just placed the Office of the President on a slippary slop.
It should be noted that there are some acedemic lawyers quoted in this article that are stating what President Obama did as being legal. I believe that there were some acedemic lawyers that also stated that waterboarding and rendition was legal too. I guess the good note is that President Obama is not having people interigated. Instead he just has a Preditor drop a bomb on them.
thank you peanut gallery, this was not a criminal matter, hence no due process, and Obama was not alone in carrying out these actions. he has had the support of NATO, and others in the international community. stop using this piece of $hit$ citizenship credentials as some kind of defense (he only got them to go to school here anyways)
@richard, what if in your "scenario" video footage was captured of him doing it, and low and behold, someone from the crowd guns down 43 people at Ft Hood and says he did it after long talks with that time square cryer????
f-ing troll
jksopinion - I agree this was not a criminal matter and his killing was justified. My question is why did Obama and Holder want to try KSM and the other terrorists at GITMO in federal court with all the rights and protections of the U.S. Constitution, even though they were captured in a foreign country and had never been in the United States.
I further think Obama is using this for political purposes. If this was done by covert operations then it should remain covert. There was no need for Obama to run to the microphones and announce the killing as a great accomplishment. No one has answered my question, can now a foreign country, come to the U.S. and take out a person they know is trying to subvert its laws or harm their citizens, and if not, why not?
The Yemen government and the CIA should have reported the death, but not the facts behind it, nor how it was accomplished. American covert operations have been taking out undesirables for years, but this is the first President that runs to the press to report it. Politics should have no place in this type of operation.
All those who raise the issue of "due process" in this case are basically rule based hair-splitters. Let me use an anology:
A country X declared and waged war on the good old US of A. This country X then proceed to target American facilities and citizen to kill and destroy them. A few Americans decided that they hate their country and joined this country X to actively participate in these killings and destruction of all things related to the US or to advance the cause of country X calling on all and sundry to do the same.
My questions:
1. Must the US of A then bring every member of this country X to due process before they can even consider to harm them.
2. Must the US of A then go to ountry X to arrest these so called American citizen for due process. And until that is done these Americans waging war against their own country cannot be touched.
Rules are what all those rule based hair splitters who can only see their own noses are fixated on. They are unable to grasp reality. These are the same minds as those who set criminals free to continue their criminal rampages against innocent law abiding citizen because of some technicality that has nothing to do with proof of innocence. The judicial crimincal process should be about seeking justice not due processs. Due process is to ensure justice and not prevent it. It is the tool not the objective.
Civil liberties groups are condemning the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, but many legal scholars say it is justified.
REALLY? He was an al qaida leader which kills thousands of americans. I'm pretty sure it's justified no matter if he's a citizen or not. OMG this world has gone F****ng nuts! I give us about 50 to 75 years and this country is done.
Some legal scholars also said the actions at Gitmo were legal. Even the current government state all those that were held at Gitmo for along time were terrorist. Waterboarding is not torture?
Anyone who takes up arms, or directs others to take up arms, against US citizens is fair game in this "war" on terrorism. If that person is an American citizen, who has openly announced his loyalties to a group(s) that have made it known that their intention is to attack and kill Americans, then all bets are off, and that person becomes as much a target as those they align themselves with.
You're forgetting one important fact: who calls the shots.
One man, or even one group cannot be trusted to call the shots, even IF it is "justified". Why? Because this INEVITABLY leads to ABUSE of POWER. This isn't rocket science, it's historical fact. Think about it...when any one person has that kind of power, then freedom of speech is in danger, the right to bear arms is in danger, virtually every liberty we have is in jeopardy because there's nothing to stop the top authorities (including the president) from making life hell, or come to an end, for those who are opposed to them in some manor.
This is not about terrorism folks...it's about undermining the rule of law. We would be wise to wake up to this fact and DEMAND our government abide according to the RULE OF LAW, just like are required to do as citizens.
well first of all if any one person makes life on earth a living hell i would say he is the anti-christ and the Lord Jesus Christ will be soon after to take his followers home. so why be afraid of that unless your a non-believer in Jesus....just saying. its not one person with all the power. granted the story reads the decision to kill a terrorist lies with the executive branch but even in the big 3 (meaning executive, judicial, and legislative branches) there are divided groups that keep each other in check. dont get it twisted people not everyone in gov't is on the same page.....example you might be asking for....hmmm how bout the fact that there are democrats and republicans thats just a small one i guess
Any single person can make the life of another single person a living hell and still not be considered the anti-christ. It happens every day.
