Obama gives order to kill American terror imam

[keep_it_real]

The decision is extraordinary not only because Mr al-Awlaki is believed to be the first American whose killing has been approved by a US President, but also because the Obama Administration chose to make the move public.

Tina Foster, of the US-based International Justice Network, told The Times: “I am in shock that they would do this. It is shocking that our Government would go to these extremes, even depriving someone of their life without a legal process.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7089899.ece

[Oregone]

1. Heh, if this is OK by any justification, why does Glen Beck still draw breath?

[walldude]

22. LOL... because he's really a zombie...

Matter of fact if Swamp Rat is around somewhere I'm sure he has a pic of Beck minus his disguise... :rofl:

[Xenotime]

42. Excellent question.

[bluestateguy]

2. I've got other fish to fry than to stick my neck out defending this asshole

If Mr. al-Awlaki wants to avoid all of this trouble then he can peacefully turn himself in.

I'm much more concerned about trying to get a climate change bill through Congress. And EFCA.

[roguevalley]

116. I find this horrible. First of all, what are the criteria for killing a man

without charge, without trial. And, if you kill this American for these reasons, why not formulate another reason for killing other Americans. If Americans protest the state and the president is another dick like cheney, then they can use this as a precedent for doing murder of Americans for any reason they choose. We aren't Somalia. This is evil.

[LWolf]

130. +1

[Beacho]

136. I agree

I'm pretty sure he knows the deal, he willingly chose his path. If the U.S. does the same for somebody from Yemen, Somalia, or another foreign country, why should he get a pass? This smacks of exceptionalism. BUT! BUT! He's an AMERICAN! So what? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If it's acceptable to do this to a foreign national in the same circumstances, then the same treatment should be meted out to him.

[babylonsister]

3. Damn Obama. He wants a known terrorist killed? The humanity!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki


Anwar al-Awlaki (also spelled Aulaqi; Arabic: أنور العولقي Anwar al-‘Awlaqī; born April 22, 1971 (1971-04-22) (age 38) in Las Cruces, New Mexico)<3><5><6><7> is an American Muslim lecturer, spiritual leader, and former imam believed to be a senior talent recruiter and motivator "for al-Qaeda and all of its franchises."<8><9> With a blog and a Facebook page, he has been described as the "bin Laden of the internet."<10> In 2009, he reportedly was promoted to the rank of regional commander within al-Qaeda.<4><11>

Al-Awlaki's sermons were attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers. They were also attended by the accused Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan. In addition, U.S. intelligence intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki from December 2008 to June 2009, including one in which Hasan wrote: "I can't wait to join you ." After the Fort Hood shooting, al-Awlaki praised Hasan's actions.<12><13>

There were close contacts between al-Awlaki and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 al-Qaeda terrorist attack on Christmas Day 2009.<14> According to the suspect, al-Awlaki was his recruiter, and one of his trainers.<15>

Yemeni authorities, searching for al-Awlaki because of his suspected al-Qaeda ties, have been unable to locate him since March 2009. He was initially reported as having possibly been killed in a Yemeni airstrike on a meeting of al-Qaeda leaders at his house in the mountains of eastern Shabwa in December 2009. But by the following month, the working assumption was that he had survived.<16> By early 2010, President Obama had authorized his targeted killing.<17>

[tekisui]

4. Terrorist? Are we really supposed to be afraid of this guy?

He is still a US citizen and has a right to due process. This is a dangerous precedent.

[babylonsister]

7. Ya know what? I don't give a shit if he's an American. By his actions he

has denied his citizenship imo. Read the wiki description of what this guy has been involved in, and you tell me if we should blindly support him. YOU are against all war, this clown is instigating it. So justify that.

[tekisui]

8. I don't support extrajudicial killings, period.

Targeting him with drone strikes and bombs will kill more innocent civilians.

Killing to prevent killing rarely works. It just continues the cycle of violence. Do we really want to reproduce what we have been doing in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan? Targeting individuals, and killing lots of innocent people in the process.

I understand he is reprehensible, but targeting him won't make us safer. And, sets a dangerous precedent. Do we really want that type of authority to be in the hands of the next repug president?

[Maat]

109. +1 (n/t)

[onenote]

129. do you oppose all use of deadly force by law enforcement?

If a duly authorized "peace officer" uses deadly force against someone suspected but not convicted of dangerous criminal activity, do you consider that "extrajudicial""

do you oppose all use of deadly force by the military? are all actions by the military "extrajudicial"?

Just trying to better understand your position as stated by you.

[John Q. Citizen]

147. Are you supportive of all police shootings in every and any circumstace? Do you

support anything the military ever does any where any time?

Would you support any decision Obama ever made, no matter what?


Just trying to figure out your position, as implied by you.

[Feron]

18. If the worst of us do not have constitutional protections,...

then that doesn't bode well for the best of us.

Imagine if Brandon Mayfield had gone on a trip outside of the country....

The guy in question may be a piece of work, but every American is entitled to due process. What is done to him will also eventually be done to you.

[babylonsister]

62. Ya think? When was the last time most Americans went outside

this country to inspire violence and death, against Americans?

[MUAD_DIB]

78. Just imagine...

If another Osama wannabe gets a chance to kill more Americans or some other poor slob that just wanted to live in relative peace.

If an American takes up arms against his own country or incites active armed resistance to the USA...let's say they're right wingers...I'm very very sure that a lot of DUers would give a rat's ass if they were put down.


Now I do believe in due process. Mr Aulaqi should com forward immediately to clear his name.

[Maat]

110. +1 - agreement with Feron.

