Obama Hails Killing Of US-Born Al-Qaida Cleric

[The Northerner]

Source: Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama declared the killing of a fiery American-born cleric in Yemen a "major blow" to al-Qaida's most dangerous affiliate, and vowed a vigorous U.S. campaign to prevent the terror network and its partners from finding a haven anywhere in the world.

Anwar al-Awlaki, and a second American, Samir Khan, were killed by a joint CIA-U.S. military air strike on their convoy in Yemen early on Friday, U.S. officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss classified matters. Both men played key roles in inspiring attacks against the U.S., and their killings are a devastating double blow to al-Qaida's most dangerous franchise.

Seeking to justify the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen, Obama called al-Awlaki "the leader of external operations for Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula," and outlined al-Awlaki's involvement in planning and directing attempts to murder Americans.

It was the first time the U.S. has described al-Awlaki that way, and Obama appeared to be presenting a legal justification for eliminating him.

Read more: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=140945521

[ixion]

1. And he won the Nobel Peace Prize because?

seriously. All this saber rattling is not very enlightened, nor peace-like.

[Tesha]

3. The awarding of the Peace Prize was just an expression of hope on the part of the Committee.

Clearly, Obama has in no way lived-up to those hopes.

Tesha

[bananas]

6. I just can't figure it!

[No Elephants]

92. Conservative or neo-conservative?

Will Marshall was a founding member of the Democratic Leadership Council and one of only two of its original full time employees. He signed the 2003 PNAC memo. Later he founded.....wait for it....the Progressive Policy Institute.

Think about that the next time someone speaks about being a "progressive."

Obama has been quoted as saying "I am a New Democrat."

The Democratic Leadership Council, New Democrats, Third Way and No Labels seem bent on making us a one Party system.

Guess which Party?

[DinahMoeHum]

37. Their decision. Not Obama's. Not ours.

Let's remember that.

[tavalon]

61. The CIA?

The only time we even pretended to like them was when Cheney outed Valerie Plame.

[No Elephants]

91. Outed her in retaliation for her husband's telling the truth about WMD in Iraq.

(Sometimes, the angel is in the details, too.)

Passing that, Reply 37 was made in response to Reply 3, which was about the Nobel Prize Committee, not the CIA.

[slackmaster]

4. The peace craze will blow over soon

[Proles]

8. Maybe because killing a terrorist makes the world a bit more peaceful?

Perhaps giving President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was a little strange, but I don't think peace is synonymous with pacifism.

The killing of this individual was yet another accomplishment of the Obama Administration against Al Qaeda, and he continues to weaken the republican's weak argument that "Democrats are weak on terror."

It's Obama who's laying down the law on these people, I don't see why civil libertarians are up in arms about this guy not having a "fair trial" just because he's a so-called American citizen.

[fascisthunter]

9. not when law is lawless

[defendandprotect]

141. ... or when the "terrorist" nation is America -- !!! As United Nations has rightly accused us -- !!

[closeupready]

10. "so-called" because he was brown?

??

[Muskypundit]

20. No, so called because he renounced his fucking citizenship.

[24601]

40. Just renouncing citizenship doesn't remove it. There is a specific

procedure that must be followed. It's been 30+ years since we covered it in one of our law classes, but I recall something about the declaration needing to be on the right forms, and being done in a foreign country but in a US embassy or consulate.

And I thought he had citizenship from birth, not from fucking.

In any case, I applaud the President on this call. Getting shawked running away is up there with getting shot while running away from the bank you just robbed. If he didn't want to go out this way, He could have turned himself and gone to trial.

[No Elephants]

95. Baloney. This was not hot pursuit by law enforcement following a crime newly committed.

"If he didn't want to go out this way, He could have turned himself and gone to trial."

Too bad his Sixth Amendment rights are not conditioned upon turning himself in, or even upon incriminating himself in any way.

[No Elephants]

94. The rights given under the Sixth Amendment are not conditioned upon citizenship.

[AngkorWot]

21. Why does Obama hate brown people?

[No Elephants]

96. For pity sake. The poster was questioning another poster, not Obama.

[24601]

42. A whole shit-load less brown than Obama. I'd love to see any

evidence that Obama's decision was in any way based on skin color.