Except that even in American history, it can be proven that people in government can group together only to find out later that what they group for was morallitically wrong. Here are few examples out of American history:
All of these were at one time considered legal by some or all of the government at one time.
The question of due process or the fairness doctrine in America has devolved since the Mid 20th century. The reason is this country and the high court took out the trust and guidelines of God such as prayer and the Ten Commandments out of the USA which was the true basis and standards in the founding of this country. Without these guideposts, it depends on the might and power that rules this country. At this time it is the attorney unions that make the laws through legislating through the liberal benches. But based on use of common sense deadly force doctrine, there was eminent threat by this individual, thus deadly force was justified, but that is based on American circumstances and needs. I am sure there are different points liberals would have just as they had in 1939 Hitler Germany where both American opinion and inaction let evil thrive.
What part of (1) he was a known terriorist, (2) He was traveling with known terrorists,and (3) He made many threats against the USA, so what part of a terrorist conspiracy don't you understand. You and Ron Paul just reach back behind, you grab your head by your ears and pull your head out of your butt.
He was a condemned man long ago and he had his trial and sentence when the rock hit his vehicle. Goodby and good riddence.
5,4,3,2,1…..OK now it’s time for the GOP to start beating up President Obama for this 'terrible' crime.
According to who? Sounds a lot like the lies surrounding Osama, who we know was already dead years ago. They use these patsies to trump up the war on terror and make their propaganda sellable to the masses. All you need to do is invoke a threat - real or perceived - and you got yourself an excuse for endless war in the name of safety...and this conveniently treads out the liberties of the people...convenient for power-hungry tyrants no?
No, this is all built on lies and we would be VERY WISE to tread carefully in our blind belief of the media-propelled stories, propaganda, and outright lies.
"who we know was already dead years ago" !!! Is this the same way you 'know' that Obama is not a citizen, and you 'know' that Obama is a muslim?? How stupid can you haters be? incredible.
prove to me its a lie ray. what proof do you have that this whole thing is a lie? exactly. no trust me i think theres a lot of corruption in our gov't but to think everything they do is a lie is just being pessimistic
Really guys? Do you need any more proof than the phony Osama's you were seeing on the videos? Really? He didn't even SOUND the same at all.
Then, when they go and "kill" him, they supposedly violate Pakistani sovereignty by barging in and assassinating the guy. Then they proceed to DUMP HIS BODY IN THE OCEAN, provide us with no pictures, no evidence whatsoever. You really believe that? Get real folks.
To top it off, a special forces helicopter crashes and kills 'em all...not long after the raid. I don't know for an absolute fact when he died, but out of all the STORIES I've heard, it makes a whole lot more sense that he died a long time ago.
Just because the media tells you something doesn't mean the burden of proof is lifted. You show ME proof, and I will not argue.
Obamamamama is Soooooooo...overstepping his bounds. He hasn't a clue and unfortunately the people he has surrounded himself with is more incompetent than he is. What makes Obamamama think that he can order a hit on a US citizen? ACLU.....who is paid by the government will have a field day with this. If this clown somehow gets a second term we'd better plan on heading for the hills.
Do you have something to hide, like joining a terrorist organization or becoming a traitor? This guy was, so he made himself a target to be dealt with accordingly as a terrorist.
Once a 'citizen' chooses to join Al Quaeda, plans the deaths of American citizens, hates America and all it stands for, and spreads his hatred in recruiting others who share his beliefs, he is no longer a citizen and does not deserve the privileges that go along with that title. He deserves the same 'due process' he allows his targets, which is none. He is fair game. period. Let the ACLU, or whoever is trying to make something out of this, protect those who deserve such protection, not this disgusting piece of inhumanity.
See, R. Woodward has proven my point.
They will beat him up no matter what he does. There only aim is to make sure he is not re-elected, and it does not matter who they hurt or destroy to accomplish this. I do not understand how anyone with a conscience can vote for any of them. They are a very selfish bunch, trying to protect those who finance them, instead of trying to help their fellow Americans and their country.