But, then, we all know what was in Ben Franklin's book:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

[Hannah Bell]

123. one more in the "who cares about the constitution" column.

[varelse]

135. I had a great deal of respect for you

I have zero, now. How sad. I never thought I would see those words come from someone like you.

[noamnety]

9. Apparently he doesn't need a trial

if there's a wikipedia page.

[kristopher]

15. What do you suggest?

I can certainly understand your misgivings. The idea of Shrub making the same decision makes my stomach churn, and I'm objective enough to see the apparent hypocrisy of objecting to Bush having that power while trusting Obama with it.

But really, if the man is moving forward on a plan that could kill several hundred thousand people and the White House is aware of and has legitimately explored all alternatives, what do would YOU do if you had the responsibility for ensuring the safety of the country against attack?

[noamnety]

33. I'm not on board with presidentially ordered illegal assassinations or the death penalty

Speaking as a veteran, I'm not even sure how we could be within our enlistment oath to uphold the constitution while carrying out an order that's blatantly illegal.

Oh well, I guess that's what blackwater's for.

Go Obama! Go Blackwater!

[kristopher]

36. That doesn't answer the question, does it?

What would you do? Take no action other than try to extradite him?

I don't know what I'd do either.

[noamnety]

37. It wasn't a question worth answering.

I was hoping to avoid calling it out directly as a stupid request.

Without having access to any of the intel, I am obviously not in a position to personally craft a specific military strategy for this operation.

[kristopher]

39. "Apparently he doesn't need a trial if there is a wikipedia page..."

I guess I misunderstood the meaning of what you wrote.

[noamnety]

54. It was tongue in cheek

Someone was suggesting they didn't think he should have the guaranteed right to a trial, based on a wiki page about him.

[tekisui]

60. Do you hoenstly believe one person is so powerful

that killing them, risking significant civilian deaths as collateral damage, is what is needed to keep us safe?

We are falling into the same boogey-man trap that has been put on us before.

Make an enemy. Use that enemy to scare people into accepting erosion of civil liberties. Kill that enemy (or chase forver). Declare victory, move on to the next manufactured enemy.

[kristopher]

121. I don't know what I'd do.

I understand the dilemma too well I think, and I don't have a good enough grasp of either the safeguards nor the legalities.

[babylonsister]

64. OK. You can cheer for him. I won't. nt

[noamnety]

67. I missed where I was cheering for him.

I was simply stating that he should be entitled to access to the justice system - like every other American.

I'm not down with the president deciding unilaterally which Americans are exempt from constitutional protection.

On a side note, I think it's extremely poor form to portray that as me "cheering" for a terrorist. I expect better than that from people on the left.

[babylonsister]

73. Now he's a terrorist, but needs a trial? No. He's an embarrassment.

If he's an American, he deserves whatever he gets despite where he's from. A thug is a thug, if he is intent on killing us and others, why should he get the full justice of our system that grinds so slowly to begin with?

And yes, wiki informed me. What informed you to defend him, besides being an American? Sometimes that isn't enough.

[noamnety]

75. You stick to wiki.

I'll stick to the constitution.

You are using logical fallacies when you claim I am "defending" him.

The reason for him being allowed a trial is the same as for any other American, because kangaroo courts with predetermined death penalties as the outcome should have died with the witch trials. I'm sad to see folks here defending that method of justice.

Sometimes intel is false. Sometimes the CIA lies.

Remember yellow cake? The Gulf of Tonkin? Iran Contra?

[babylonsister]

79. OK. But if he gets in a tight situation and loses, I won't mourn him.

And you are right, a lot of the time, we are fed bunk. Truth noted.

[Capitalocracy]

84. I will join in your non-mourning. nt

[Luminous Animal]

76. Because we are a nation of laws with a Constitution that gives the President ZERO

power to be judge, jury, & executioner.

[emilyg]

91. +10

[babylonsister]

114. So, what's your solution? How should we catch this guy, and why? nt

[Luminous Animal]

119. The same way law enforcement catches any other criminal

or doesn't. That's the breaks abiding by our United States Constitutional law.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

87. It is one of the most important tenets in America that all people have rights.

Just because he is a (suspected) criminal doesn't mean that the United States government can up and kill him. What if they government accused you of a crime and then said it was so heinous that you didn't need a trial, they could just kill you at their leisure?

[MUAD_DIB]

41. One could argue that he is a threat. It would be better if said individual

would surface and explain himself. But if he doesn't then I would be concerned that any potential threat has to be evaluated for what it is and dealt with properly.

The Hutaree have been collected peacefully, but what if they had gone into hiding with the possible intent of causing harm? Dangerous or armed and dangerous is a serious thing. What do you do in that situation?

I'm not advocating murder inasmuch as I am suggesting that any possible threat needs to be taken very seriously.

[babylonsister]

51. What right has he given to anyone he's tried to kill? nt

[noamnety]

56. So nobody accused of murder should be eligible for the right to a trial?

That's not how the constitution works.

[babylonsister]

59. OK. He's a real peach, my apologies. nt

[tekisui]

57. Who has HE tried to kill?

Besides, that is not the standard we use.

We do not seek to kill every person who has committed a serious crime, even murder.

[babylonsister]

68. He wants to kill as many people as possible.

That's okay with you? Sorry, defend him all you want, I won't.

[tekisui]

71. Is 'wanting' to kill honestly legitimate grounds for extrajudicial killing?

Again, I am not defending him. I am defending OUR civil liberties and OUR due process.