[No Elephants]

97. Check your sarcasm meter. The poster was supporting Obama,

though what Obama has to do with one poster asking another poster a question about a post is beyond me.

[Proles]

85. Yeah, you got me... not really.

Yes, he did renounce his citizeship. That's why I said "so-called." Not because he's "brown"... I mean really?

Sorry, but I lack any amount of sympathy for someone who instigated or otherwise encouraged terrorist attacks. Don't tell me his little magazines (with a picture of Grand Central Station on the cover) on how to terrorize America is protected by the 1st Amendment.

I'm not against the justice system, but when you're at war with an organization (Al Qaeda), and this individual worked with Al Qaeda... then you do what you got to do. Therefore this sort of thing would fall under the Geneva Convention.

In many cases violence begets violence, yes - but in this case I have extreme doubts that the killing of two people will somehow create more terrorists. If anything, it'll discourage it. It's not like we invaded a country, tortured suspects, or accidently killed civilians. This isn't Bush we're talking about. Obama has done a good job attacking terrorists in a very focused, deliberate manner. I just wish he dealt with social and economic issues the same way he does with foreign policy and defense.

Anyways, I just think it's silly that people think this will set a precedent for the government to just go ahead and missile attack any American citizen. This was a rather unusual circumstance. I'm sure Obama knew the consequences of this.

[No Elephants]

98. Please see Replies 40 and 94. And the Constitution is not about who you or anyone else

has sympathy for.

[ixion]

11. no, it doesn't

violence begets violence. Period.

[Tesha]

18. And killing those of us on the Left would probably make America more peaceful.

It would certainly settle all that current bru-ha-ha
down at Wall Street, wouldn't it?

Tesha

[Marnie]

67. You kind of miss the whole point of our justice system.

Don't you?

[No Elephants]

93. Maybe because of this...

Amendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy (1) the right to a speedy and public trial, by an (2) impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and (3) to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; (4) to be confronted with the witnesses against him; (5) to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and (6) to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

(numbers in parentheses are mine.)


And those rights are not even conditioned upon being a U.S. citizen.



And then there's that Executive Order 12333 that Ronald Reagan issued, prohibiting political assassinations. AFAIK, no one has revoked it.


The Framers rejected a unitary executive. We have three branches, one of which is the judicial branch. The President has power to pardon, but not power to be prosecutor, witness, counsel to the accused, judge and jury.

Something more than crying "Perpetual war on Terra!" should be required before we give up our Constitutional rights. Yes, our rights, because, if you can claim one person is definitely a terrorist, you can claim any person is.

Either we are living under the rule of law and the Constitution or we aren't.

Obama is setting some very bad precedents.

[alarimer]

129. Killed an American citizen WITHOUT DUE PROCESS.

We should all be pissed off at this.

But Americans are bloodthirsty pieces of shit who do not care that they rights are in danger as well.

You don't see why "civil libertarians are up in arms?" You must be pretty fucking stupid then. Obama is a bigger threat to civil liberties than Bush ever dreamed of being.

You can live in a country like this but I for one will protest every time Obama does something blatantly illegal like this. Fuck Obama and his apologists.

[AngkorWot]

19. Because he's bringing peace to the world.

This guy was an enemy to peace.

[ixion]

24. violence does not bring peace.

not one bit. Your support of the Bush Doctrine is troubling, at best.

[AngkorWot]

28. "Your support of the Bush doctrine"

I support the Obama doctrine.

Bush never killed the guy, just like you would have had him do.

[ixion]

29. Obama is using the Bush Doctrine

It is, in fact, the entire basis for the so-called 'war' on terror, which is unending by design.

[AngkorWot]

31. No, he's using the Obama Doctrine. What they gave him the prize for.

Bush was never interested in killing bin Laden, or this guy.

Kind of like you.

[ixion]

34. No, sir, you are quite incorrect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Doctrine

The entire concept of so-called "preventative warfare" was founded in the Bush Doctrine.