Some of you may be too young to remember, but U.S. Presidents have always claimed the power to order murders by executive order for someone that threatened American interests. I believe it was not until Clinton that he renounced the authority to use it against American citizens. I do not remember which one renounced the authority (it may also have been him) to order the assassination of foreign heads of state (as Nixon had done with Pinochet in Chile, for example).
Well, if he is a confirmed terrorist, then he is commiting treason, and would have been convicted and executed anyway.
We probably just saved money keeping him out of court.
JackieStirling.. so true. their entire agenda is to make sure and get him out of office. the best way to do it is bad mouth any and everything he tries to do for the country. after all, if he's successful helping the country, he will be reelected and they don't want that. so it's up to them to make sure the country continues spiraling down so they can say.. SEE!! we need him out of there. hopefully there are some smart people in this country that can see what these people are up to. they're not patriotic, they are definitely fit to lead a country that they don't really care about.
Jackie Sterling, I liked what you said in #21.3 above.
He deserves the same 'due process' he allows his targets, which is none. He is fair game. period. This seems like a emotional reaction like the ones I have but, Lets don't bring ourselves down to the same level (unless we have to momentarily ). In America we don't get to open fire on people who have been accused of crimes. This isn't Syria.
To all you BO sycophants who see no evil in your "savior" but only in those who criticize him, always assuming that to criticize him is to be a member of some opposing political party:
I am not a political person, Your "savior" is a murderer. You that support him are like him.
My Savior was murdered. Yours commits murders.
There is the difference. And there is the evidence that you are very wrong in your endless bigoted accusations.
And I am not "reaching" to find something critical to say. The evil stench of it has chased me down and sought me out!
Your hero disgusts me. It's not because of the way he looks. It's what he DOES.
The most competent things he has ever done are two:
(1) He has committed murder
and
(2)
He has committed murder.
And you're all still whining about petty partisan politics . . .
Which is why you disgust me, too.
Enough that I cannot but speak it.
This is how it starts. Kill some hated, despicable figure. Demonize him. Once that line is crossed and the people cheer, it becomes progressively easier to pick more and more targets, using more and more excuses and rationals.
Then you wake up one day and realize you too can be a target. It may be because of your religion, your politics, your friends, your online postings... anything the current sociopaths in power want to stop or destroy.
The beast which is government is now devouring its own. While you cheer this death, don't feel bad when no one cries for you when it's your turn at the chopping block.
EXACTLY.
OH, I thought you were refering to the Demoncrats
Thank you! This sums up exactly what is going to happen if we continue down this road. Unfortunately the people to suffer first are going to be the people who see it and speak up about it, and not these jingoist jackasses cheering this stuff on.
no one will cry when its my back on the chopping block. they will all cheer just like they are now....but for a different reason. ill be in heaven with Jesus Christ Himself. i wont be in hell looking and wondering where my 72 virgin(or as others have pointed out, grapes) are thank you have a nice day. God Bless America!!!
THANK YOU JACQUES!
When they came for the communists, I didn't say anything because I wasn't a communist..
Wasn't Osama Bin Ladin tried and convicted absentia in a court of law in the United States after 9/11? So, you would think the same should be done here. I am not saying this man did not deserve to be killed, he had joined a armed terrorist group to attack the USA. However, before he was killed, the government should have run it thru the federal court. Once signed off by the court, whether at a federal level or the supreme court, and convicted of treason then it is bombs away. Did you know that the only punishment for any law that is in the Constitution is for Treason? And that is Death.
However, at a legal point of view. According to International Laws of War, once this man took up arms against the USA, he became a legal combatant, no matter if he is an American or not. He was traveling with armed terrorists. A group of terrorists that had declared war on the US. He was targeted in that fashion.
I won't, there is a better place waiting for me, without VIRGINS.
Oh my God, what kind a question is that? We did not kill our citizen; we eliminated who will at will kill the entire population of U.S.A. if he had a chance just because he has a twisted mind that Islam should be the ruler of the world. The black man, Obama, is the man of his words and may God always be on his side to bring few republicans to put our people to work.
If we have legally declared war on terrorists and he was a terrist, then we get to kill him - legally.