[babylonsister]

74. GIVE ME A BREAK! He ordered people to kill Americans. What

will it take you to understand that? He couldn't give a shit about our liberties or due process, so why do you care about his?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

96. OK, now you're really scaring me.

He's a human being and he has rights. Without exaggeration, that's Taliban thinking. Just because he is accused of a crime does not mean his rights are forfeit. You accuse him of not caring about civil liberties or due process, and that's something you have in common with him. That's really frightening to me.

[nadinbrzezinski]

101. Becuase the way we treat the most heinous amonst us

leads to how well you will be treated.

By the way, you realize that one reason for that little soiree called the War of Independence was extra judicial killing and the abuse of that term called treason?

Just because OUR GUY is in charge, don't make it right. Or did we elect a petit dictator with a cheering section?

My mistake, it seems we did.

[tekisui]

128. Where is the evidence that he ordered killings?

I know he advocated targeting US military. I know a couple of hijackers and Hasan looked up to him. When did he give orders and who followed those orders?

[treestar]

100. Why does he have greater rights than Osama bin laden?

Were you equally convinced that Clinton was wrong when he had Osama targeted the same way?

Why does being born on US soil mean one has greater rights than others? Doesn't that make it some sort of privilege at birth that this country was founded to eliminate?

When abroad, why should a citizen be able to join an enemy force with impunity?

[LWolf]

131. EXACTLY. nt

[kristopher]

5. I believe the reason may be that he is planning an attack on a nuclear power plant.

26 days ago a New Jersey janitor that had worked at 5 nuclear plants in that area was recaptured after being arrested, killing one guard and shooting another in Yemen.

The young man, named Mobley attended a radicalized school in Yemen that is a recruiting ground for al-Awlaki and newpaper reports that Mobley is linked to al-Awlaki.

Although the al-Awlaki is a US citizen, he is effectively beyond the reach of criminal justice and he is actively plotting to attack the US and our citizens overseas (he is also behind the Jihad Jane headlines) in what can only be construed as an act of war. A successful attack on a nuclear facility could easily result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and incalculable economic losses.

The most reasonable explanation that can be assembled from the public information is that they have actionable intelligence, perhaps from Mobley, that justifies this action. I'm surprised (and frankly pleased) that it is being done openly. Let's hope that adds to the validity of the action.

[RandomThoughts]

6. Does the guy even exist?

I watched one of the news reports on the guy, and in what he was said to have said, he used a big word I had never heard of.

I figured it was so that people at NSA could check all the search records of that word on net to find who listened to his speech.

That's what made me think the guy might not be real, well that and all the phony Osama tapes released during Bush years.

But maybe he does exist, maybe he doesn't, but news stories are no way to know if he was ever real in the first place.



If he does exist, the transparent action of such a declaration, basically giving argument for reasons is a good thing about that article.

Then again, who knows if the article in the link is real either.

[whatchamacallit]

10. WTF?

What's the game here, this doesn't make sense?:wow:

[Octafish]

11. Gosh. How long before it's against the law to be a Liberal?

Flush mAnn and Combes want to kill kill kill.

[MUAD_DIB]

45. Are you equating the actions against a potential terrorist threat with that of liberals?

That is as offensive as it is dubious.

[Capitalocracy]

48. No, it's 100% relevant

When leaders are allowed to ignore the rule of law, they can target anyone. Obama won't always be the president, Democrats won't always control Congress. In many, many Latin American countries just a few decades ago, military dictatorships said they were defending the country, defending the Constitution, and targeting "terrorists". They went on to start killing liberals. Is this strictly a thing of the past? Not so much, look at Honduras today. Is it something that can't happen in the U.S.?

Well, you tell me. I don't think we're immune. Far from it.

[ecstatic]

55. There is no slippery slope.The guy is behind terroristic acts.

I could see if Obama ordered Glenn Beck captured or killed. As much as I hate Beck, THAT would be nearing a slippery slope. :eyes:

[Capitalocracy]

61. There is inherently a slippery slope.

And you're taking their word for it that this guy is actually a terrorist. Do I think he's a terrorist? Yeah, I believe they're telling the truth, but why wouldn't they lie, when there will be no process, no trials, nothing but their word against a dead man's?

Anyone could be called a terrorist. And the slippery slope doesn't end with our good friend Obama, the authority slides downward and the chance for corruption, personal scores, individual craziness, etc., to make it possible for people to use the state as a murder weapon. And it invariably happens.

[tekisui]

72. Evidence please?

I know terrorists like him, but that is not the same as 'being behind' attacks.

[MUAD_DIB]

63. You bring up an intersrting point. But...

state sponsored domestic right wing death squads, I would suggest, are a different thing entirely than either bringing to justice or killing a threat to a country.

Death squads were/are used to keep the population terrorized and remove threats to its continued authoritarian state existence.

Either 1) capturing or 2) killing public enemy #1, although sucking in principle 2), has some basis in reality for protecting the general population.

A right winger (USA variety) could argue that by arresting the Hutaree that the Obama administration has entered into the death squad phase of authoritarian state existence; simply because they disagree with the arrest of the peaceful armed militia. :sarcasm: :crazy:

A Muslim Wahhabi might say the same thing about the administration's plans for Anwar Al Aulaqi.


So your premise about dictators killing Liberals is a little thin if the USA wants to protect itself from a potential terrorist.

Whatever the future holds is in the future with regards to different parties being in control. I do not advocate killing in cold blood, but I also do not support Al Quaida targeting US interests anywhere. That goes for all terrorists.

If they are intent on killing, like the Hutaree, then I will not shed a tear for them if the USA has no other choice than to remove them from harming its citizens.