[msanthrope]

76. Bush started wars. Obama targeted criminals. Think if Bush had killed OBL in 2001.

No Iraq War in 2003.

[No Elephants]

105. Our Constitution says how we "target criminals." And, you have no idea what would have happened if

Bush had killed Bin Laden in 2001, unless you have not only a crystal ball, but one that predicts results of things that never happened and never can happen.


Bushco's premise was that Saddam was connected to Ben Laden and therefore to terrorist attacks on the US. And also that Saddam had WMD and was therefore himself a present danger to the US.

Killing Bin Laden would not have changed any of that.

Nor would killing Bin Laden have exhausted Bushco's capacity to make up reasons to attack Iraq.

[No Elephants]

104. Actually, you're supporting the ignoring of the rule of law by ANY President.

What Obama does is not only about Obama. It sets a precedent for all presidents of all Parties, just like what Bush did set a precedent for many of things Obama did.

[No Elephants]

99. Ignoring the rule of law is not peaceful Assassination is not peaceful.

Our Constitution tells government how it must proceed. Yelling "Terra! Terra! Perpetual War on Terra forever!" is not how you amend the Constitution lawfully or peacefully.

[No Elephants]

103. LOL!

[Tx4obama]

27. Part of why Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize was for efforts on nuclear disarmament/non-proliferation

I thought everyone knew that by now.
------------

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama's initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world's leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama's appeal that "Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges."

Oslo, October 9, 2009

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

[ixion]

30. people who order assassinations don't deserve Nobel Peace Prizes

no matter what spin you'd like to offer up.

[AngkorWot]

32. The Nobel Peace Prize committee disagrees with you.

Pardon me if I value their opinion over yours.

[ixion]

35. your opinion or what you value doesn't change the facts

And I would be willing to bet if they had the chance to do it over, it would go to someone more deserving.

[AngkorWot]

43. "deserves," as you were discussing, is a matter of opinion.

And given that the Nobel committee knew about both drone attacks, and Obama's commitment to kill terrorists, I'd say you're wrong.

[ixion]

44. as I said

You can think whatever you want. It doesn't change the truth. War mongers are not Men of Peace. Period.

[AngkorWot]

47. War mongers are not Men of Peace.

Warmongers like the terrorist we justifiably killed.

[ixion]

48. justifyably? No. He was assassinated without due process.

Nothing justifiable about it.

The US government is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world, and Obama is head War Monger.

"You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." Albert Einstein.

[AngkorWot]

49. Killed while resisting arrest.

:nopity:

[ixion]

50. As I said initially: You're complete lack of concern for the rule of law

is troubling, at best.

[AngkorWot]

51. Oh, I'm concerned for the rule of law. I think it was completely legal.

The President is obliged, under the Constitution, to defend from enemies both foreign and domestic.

I guess this guy qualified as both.

[ixion]

52. That IS the Bush Doctrine, not the rule of law.

but you already knew that.

[AngkorWot]

53. No, we already went over this.

You support Bush's policy of not killing terrorists.

I support Obama's policy of killing terrorists.

[ixion]

55. I'm done with you

welcome to my ignore list. One day you'll see what I'm talking about, but then it will be too late.

[No Elephants]

108. Killing or killing is not the issue. It's whether the rule of law has been followed in the process.

[tavalon]

65. Assassinated without due process

Now, we're just like the Chinese and many other fascist countries.

[wordpix]

83. so was OBL---and your point is we should protect terrorists at all times when stopping them?

I guess the cop trying to stop a gun-toting criminal should always ask the latter to please come peacefully into the police car for the trip to the station. And if he doesn't, "Well OK, just continue on your business and don't shoot me."

[tavalon]

87. Do you think I believe OBL should have been assassinated without due process?

That's how banana republics do it and since "everything changed after 9/11", I guess you're saying this is okay. I'm saying it isn't. And never will be.