Additionally, someone shoud tell Ron Paul about all those 'Americans' we're executing in his home state. I know, I know - there's a difference. All those texas (small t) inmates that get dusted probably killed someone and then went through 15 years of exhausting the appeals process.
Therefore, I guess what he's objecting to is that we didn't let al wacky kill a bunch of Americans FIRST, then wait 15 years while lawyers got rich, waiting for justice to be done. And this guy's against big government?
That last paragraph's full of assumptions there Pete. Ron Paul is against what's being done in his own state FYI. He has recently come to oppose the death penalty because of the corruption that has become prevalent through the whole system.
Ron Paul is a libertarian and thereby associated with the Kochs.Llook it up. He said himself last week that he'd let a man without insurance die.
well said Pete. nice fact Dreeves and once again quieted is Ray(i wish i was)J
Haha, you're going to have try harder than that Dreeves. I heard exactly what he said when asked that retarded question, and his answer was NOT that he would let him die. Take your drivel elsewhere.
Dreeves; You do not know of what you speak. Ron Paul is an MD .... what he said is : Our system would take care of the hypothetical fool that didnt purchase health insurance, Paul went on to say that we all have personal responsibility for our actions. he never sail as you foolisly state ... let him die. that statement Dreeves was shouted out by another fool in the audience.
This is an atrocity of the highest magnitude. This is setting a precedent for the slippery slope ahead. Americans need to wake up and fast. Not to mention the reality of 9/11 not having come to light yet, which would shed a whole ton of light on our "war on terror". What a bunch of bologna! I just can't stand this crap anymore, be ready for a revolution folks...just hope it doesn't get bloody.
It's hard to imagine a revolution in this @!$%#ry NT being bloody. After all there are 310 million of us running around loose and we own 200 million guns. We're not as well-armed or trained as the military but, we have them surrounded. We've been averaging over 400,000 workers filig first-time claims for unemployment benefits EVERY WEEK. That adds up to 21,000,000+ over the last 12 months. and, this recession has been going on for three years. 4 million of those workers lost their homes. Many have families. Many have seen their retirement funds go belly up. Their savings are gone. Almost 400,000 are rolling off unemployment every week - minus the negligable impact of 'new job creation'. Then there's the returning vets and recent college grads. When you add up the UNDERemployed and spouses, there are about 60 million - out of a workforce of 157 million
These workers have two things in common:
They got laid off
They have an axe to grind.
They didn't lay themselves off. They didn't export any jobs. They didn't denut the insurance, investment and banking industries. RICH people did that. The laid-off workers never had control of ANYTHING.
And the republikans want to continue giving tax breaks to the rich.
Well, if taxation without representation was grounds for revolution before, maybe it still is. I'm very concerned about how this might end.
Very true, I agree wholeheartedly...but I have to believe there is a chance, I really hope that we can change things before it gets bloody.
Pete, you have some good thoughts there, but civilians don't have drones, satellites, night vision, and infra-red, that the Military does. If you think it's something looking at your house, or car from Google's satellites, you should study a little and see what uncle sams can do.
And remember, the mIlitary works for the RICH people, just as the police do, the Military/police will protect GE, GM, etc, before they protect your home.
Yes is legall , because when they ( the musslims) kill U.S citizen don´t get permission from any one.
I agree the Revolution is coming. After what Obama has done to this country he deserves to be in Gitmo and treated as an enemy Combatant
Sir that is treason.
Also known as Free Speach
treason my a$$. you want to throw everyone in jail who does not agree with you? you, sir, don't have room.
**Treason is selling your country to the highest bidder. The people are the country. Any government that allows big business to put small businesses out of business because they cannot compete with them and then is allowed to hire foreigners and put almost everyone out of a job, then makes rules against welfare and unemployment is a dangerous country. This is happening due to the fact that only the rich can afford to run, and their friends make sure of that by the large contributions. This means only the rich are now in office making the laws pro rich and making the rest of us little more then slaves that used to be able to choose our owners (when we could change jobs). I have a real problem with this. I have a problem that the same government did not think any further then the end of their nose to wonder where our country would get the tax revenue to keep funding all the lovely wars it keeps starting. With no Americans working that actually pay tax, the middle class, they forgot that only keeping the rich making money and not paying taxes as they should would eventually come back to bite them (all of us really) in the butt!