One last note, and I add this just as a personal example. 9/11 has been called an inside job by some, or that it was the work of Al Quaida, or that we (G.W. Bush) should have known better etc... Those points are now moot. What's done is done and can't be undone.

I knew people on the flight out of Boston. My brother knew/had gone to school with one of the pilots years before. If Al Quaida was responsible for 9/11 then do you want to give any of them the chance to do it or something like it again...ever?

[Capitalocracy]

122. The Hutaree will get trials.

And if they were killed, it would be during an attempt to capture them, not as a mission to assassinate them.

These things aren't different. Sure, today we're dealing with someone who's most likely a legitimate terrorist and possibly a threat to many lives, but if that list gets longer, people will start to appear on it who are innocent. Just like there are in Gitmo today. Once we get used to this, anyone they put on that list will automatically be a "terrorist", regardless of what got them on that list... even clerical mistakes. And as a matter of fact, if the administration kills people, especially U.S. citizens, deliberately without a trial, then YES he is running a "death squad" or an equivalent thereof.



My premise about killing liberals isn't a premise, it's history. I live in Argentina, where liberals, activists, union organizers, and even charity workers were tortured and killed systematically under a military dictatorship organized by Henry Kissinger and backed by the U.S. Their defense for their actions when people started to notice their loved ones were disappearing? They justified it by saying they had to fight the Montoneros, a left-wing group with activist and militant/terroristic elements. South America is where using the idea of fighting terrorism to justify eliminating human rights was tested. And after 9/11, the same thing is happening in the U.S. Now, maybe you can say that Obama won't abuse these powers, but simply exercising powers which are beyond the Constitution is an abuse of power even in a seemingly reasonable situation like fighting against a genuinely bad guy. It sets a precedent, and Obama is failing terribly at preserving these ideals. He's continuing Bush policy and failing to prosecute Bush administration crimes, which means this extrajudicial, extraconstitutional framework will be in place for whoever comes along next. And we won't always have a Democrat, and even if we do, we won't always have a good one. As a matter of fact, the way things stand today, we are in serious danger of handing a system designed to require no Constitutional checks and balances to an extreme right-wing lunatic who thinks they have to separate the good Christians from the heathens, atheists, fags, and liberals, and fight the Antichrist in the soon-to-come endtimes.

And as I posted above, this authority won't stop with Obama. Personal vendettas, personal insanities, personal beliefs, personal prejudices, will take over in various points in the chain of deciding who gets tortured, imprisoned indefinitely, or killed under these new extraconstitutional rules. Because these are humans, because the administrations change, because people get hired, fired, retired, promoted, all the time, with no strict systematic basis for making these decisions, the situation is extremely volatile and there's nowhere they can go but down. That's why I say it's inherently a slippery slope.

I understand that you don't want to see anyone else die in terrorist attacks, and I don't either, but I also don't want to see the U.S. destroy the rule of law in a theoretical attempt to prevent terrorism. I know someone who was arrested by Homeland Security and tortured on U.S. soil because one person, out of pure racism, called them. They didn't even ask for evidence. This was under Bush, but when he was told to stop telling his story and stop talking about the U.S. government online or he and his children would be killed, Obama was already in office. This isn't just about the president, we have a whole system in place of people who will take advantage of these unconstitutional policies to settle personal scores or advance their careers. We need some rules, my friend. It's as simple as that. And one of those rules is you don't execute people without a trial. That's the long and short of it.

[MUAD_DIB]

143. How many people have the backwards Hurtaree killed so far?

Now how many have Al Quaida killed; not just in the US but worldwide?

Now how would you balance the safety of the "rule of law" with the possibility that more Americans, and or world citizens, will die because the USA has to keep it fair and legal?

I don't like the concept of a targeted killing, but do you have any problem if we couldn't capture Osama Bin Laden but we had the opportunity to kill him?

Is it only that crazy jihadist #1,502 is an American citizen this time around which bothers you?

[LWolf]

132. I remember when DU

was obsessed with "the rule of law" and GWB. Funny how things change when it's a Democrat. What hypocrisy.

Welcome to DU, and thanks for "getting" it.

[virgogal]

12. Oh man,what a world.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. "...believed to be the first American whose killing has been approved by a US President"

Yeah, and I have a big Jesus statue to sell you real cheap.

[nadinbrzezinski]

14. Well, the last forty eight hours have reminded me

just how much we have been moving to this over at least 25 years.

Legally it is fucked up.

Yes, there is this thing about the Constitution.

But sadly I am not surprised.

On edit, it has to do with personal experience, and let's leave it at that. Hell, thinking of putting a stop to that short... or really changing the subjects. to protect the guilty.

[kristopher]

17. HI NB.

No questions about that but I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on the application of the Constitution to this matter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Three_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_3:_Treason

[nadinbrzezinski]

21. Extra curricular executions are against the law period

and they fall under the fact that you need to indict somebody. Rules of evidence apply.

Technically they could get away with it in a procedure done in absentia, and perhaps they did that. But even then it violates the law, as you need to bring the person to the presence of the court. Arraignment goes back the medieval period where extra judicial procedures were done.

In the US arraigning the accuse and challenging his or her accuser are in the law. This is what they are not doing. So they are not in the best of places.

Nor do I expect anybody to file ...

In essence it violates the rights of the accused, this guy, to a jury trial.

[kristopher]

24. Treason is unique.

I'm not informed on the topic, but the wiki page and the fact that it is specifically addressed in the constitution seems to negate the premise you offered. I stress "seems to".