BTW, I'm not saying this is a new behavior for America and ten years after 9/11, I'm going to say what I said that day, "Well, that was a long time in coming, I wonder if we're going to ask, let alone answer, why so much of the world hates us?" needless to say, not only did few ask, but those that had the temerity to ask, or heaven forbid, answer that very, very pertinent and important question were branded unpatriotic. We still are.

I wish us a gentle descent from Empire, but I wish it nonetheless. We as a country are not mature enough to be one. I doubt any country ever was.

[wordpix]

134. in a perfect world, no, but in reality, it's "wanted, dead or alive."

There was plenty of evidence against him, including his own admissions

[No Elephants]

109. What the fuck? We happen to have laws, including the Constitution.

And this situation is NOTHING like a policeman coming upon an armed criminal and not being able to arrest him without danger to himself.

If you're relying on an analogy to prove your point, the facts have to be similar, not entirely different.


Oh, and btw, cops do disarm and arrest armed criminals all the time. That is supposed to be the norm in this country. Executing criminals, armed or not, wherever cops happen to find them, without arrest or trial, is NOT supposed to be the norm, thanks be to the Framers.


And if Bin Laden was so horrific (which he was), why in hell are you advocating that it is okay for the POTUS sink to Bin Laden's level?

Jaysus! It's scary how willing Democrats are to take a dump on the Constitution of the United States, as long as a Democratic President is the one they see themselves as defending.

I know of no better argument to hold a Democratic President to every letter of the law than some of the responses on this thread.

[No Elephants]

106. I call bs. Please quote the Constitutional provision on which you rely.

AFAIK, the Constitution says what the powers of the President are and how he is elected. And then, it requires him to defend the Constitution. You don't defend the Constitution by violating or ignoring it.

[No Elephants]

102. He was not resisting arrest. That term has a legal meaning. It does not mean whatever you want it

to mean.

[tavalon]

63. When you get labeled a "Terrorist" for posting on a board like this,

methinks, you might find this just a little less justifiable. I still hold to the innocent until proven guilty, jury of one's peers, etc. You might do well to embrace that as well. Anything less is just damn scary.

[No Elephants]

107. Well, you finally got ONE sentence almost right. Warmongers are not people of peace.

Killing someone outside the rule of law is never justifiable.

[No Elephants]

117. I call bs again. Kindly provide your basis for claiming that, when the Nobel Committee

voted to award Obama a peace prize, they knew about his drone attacks and his determination to execute those he claimed to be terrorists without a trial.

[tavalon]

62. Well, true enough

They gave one to Kissinger. Kind of makes it rather farcical, IMO.

[totodeinhere]

64. The Nobel Peace Prize is often disingenuous. They also gave it to war criminal Henry Kissinger. n/t

[Psephos]

78. Arafat, too. n/t

[No Elephants]

101. Actually, it doesn't, given the award was made long before any of assassinations

became public.

[westerebus]

71. So that $ 7 billion request for newer nukes doesn't count?

That's what Obama requested for the nuclear weapons program.

I'm sure that's just what the Nobel Committee had in mind.

Not only fewer nukes, but better more improved nukes.

[No Elephants]

111. Good catch!

[westerebus]

130. Don't see any denial of the facts.

I guess that's the other ignore feature of the truly committed.

[No Elephants]

100. And a member of the Committee said it was "aspirational," in the hopes of influencing future

behavior.

It is very possible that both things are in fact true.

[secondwind]

60. The guy was a traitor to this country.

[No Elephants]

118. And when was that proven in a court of law?

EVERYone is entitled to a presumption of innocence.

Never realized so many Democrats hated the Constitution and other applicable laws.

[BenzoDia]

68. He won the peace prize for his work in nuclear disarmament.

[No Elephants]

119. Please see Replies 71 and 100. And he never advocated nuclear disarmament.

He worked on a law that said, in effect, instead of stockpiling more than enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world many, many, many times over, let's stockpile only enough to destroy the world many, many times over.

Still, it was better than the cost of stockpiling more and the added risk of accident of stockpiling more.

But it was never about nuclear disarmament per se. At least, not as that term has been used in the past and commonly understood. He never said the US should not have enough nukes to destroy the world several times over, let alone none at all.