Oh god, you're one of those aren't you? Do you still believe in Santa and the faked moon landings too?
and you are one of 'those' simple, uneducated folks who believe anything that is fed to them, except what is true. You really believe that thousands of people are keeping thousands of secrets regarding the moon landings? You are beyond dumb.
Sorry Jackie, didn't mean to mark up your comment...as it is exemplary of rashness and ignorance.
You must be one of those who believes everything the government's told you huh? Everything the media's fed you right? You eat it up, in your apathy, like a little child soaking up a manipulative parent's lies..falling for every word.
9/11 was, without a doubt, riddled with lies and cover-ups straight to the top. Nobody can come up with a good explanation for why WTC7 fell, apart from controlled demolition. If 9/11 hasn't been investigated properly, then how can we move forward? Especially in such a frenzied manner of blind aggression...what we've done since 9/11 has been nothing but rampage about the globe against "terrorism", while we lose our liberties. Stinks to high heaven if you ask me.
Some research for you: Susan Lindauer, thermite experiments (youtube), Mossad 9/11, 911 Missing Links Israel (youtube).
And I am not someone to immediately take what someone tells me as fact. I have done an enormous amount of research on these topics (apart from and including corporate media sources). I am convinced if everyone did the same we would have conducted a real investigation of 9/11 and the real perpetrators would have been executed a long time ago.
wow, there you go again, thousands of people keeping thousands of secrets! You believe it makes more sense that the US government recruited those terrorist hijackers to fly into the WTC and kill thousands of citizens, than it does to believe that OBL financed them in his continuing war against the US?? And, the moon landings were phony as well. I do not believe everything I hear from anyone, but I do have enough common sense to sift through it all, and check the facts and make an intelligent decision on what I believe. If your 'enormous amount of research on these topics' is based on the writings of people who are of the same beliefs as yourself, then of course you will get the 'evidence' you need.
By all means and let's send all of the bleeding heart ACLU members to the mid east to live. There are plenty of cases for them to handle. So much for Ron Paul another vote grubbing idiot. If you are a taliban or al-Qaida, you should be fair game.
If you used the most elementary principles of investigation you might, if you were inclined to look around for the source of the 9/11 conspiracy (and no thinking person denies that it was a conspiracy; the only debate is about whose conspiracy it was), consider the influence of MOTIVE to narrow the list of suspects.
Only communist China could have had any real advantage in the event. Islamic countries were also part of world trade, or have you all forgotten that or foolishly dismissed it as irrelevant?
The brainwashing of the suicide pilots and coordination of all the planes and terrorists in a military style operation (which is certainly what it was) could ONLY have been accomplished by a major government. If OBL was in any way responsible, it was only as a puppet for some higher-ups with greater power than he could ever have had. Remember the Egyptian pilot who dove a jetliner full of people into the Mediterranean Sea some years before 9/11? Was that a "proof of concept" exercise by the agency that plotted 9/11? Logical thinking says, "Yes, very likely so." That would be a more rational explanation for that event than any other I have ever heard. This thing was much bigger than any operation a bunch of rag-tag desert dwellers could have ever accomplished without having been part of something bigger than themselves.
ONLY communist China had all three: the MEANS, the MOTIVE, and the OPPORTUNITY. Nothing like that could ever have possibly been kept secret while organizing and training all its participants outside of a secretive place like communist China. And remember that China borders Afghanistan, and could have afforded OBL many opportunities to cruise the Caspian Sea and shuttle back and forth in the Turkmenistan, Pakistan, Aghanistan, western China area.
China is building or has built the tallest building in China, a "world trade center."
Since the twin towers fell, China has become the single most significant source of goods world-wide, and is fast approaching the point where it is the ONLY global supplier of manufactured goods.
9/11 marked the beginning of the age of Chinese dominance of world trade. Before 9/11 I saw goods in the stores the were made in countries all over the world, even if the number of American-made goods had become few. But SINCE 9/11 I have seen ALMOST NOTHING in the stores that was not made in China.
Anyone who is not looking in the direction of CHINA for the culprit responsible for 9/11 is not thinking very deeply or using the very most elementary tools of detective science: MEANS, MOTIVE< and OPPORTUNITY.
All the signs point toward Beijing. Think about that for a while. Until it sinks in.