[Luminous Animal]

30. The charge of treason resides with the Judicial branch, not the executive.

Has the man been charged with treason by the judiciary? Has he had a trial? Has he been convicted?

Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[kristopher]

35. Those are the key questions, aren't they?

I'm guessing that after this revelation we have a better chance of finding the answers.

I had high hopes for Obama and in spite of some strong disappointments I'm not ready to give up on the hope that he intends to create constraints on the executive branch through his actions.

We'll see.

[Capitalocracy]

38. No, it's not

I mean, I could be wrong, but what the Constitution says about treason is more of a response to it being bandied around by the English before them, when it was considered treason to even think about the possibility that the King might just get old and die someday. Unthinkable.

So basically, they gave a very strict definition of treason and restrictions on the evidence required, at least two witnesses, to prevent it from becoming the go-to crime for locking up or killing dissenters or people you don't like in general. But I don't think there's any implication that there shouldn't be due process or a trial with a burden of proof on the accuser... it specifically refers to an open court... which I take to OBVIOUSLY exclude a military tribunal or an extrajudicial execution.

[kristopher]

44. By unique I meant the only crime dealt with like that directly in the Constitution.

I don't know anything about it either other than what I fear and what I have read today on Wiki.

[nadinbrzezinski]

65. You still have to bring them to a court of law

and you need WITNESSES. The requirements for treason in the US are not easy to meet. and that is on purpose. After all during the reign of terror that was King George III, just having a meeting could land you in jail under that charge. So that was the experience the people who wrote those documents had.

And why proving treason, a word bandied about often, is in a court of law.

No, this precedent could have horrific effects, and people might thing we are safe with Obama. Well think about this one. President Palin.

[MUAD_DIB]

52. That's nice...

Are you under the impression that the USA has never killed anybody? It's actually happened for a very long time...longer than 25 years.

The cold war itself left a lot of people dead.


I'm not sure of all the intel that has surrounded and led up to the present decision.

Do you?

If you that information then please share.


Now I do believe in habeus corpus, but it appears that the person in question doesn't want to come forward.


What would you suggest Obama's next move should be?

[nadinbrzezinski]

69. Yes a lot of people died during the cold war

point to ONE case of extra judicial execution of a US Citizen abroad. And I do not meat a trooper or CIA agent going rogue. I mean a Presidential finding.

Good luck.

And I guess you will have no problems when this power falls in the hands of President Palin. And yes, I am dead serious.

There are other ways to deal with this, but if you are full trust in a politician to make a judicial decision that properly belongs in a court, just because he is one of us, well then... have fun.

[MUAD_DIB]

89. I love how you propose to set the rules for dialogue.

If you don't believe that here has never been a president that has sanctioned, or been involved, in some form of assassination then I really do not believe that I can take you that seriously.

I believe that you are more huff-n-puff than serious.

I am sure that there are other ways to deal with this. The first would be for Mr. Aulaqi to surface and seek the first US Consulate immediately. I'm sure that this is just all a silly misunderstanding.


So how would you deal with the situation exactly?

[nadinbrzezinski]

105. And you can prove that there is a president that has ordered

extra judicial execution of a US Citizen. You can't, why you huff and puff.

If you want to throw the Constitution because YOUR GUY is in the White House, be my guest.

I am not.

Presidents have ordered extra judicial executions of NON CITIZENS... and if you cannot tell the difference or how dangerous this is, perhaps we need to let history run its curse.

The US as an ideal has been over for a good while. The US as am Empire is declining anyway.

So perhaps it is for the best that our last actions are those of an Empire...

by the way, the cheering section is THAT WAY ------------>

[MUAD_DIB]

115. There you go again...

You jump from trying to set the dialog to cherry picking what you wish to answer... :eyes: ...that is when you're not throwing out hypotheticals.


So why did you ignore this? Were you too busy jumping to conclusions?

I am sure that there are other ways to deal with this. The first would be for Mr. Aulaqi to surface and seek the first US Consulate immediately. I'm sure that this is just all a silly misunderstanding.


So how would you deal with the situation exactly?



BTW, that whole cheering section thing with the arrow is so cute.

[treestar]

102. It was in the hands of Bush

In fact there is no evidence that even he abused it.

[alarimer]

90. Considering how many so-called liberals on this very site support this

I think we are in very deep trouble. I hardly recognize this country anymore.

[Hannah Bell]

124. amazing, isn't it? what does "democrat" mean anymore? i can't distinguish lots of

commentary here from free republic.

[Capitalocracy]

16. Trial, anyone? No? OK

This isn't about how bad the American citizen we're planning on executing extrajudicially may be, it's about the rule of law in the U.S. We give treason suspects trials before we punish them, or we ourselves are guilty of treason, assuming the rule of law is anything resembling an important part of our government and our society. Who does more damage to the United States, a terrorist who may or may not ever successfully carry out an attack and kill some people, or a President and a government which completely invalidate and ignore the Constitution? Barack Obama's crime in ordering this is GREATER than some act of terrorism, if you believe a free and democratic government is worth fighting or dying for. If you're a believer in "enlightened despotism", then go ahead and tell me that it's all OK because Barack Obama is so awesome that he can be trusted to kill whoever he wants. You'll be no different from the blind Bush supporters who've been running the show for the last 8 years. Stand up against this BS.

[Pavulon]

19. lets issue a summons to night court, then smoke his ass.

the guy is in yemen, he's not coming to court. You could send dawg the bounty hunter.

[nadinbrzezinski]

23. There are ways to deal wiht US Citizens abroad

and this violates his right to a Jury Trial. That is in the Constitution.