[BenzoDia]

131. From nobelprize.org:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/press.html

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama's vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

[tabasco]

80. Boohoohoo! Meanie Obama killed an Al Qaeda leader.

Sickening to see your response.

[wordpix]

82. +1 hahaha, good one

[No Elephants]

112. Even more sickening to see yours.

From my post upthread to Wordpix:

"It's scary how willing Democrats are to take a dump on the Constitution of the United States, as long as a Democratic President is the one they see themselves as defending.

I know of no better argument to hold a Democratic President to every letter of the law than some of the responses on this thread."

[No Elephants]

90. Per a member of the Committee, sometimes the Committee makes an "aspirational" award, hoping to

influence future behavior.

That hope was probably dashed when Obama gave away the award.

[Kolesar]

2. "a fiery American-born cleric "

Hit with a missile then he's real fiery.

[customerserviceguy]

46. Yeah, a Hellfire missle

Most appropriate.

[Gormy Cuss]

88. I can think of a lot of fiery American-born clerics within our own borders who also incite violence.

Perhaps we should use drones to take them out too.

[sabrina 1]

5. The most they can offer is this: "inspiring attacks".

He inspired by his words, they claim, attacks on Americans. So he was killed for speaking. That's because there is no other evidence they can produce.

I saw people defend the incendiary speech and actions of a rightwing Preacher who burned the Koran and caused riots in Afghanistan which actually did get people killed. But his 1st Amendment rights were protected by many people, and here on this board also.

So when did even incendiary speech become a Death Penalty case?

[Harmony Blue]

13. +1 This is a dangerous precedent

very scary.

:scared:

[wordpix]

81. oh, let's just let these jihadists continue to blow up airplanes and such

:sarcasm: You really want to protect their liberty and free speech to incite and aid people to blow us up? :shrug:

Some of the posts here are, I guess, written by those who don't live in target areas like NYC or DC.

So the guy's a citizen but he's also a traitor. You sometimes can't capture these guys alive to extradite them, so you get them, dead or alive. I trust that O had pretty good intelligence on him and it seems the Yemenis and Saudis didn't like him, either.

[No Elephants]

114. Epic fail false dichotomy. There is a hell of a lot of terrority between

letting someone commit crimes and handling suspected criminal (innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law) in the way that the Constitution and other applicable law requires us to handle them.

[wordpix]

135. I agree we should handle suspected terrorists by rule of law BUT

when they're in a foreign country and we can't easily capture them to interrogate them and bring them to court/justice, in your perfect world you should just let them be?

I don't agree. I live in a targeted city and I want to be protected, and ditto for visitors, friends, family, residents...

Where do YOU live, No Elephants? Very easy to criticize a tougher approach when you're not targeted. Come clean, now...

[Bladian]

16. I'll remember this the next time someone threatens the President.

How is this not the same thing? People would be screaming for blood if someone said the President should be shot and it happened. It's the same damn thing. And every person here would want the murderer's head.

[Muskypundit]

23. When you are a member of Al-Queda

[No Elephants]

115. When you are a member of AQ, what? We ignore the rule of law? Who proved him to be a member of Al

Qaida beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law anyway?

Hint: Anyone can fake anything on the internet and even people who have confess are entitled to a trial.

Al Capone, once Public Enemy No. 1, was a serial killer himself and responsible for many other deaths by his mob lieutenants. He got a trial.

Billy Bulger, also a serial killer and otherwise responsible for many deaths, and Public Enemy No.1 for years before most of us heard of Bin Laden, is being held for trial right now.

The Constitution reads as it does for very good reasons.



"Jaysus! It's scary how willing Democrats are to take a dump on the Constitution of the United States, as long as a Democratic President is the one they see themselves as defending.

I know of no better argument to hold a Democratic President to every letter of the law than some of the responses on this thread."

[msanthrope]

74. Actually, no--here's a link to his email where he plots to blow up an plane with a convicted bomber.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/03/anwar_al_awlakis_ema.php

He took an operational role in terror.