This is exra judicial. And think about this. Do you trust Bush to do this? I don't. How about Palin? Well I don't trust Obama either, that is the power of a king, not a President.

[hack89]

80. How?

How do you execute an arrest warrant at a terrorist camp? There are parts of the world that are truly lawless - Yemen, Sudan, Somalia, the Pakistani Tribal Areas for examples. There is no one to arrest him, to extradite him. Are you advocating the US military unilaterally capture him and bring him back to America? What's your realistic solution?

[nadinbrzezinski]

81. My realisitic solution, that happens to respect treaties

borders and all that happy horse, is working with host countries.

Now that means that perhaps people will get killed, (I doubt this guy will surrender, for example), but killing him in this ahem cowardly way will only make him a martyr and help with recruiting.

But you know there are realistic ways, and for the record Yemen was areas that are not fully under control of the central government but this is not Warizistan.

[hack89]

125. Is it acceptable to target the camp as a whole?

with the aim of killing as many terrorists as possible regardless of citizenship? What if he was in a car with a know bombmaker - can we target the bomb maker or is Anwar al-Awlaki now a magic shield?

I gather from your reply that you have no problem if we have foreign soldier die to arrest him - I am sure they have no problem at all dieing to defend rights they themselves enjoy.

I don't see your way as realistic - I look at Somalia, Sudan or the Tribal Areas and understand very well just how unrealistic your solution is.

[Pavulon]

127. I do see you point

and bad humor aside it presents problems.

[ecstatic]

31. Of course he will get one if captured. The order is CAPTURE or kill

How many suspects are killed right here in the U.S. during police chases? (Not saying I agree with that, just wondering why people are acting like this is a new concept)

[Capitalocracy]

40. You raise an interesting point...

But a "capture or kill" order, then going straight to using drone bombers or snipers or something along those lines, is still extrajudicial execution, the "capture" is just meant to look pretty. I have no problem with "dead or alive", if they try to capture him and kill him in the process, but going straight to assassination is extrajudicial execution, I think that's pretty simply the case.

[ecstatic]

47. There is no evidence anywhere that they will go straight to

assassination. I mean, it's possible--some soldiers might choose to abuse their privileges just like many cops do.

[Capitalocracy]

50. au contraire, I think we have reason to believe it's SOP nt

[ecstatic]

53. If so, why do we have Guantanamo Bay and other terrorist suspects awaiting trial? nt

[Capitalocracy]

58. And when will we be seeing those trials?

We have picked some people up, but we mainly just use drone bombs.

[piedmont]

97. Probable cause. See Tennessee_v._Garner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_v._Garner


He won't be killed without trial if he turns himself in or is captured.

[jberryhill]

98. He should be given the option of turning himself in for one, yes

That would make some sense.

[Nye Bevan]

20. Mixed feelings on this one.

If Obama is prepared to sentence this guy to death then I am sure he deserves it.

But I wouldn't necessarily trust other US presidents to make this kind of decision. And I certainly wouldn't want countries other than the USA getting up to this kind of stuff.

[Tailormyst]

27. "If Obama is prepared to sentence this guy to death then I am sure he deserves it."

That and the rest of your post just make me cringe. You crossed a line into wierd starry-eyed fan world.

[Luminous Animal]

28. The President has no authority to condemn this guy to death.

It is a blatant illegal act. We don't vote for benign dictators in this country.

[nadinbrzezinski]

77. two points

you know Obama will be termed out sooner or later right? So sooner or later somebody else will HAVE this power... think President Palin

Second... OTHER countries have done this and we have been very critical of them doing it... so what makes us better?

[MUAD_DIB]

83. Your first point is a little off I believe.

I will never "think" President Palin. That being said if a right winger were to slip into power they could do whatever the hell they wanted anyway.

I agree with you on the second point; mainly in relation to the Israel assassination not too long ago.


My point is that Mr. Aulaqi should, as a US citizen, schedule a meeting with the nearest US consulate in order to either clear his name or turn himself in. I don't want to have to see the US assassinating anybody, but I have known people who died on 9/11 and I wouldn't want to see anything like that again: regardless how small.

If this guy is a threat and we miss him it will be very bad for the USA.

[nadinbrzezinski]

86. Ok President Linbaugh, Or Pawlentty

given that we like to play football here, and not think long term, best case 7 years here... sooner or later SOMEBODY ELSE will have that power.

And your cynicism is noted, but reality is that this breaks Constitutional Law, and it is not right just because OUR GUY WHOOHOOO is doing it.

That borders on... cult of personality, and it is dangerous, I don't care who does it.

[MUAD_DIB]

108. Your overt need to resort to hypotheticals is noted.

Yeah, everybody is soooo worshiping Obama over this. :sarcasm:


Now back to some reality-based conversation.

Mr Aulaqi is a US citizen.

As a US citizen Mr. Aulaqi should turn himself in immediately, since he has nothing to hide, and clear up this mess. It must all be a silly misunderstanding that could be resolved in a lazy afternoon.


Or are you of the camp that believe he should remain hidden and innocent?

[nadinbrzezinski]

112. I believe in charges filed

arrest, trial and indictment by a jury of his peers... and if found guilty, well call me squeamish and reality based too... life in jail, for the rest of his miserable life. You do not want to make him a martyr

As to hypotheticals, you tell me that the godly Democrats, who we of course can trust with this power, will ALWAYS remain in power? If you think that, you are delusional.

By the way, not just good night, good life.

[MUAD_DIB]

117. Now you're just being silly...and somewhat evasive.

How do you plan to arrest somebody that is in hiding in Yemen? How many people are going to have to die in order to arrest him?