[No Elephants]

110. Good thing opening an email account in anyone's name is so difficult, huh?

Besides, even people who confess are entitled to due process.

I notice you are linking to a story about what a British COURT did. Too bad Queen Elizabeth or Cameron just didn't off the guy without a trial, eh?

Oh, wait, they aren't bound by the U.S. Constitution, nor does the U.S. Constitution require them to take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution. That would only be President Obama.

[No Elephants]

113. Inciting to violence is indeed a crime under certain circumstances.

To my mind, the issue is, how does the Constitution and other applicable law require federal and state government in this country to handle suspected criminals?

[BeHereNow]

7. No due process, no hearing- just "Guilty" and your dead.

As an American citizen- wasn't he at least entitled to legal process?
This is beyond the pale.
Guess now any of us can be assassinated without notice.
A dangerous new precedent indeed.
And disturbing to see it presented as some sort of
glorious accomplishment.

Think about it- Our government can now assassinate anyone of us.
Legally.

Wow. simply WOW.
BHN

[Kahuna]

12. Unless you go to Yemen, and join the jihadists, you have nothing to fear. nt

[gratuitous]

14. Or some other ex post facto, extra-Constitutional condition that we think up

I've been through the Constitution over and over again, and I don't see where being in Yemen voids it. Maybe there's some secret Amendment that was enacted by the USA PATRIOT Act that isn't vouchsafed to rabble such as I.

[plumbob]

22. Gosh, you're still hung up on that old-fashioned rag???

Get with the program!


BOOGA-BOOGA!!! FEAR ALL THE TIME!!! RUN!!! BE AFRAID!! KILL SUMTHIN'!!!!

So much simpler than all those words about habeas corpus and extradition, and unreasonable search and seizure....


Right?

[BeHereNow]

33. Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan...Idaho, New Zealand: just about everywhere.

The precedent has been set and basically
allows our government to kill anyone of us.
Legally.

And yes, I'm sure it is somewhere, on some piece of paper,
quickly made law, in the dead of night in a undisclosed location.
The Cheney Bunker perhaps.
Meanwhile, we were all watching "Dancing with the Stars."

BHN

[westerebus]

73. Concur.

Their is no exception granted.

The patriot act is an affront to democracy and is just cover for more political subterfuge.

[Tesha]

25. That's today's standard; what will tomorrow's be? (NT)

[BeHereNow]

36. Says who? Now that it is legal.

What exactly is to stop them from assassinating you
because they say you have ties to some remote jihadist group?
Nothing.

BHN

[ronnie624]

86. You really don't see the error in your thinking?

Really?

[No Elephants]

116. Bullshit. If that were so, our Constitution and other applicable laws would not read as they do.

Maybe, just Maybe, the Framers collectively were smarter than you, even if you fancy yourself as smarter than Jefferson and Madison.

Maybe they had excellent reasons to require due process and jury trials of federal government and, after the 14th amendment, of state government as well.

From a post of mine upthread:


"Jaysus! It's scary how willing Democrats are to take a dump on the Constitution of the United States, as long as a Democratic President is the one they see themselves as defending.

I know of no better argument to hold a Democratic President to every letter of the law than some of the responses on this thread."

[MannyGoldstein]

17. "Make no mistake: due process is for suckers" nt

[Tarheel_Dem]

15. As well he should.

:patriot:

[Tesha]

26. I'm starting to wonder if Democrats stand for anything. (NT)

[ixion]

38. apparently, they stand for the same things the neocons stand for

which is distressing, at best.

[Tesha]

59. It sure seems like an awful (sic) lot of them do! (NT)

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. It's a great big ol' tent. Anyone is free to leave it when they feel it no longer

suits their needs. I'm as snug as a bug in a rug. The Democratic Party has been my home for my entire life, and opinions range from very far left, to very far right under this big tent. We'll agree to disagree. :hi:

[Tx4obama]

41. +100. Well said! n/t

[frylock]

70. and make no mistake, the goal is to drive progressives away

[customerserviceguy]

45. It's about time we fought this thing like a war

Instead of manhandling little old grandmas about to get on an airplane.

The President's proud of his order and it's execution, and I'm proud of him and the military power that got this asshole. He had "accidental" citizenship, which he fully renounced over and over by his actions. If he had surrendered and made himself available for arrest, he'd have had a trial.

My only regret was that it was all over for him pretty damn quickly.

[No Elephants]

120. Where to begin: Being proud of something does not make it lawful.

"It's about time we fought this thing like a war"


Real wars are are between nations, so this is not being fought like a war.

"He had "accidental" citizenship,"

Citizenship by birth, as most of us have, and as specified in the Constitution as the only kind of citizenship that qualifies anyone to be POTUS (Much to Swartzenegger's dismay).

Did you have a point?


"which he fully renounced over and over by his actions."

Neither his actions nor his words deprived him of his citizenship. Only a formal process does that.

In any event, the citizenship issue is a red herring. Most of the provision of U.S. Constitution say what the federal government may and may not do and what it must do, without any mention of citizenship. Surely, you have been reading and posting here long enough to know that.

"If he had surrendered and made himself available for arrest, he'd have had a trial."

The Constitution does not condition the right to a trial on surrendering yourself.

Anything else?

[customerserviceguy]

128. Your notions about war are as outdated

as the armies that used to line up in neat order fifty feet apart before the shooting started. We don't have nations declaring war against each other in the old fashioned way anymore, AQ or some other terrorist organization merely takes over a failed or ungovernable state, and operates out of there. We've seen it in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somailia, and now Yemen.

Your stand on ceremony will be laughed at if AQ ever gets control of a Western country, fortunately, it won't be this one.

[alp227]

54. If the people inspired by Awlaki can get tried in fed court,

so can Awlaki.

[Odin2005]

56. Ugh, Extrajudicial killing is un-American.

[Yavin4]

57. The Very People Calling for a Trial of Anwar al-Awlaki

would never support a guilty verdict from that trial if one were reached.

Bottom line is this: if you go to a foreign nation and organize random acts of violence against innocent American citizens, then you are an enemy combatant, and take your fate into your own hands.

[msanthrope]

77. He had a trial for incitement to murder in Yemen. Convicted, he never showed up.....

So what the hell were we supposed to do? Have a trial here???

I agree with everything you wrote.

[No Elephants]

121. First, Bushco made up that definition of "enemy combatant." This is change we

can bereave in.

Second, no one proved in a court of law that he did any of the things your post described and our laws say people are innocent until proven guilty.

[Fool Count]

58. That's just the beginning of Obama's re-election campaign.

Wait until he gets into the full electioneering mode. He'll be wacking people right and left
like he's Tony Soprano. There is nothing American voters love more than kicking some bloody
terrorist ass. I bet, Obama is now sorry he didn't wait until the day before the election to wack
bin-Laden.

[No Elephants]

122. IMO, Obama began his re-election campaign about 25-30 years ago.

Few people run for only one term as President.

Some may change their minds after having served one term or most of one term. Obviously, Obama is not one of those people. In any event, I believe his plan for most of his career was to be President, and not for only one term

[Fool Count]

132. I have no doubt that it was his plan. But he also knows

very well what attention span and long-term memory capacity of American public are. It's simply not worthwhile to
do anything more than 18 months in advance, as they simply wouldn't remember a thing on the election day.
Obviously, he now feels it's becoming useful to start putting messages out.

[Marnie]

66. We know the right to lifers and the Christianists

would have not problems voting for the murder Whorehouse Perry.

But how many Democratic and liberal socialists/nazi/fascists will vote for the murder Obama?

Has he gone a bridge too far? He keeps shedding his base and defiling what the Democratic party says it stands for.

[mikekohr]

69. When You Dedicate Your Life To Placing Bombs On Planes Filled With Innocent Men, Women, and Children

you should not be surprized when we fly an un-manned aircraft filled with explosives through your windshield.

[wordpix]

79. +1

[No Elephants]

123. What the hell does surprise have to do with the rule of law?

What part of "Constitutional right to be deemed innocent of all charges until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt" are you unable to grasp?