Now the part of your last response was just disningenuous at best. I never wrote that he Dems will always be in power. Now why are you playing a losing hand like that?

[emilyg]

94. Tell me you're kidding.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

99. Holy shit.

That's one of the most frightening things I've ever heard. You seriously think he deserves to die on one man's say so?

Oh, and the United States has a terrible record of violating international law. In my estimation, the US is probably the worst nation that could ever have this power. Just think about what we did in Nicaragua in the '80s.

[Dorian Gray]

126. For real?

It's all good if Obama wants him dead, but in the hands of any other leader... you'd be wary of this?

The whole thing is disturbing, but entrusting Obama over every other leader with the decision to order assassinations just reeks of Obama zealotry.

[pecwae]

149. It's hard to take

anything in this post seriously except perhaps the subject line.

[applegrove]

25. I thought they had already killed him. Didn't the USA get someone in al qaeda in Yemen?

[flvegan]

26. Unbelievable.

No, strike that. Sadly, it's not.

[Bluerthanblue]

29. Nov.2002. Bush authorizes drone strike in Yemen US. citizen Kamal Derwish

is killed.

Not so extraordinary- not something I agree with,- but not the aberration that this is being made out to be.

....Tenet provided Saleh’s forces with helicopters, eavesdropping equipment and 100 Army Special Forces members to train an antiterrorism unit. He also won Saleh’s approval to fly Predator drones armed with Hellfire missiles over the country. In November 2002, a CIA missile strike killed six al-Qaeda operatives driving through the desert. The target was Abu Ali al-Harithi, organizer of the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. Killed with him was a U.S. citizen, Kamal Derwish, who the CIA knew was in the car.

Word that the CIA had purposefully killed Derwish drew attention to the unconventional nature of the new conflict and to the secret legal deliberations over whether killing a U.S. citizen was legal and ethical.

After the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the United States or U.S. interests, military and intelligence officials said. The evidence has to meet a certain, defined threshold. The person, for instance, has to pose “a continuing and imminent threat to U.S. persons and interests,” said one former intelligence official.

http://www.dmzhawaii.org/?tag=joint-special-operations-...

[kenny blankenship]

34. Oh Bush did it too did he? Shit, why didn't you say so in the first place?!

"BUSH DID IT." And so now that means it's A-OK.

Kinda makes you wonder why we didn't just re-elect him to a third term. Since Bush is the arbiter of what's right and cool in this post-Constitutional world, he would obviously the best choice to have as our President. You don't even need to come up with an excuse for ignoring the 22nd Amendment. Just say: BUSH DID IT! Huh he did that? Hell yeah he does that! He's doing it right now!

And thus the motion is carried.

[Bluerthanblue]

43. If you read my post you would have noted that I clearly stated

that I didn't believe it was ok-

Pres. Clinton ALSO gave the go ahead for the CIA to kill bin laden in '98-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A59781-2004Feb21.html

my POINT is that this isn't something new-novel-or unique to THIS administration like the article cited in the OP states-

The right-wing is trying to play this as something new and hope to use it to further inflame their already out of control followers- THAT is hypocritical and dangerous.

I DON'T approve of drone strikes, and don't agree with this administration about targeted killings of select individuals- HOWEVER-at least they aren't doing it secretly. And I'm waiting to hear the official declaration of this from someone other than the msm.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

46. The distinction is that al-awlaki is a US citizen

[Bluerthanblue]

49. so was Kamal Derwish- he was from Lackawana NY and was killed

by a preditor drone strike in Yemen in Nov. 2002.

Not that that makes it 'right'-

[MUAD_DIB]

66. AS a US citizen he should surface then and let the FBI interview him, right?

Would that be acceptable to you?

[noamnety]

82. The right-wing is trying to do exactly that.

The unintended good that comes out of it is that they do function as a watch dog of sorts. Granted it's the sort of watchdog that barks insanely at squirrels at 3am and pees in your slippers every chance it gets, but it still serves a purpose to have groups that aren't blind supporters of Obama out there raising concerns. The burden's on the rest of us to determine which of those concerns actually has merit.

In this case, there is merit to the concern (despite the hypocrisy of them not caring when their idols did the same thing).

[ClarkUSA]

32. Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after Sept. 11 and...

.... it does fall within the parameters of international law as well.

As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

If it is likely that Awlaki will plot imminent terrorist acts that lead to murder if not apprehended or killed, and if it is impossible to apprehend him in a timely fashion because he is in hiding in Yemen with other members of Al-Qaeda, then due process would not be violated by killing him.

[MUAD_DIB]

70. Why would he be hiding? If he is a US citizen then doesn't he own the USA

the explanation of his motives to want to bring harm to it?

This guy may be no different than the Hutaree who want the USA to suffer for some bullshit that they dreamed up.

[babylonsister]

85. Here's an article from truthout, for anyone interested:

http://www.truthout.org/obama-administration-authorizes-cia-kill-us-citizen58358

[alarimer]

88. If Bush did this we would all be screaming.

But when Obama does it, it makes it somehow okay?

[ibegurpard]

92. apparently not

plenty of defenders of this on this board.

[apocalypsehow]

95. True, but *THAT* double-standard is all over the place on a thousand different issues.

Just look at some of the threads that deal with free speech/First amendment issues around here.

Turns out a lot of "liberals" are A-Okay with curbing free speech if it's speech they don't like - and they write long, hair-splitting briefs in support of such suppression that would make John Ashcroft blush.