Who proved beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law before a jury that this guy dedicated his "Life To Placing Bombs On Planes Filled With Innocent Men, Women, and Children"?

[unkachuck]

72. al-Awlaki was a bad man....

....but assassinating him without a trial is troubling....were US born Germans working for the Nazis during WWII ever assassinated by our government? Is this Constitutional?

[msanthrope]

75. I have no doubt a number of them were, especially if they'd gone to Germany. nt

[No Elephants]

124. Nuremberg TRIALS, not Nuremberg assassinations.

[wordpix]

84. Anwar al-Awlaki, al-Qaida cleric and top US target, killed in Yemen--Guardian

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/sep/30/anwar-al-awlaki-killed-yemen

Anwar al-Awlaki, al-Qaida cleric and top US target, killed in Yemen
Obama welcomes news of Awlaki's death in US air strike, and says dual US-Yemeni citizen advanced 'murderous agenda'

A missile fired from an American drone has struck and killed a radical US-born Islamic cleric in Yemen, bringing an end to a controversial, two-year manhunt but reigniting questions over the targeting of a US citizen on foreign soil. snip

"He repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda," Obama said.

Awlaki is credited with inspiring or directing at least four plots against the US in recent years, three of which were unsuccessful – a shooting inside the Fort Hood military base, the failed Times Square bombing, the failed underwear bomber, and a parcel bomb hidden inside a printer that also failed to explode inside a passenger jet.

The administration avoided giving details of the strike with experts saying they clearly feared further complicating their complex relations with Yemen. At a White House briefing spokesman Jay Carney dodged questions about the legality of the assassination and details of the US's involvement. Nor would he confirm Khan's death or how the bodies were identified.

Asked if the White House would publish evidence that Awlaki was "operationally involved" in terrorism, Charney said: "Again, this is — the question is — makes us – you know, has embedded within it assumptions about the circumstances of his death that I'm just not going to address." more

[buckrogers1965]

89. nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

That's in the 5th amendment to constitution. It applies to all people, regardless of their citizenship status.

At this point Obama, and anyone that followed those orders, is a criminal, a murderer, and has violated the inalienable rights of at least one human being.

Now that the ice has been broken, expect to see a lot more Americans be deemed terrorists and assassinated without a trial.

We had a great run, 230 years or so.

[Meandering Kitten]

127. Nonsense. I'm sick of the Obama bashing.

Push Obama down and we'll have a president Perry or Cain or Bachmann or Romney. We don't want that. Obama needs every bit of our support.

[defendandprotect]

140. Or a President Bernie Sanders -- !! Try saying ... eh ... "Yes, we can -- !!!"

Think the "obama bashing" bashing is tiresome and threadbare --


Try dealing with the issues -- universal heatlh care and the betrayals by Obama

in back room deals with Big Pharma and private H/C industry --


Obama is looking for only one kind of support -- corporate!

[wordpix]

136. "Obama is...a criminal, murderer and has violated the inalienable rights of

at least one human being."

How many people was al-Alwaki involved in killing? How about THEIR rights? There IS such a thing as the right to defend oneself, and in this case the "oneself" is the US.

When YOU're the target, maybe you'll understand.

[defendandprotect]

138. More likely he was a CIA asset --

9/11 was an inside job --

[defendandprotect]

139. +1000% --- either we have a Constitution or we don't --- and looks more like "don't" -- !!!

[No Elephants]

125. This thread has a stench of idolatry, hypocrisy and lawlessness. It's ugly.

[Meandering Kitten]

126. Good move by Obama

I support Obama on this.

[Major Hogwash]

133. I'm going to vote again for Obama next year for sure now!

This is great news.

[defendandprotect]

137. We should have moved for a RECALL on Obama when he picked DLC Rahm Emmanuel....

and then moved on to his further outrageous picks of Summers and Geitner --

and the very people who orchestrated the meltdown!!

This depression was as engineered by rich as the first one was --

and Obama sure ain't no FDR!!!