[Capitalocracy]

103. I'm screaming

:argh: :banghead:

[treestar]

104. No, we wouldn't

We were screaming that he had people captured and put in indefinite detention.

But we were fine with bin Laden being targeted for assassination.

And we were fine with Clinton having so targeted bin Laden.

this guy is not entitled to carry out his attack first, just because he was born in the US.

[piedmont]

107. I wouldn't. Use of deadly force is justified ...

when there is probable cause to believe the suspect poses a significant threat of death to other people.

[JVS]

120. If Hugo Chavez were to do this the supporters of this would turn on a dime.

[LWolf]

133. EXACTLY. nt

[MadBadger]

93. My understanding is that the order is Capture or Kill

Not sure what the additional hooplah is about

[Luminous Animal]

111. Capture presumes innocent until proven guilty.

Kill allows no such presumption.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

106. The responses in this threat are frightening and disappointing.

One of the most important ideas in America is that all people have certain inalienable rights. This man is a human being and deserves a fair trial. It is categorically wrong to kill him simply because he is accused of a crime. The number of people who think it is okay to just kill an American or any other person simply on suspicion is saddening and scary, though not very surprising. Likewise, it's discouraging that some think that the government should be entrusted with the power to kill problematic people simply on assurance that the target is a terrorist.

[Luminous Animal]

113. It appears that the vast majority of Americans, including Democrats

have been well propagandized to accept the rule of Authoritarians rather than embrace the rule of law.

[nadinbrzezinski]

118. As long as it is OUR guy doing it

that is the critical caveat.

And for the cheer leading crowd... the cheer leading section is OVER THERE --------->

[onenote]

134. if you think the constitution "categorically" requires a trial in every and all case

you aren't particularly familiar with constitutional jurisprudence.

The use of deadly force by law enforcement against an individual suspected of dangerous criminal activity is not per se unconstitutional. All of the circumstances need to be considered.
Some cases are easy -- taking down the old guy shooting up the holocaust museum (rather than waiting for him to run out of bullets and then arresting him) -- okay. Shooting an unarmed shoplifter in a grocery store. Not okay.

This particular case -- based on the information I've seen, seems to fall on the okay line.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

137. First of all,

no, the Constitution does not say anything about life-or-death situations. We just decide to make exceptions. Think of the First Amendment: no law means no law. We only made up that "fire in a crowded theater" stuff later on. (Something which, by the way, has never happened in the United States.)

Secondly, I'm not talking about what the Constitution says. I'm talking about right and wrong. Even if the Constitution did say that some people didn't have a right to jury trial and due process, they still would. The Constitution didn't ban slavery for the first 78 years of its existence, but it was still wrong all that time.

Lastly, pulling a gun on a violent maniac in defense of yourself and other people and ordered the military to go halfway around the world actively seeking somebody marked for death are hardly equivalent. That's an assassination. If he pulls a gun and gets killed because of it, it's tragic, but, well, that's probably the best it could have turned out, at that point. Coming up to him looking for a fight is something quite different.

[onenote]

139. "coming up to him looking for a fight"?

You really think this guy is that innocent?

[ChadwickHenryWard]

141. That in no way implies he's innocent.

Maybe he's guilty, maybe he's innocent. I've never heard of the guy before, so I don't know. That's why it's traditional to have a trial when somebody is accused of a crime. We don't just say, "He looks guilty to me, let's just kill him." Whether he's guilty or not, he deserves a trial. We're sending men in to kill him; not to apprehend him for trial, to just extrajudicially kill him. That's state-sanctioned murder. I don't want to live in a world where criminal suspects are killed in the street without trial.

[whatchamacallit]

145. Wow...

That sounds just like right-wingers who say shit like "If they in GITMO, they're obviously terrorists. Period" Our country has developed a disturbing mindset.

[whatchamacallit]

144. [phone]

[ChadwickHenryWard]

150. Wow, a hundred billion.

I think that's the most anyone's ever agreed with me about anything.

In all seriousness, it's hard living in this world and believing that every human being has the same rights. When the Supreme Court handed down the Mumia decision, I got a lot of people accusing me of sympathizing with a cop killer, along with people asking me why I though he was innocent. It wasn't even his conviction that was fucked up, it was his sentencing. He doesn't deserve to die just because the judge hates black people. But there's no facts, there's just fear. He's a scary black Muslim, so he has to die. Repeat ad infinitum.

[Beacho]

138. To all bitching about the Constitutional rights of this dirt bag

If he wants his right to due process, then let him come and claim them. Until then he is an outlaw. Look up the concept as stated in common law. Until he is in custody he is considered 'out of the law' and his rights do not apply. As soon as he is in custody they do. The common law is the foundation of the USC. Although the concept is generally cinsidered outdated, it still applies in such instances such as bounty hunting. And another thing, all of you saying that "But, he's an AMERICAN!" need to remember that due process applies to *EVERYONE* that falls under the jurisdiction of the United States or agents thereof.

Let the wolf's head be upon this mutt.

[Jester Messiah]

140. Hm. Not without precedent, but...

I'd rather the order was "capture for trial if at all possible, kill only if he will otherwise get away."

[noamnety]

142. I wonder if people here now think it was okay for Bush

to lock "terrorists" up in Guantanamo indefinitely with no trial. I know a lot of people on the right felt that was justified, that the people we locked up were such scum that they weren't entitled to things like trials because the threat they posed to the US outweighed that.

[branders seine]

146. un-fucking-believable

who is next?

and what are the criteria?

this guy is a creep, but then so is dick cheney

[whatchamacallit]

148. Kick

:shrug: