The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: tombogan03884 on September 30, 2011, 08:03:45 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/killing-americans-uncharted-ground-attack-212335475.html
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama steered the nation's war machine into uncharted territory Friday when a U.S. drone attacked a convoy in Yemen and killed two American citizens who had become central figures in al-Qaida.
It was believed to be the first instance in which a U.S. citizen was tracked and executed based on secret intelligence and the president's say-so. And it raised major questions about the limitations of presidential power.
Anwar al-Awlaki, the target of the U.S. drone attack, was one of the best-known al-Qaida figures after Osama bin Laden. American intelligence officials had linked him to two nearly catastrophic attacks on U.S.-bound planes, an airliner on Christmas 2009 and cargo planes last year. The second American killed in the drone attack, Samir Kahn, was the editor of Inspire, a slick online magazine aimed at al-Qaida sympathizers in the West.
"Al-Qaida and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world," Obama said in announcing al-Awlaki's death. "Working with Yemen and our other allies and partners, we will be determined, we will be deliberate, we will be relentless, we will be resolute in our commitment to destroy terrorist networks that aim to kill Americans."
Republicans and Democrats alike applauded the decision to launch the fatal assault on the convoy in Yemen.
"It's something we had to do," said Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. "The president is showing leadership. The president is showing guts."
"It's legal," said Maryland Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "It's legitimate and we're taking out someone who has attempted to attack us on numerous occasions. And he was on that list."
That list is the roster of people the White House has authorized the CIA and Pentagon to kill or capture as terrorists. The evidence against them almost always is classified. Targets never know for sure they are on the list, though some surely wouldn't be surprised.
The list has included dozens of names, from little-known mid-level figures in the wilds of Pakistan to bin Laden, who was killed in his compound in a comfortable Pakistani suburb.
Before al-Awlaki, no American had been on the list.
But the legal process that led to his death was set in motion a decade ago. On Sept. 17, 2001, President George W. Bush signed a presidential order authorizing the CIA to hunt down terrorists worldwide. The authority was rooted in his power as commander in chief, leading a nation at war with al-Qaida.
The order made no distinction between foreigners and U.S. citizens. If they posed a "continuing and imminent threat" to the United States, they were eligible to be killed, former intelligence officials said.
The order was reviewed by top lawyers at the White House, CIA and Justice Department. With the ruins of the World Trade Center still smoking, there was little discussion about whether U.S. citizens should have more protection, the officials recalled, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter. The feeling was that the government needed — and had — broad authority to find and kill terrorists who were trying to strike the U.S.
The CIA first faced the issue in November 2002, when it launched a Predator drone attack in Yemen. An American terror suspect who had fled there, Kamal Derwish, was killed by Hellfire missiles launched on his caravan.
The Bush administration said Derwish wasn't the target. The attack was intended for Yemeni al-Qaida leader Abu Ali al-Harithi. But officials said even then that, if it ever came to it, they had the authority to kill an American.
"I can assure you that no constitutional questions are raised here. There are authorities that the president can give to officials," Condoleezza Rice, Bush's national security adviser, said. "He's well within the balance of accepted practice and the letter of his constitutional authority."
Al-Awlaki had not then emerged as a leading al-Qaida figure. Before the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the New Mexico-born cleric had been a preacher at the northern Virginia mosque attended briefly by two hijackers. He was interviewed but never charged by the FBI.
But at the CIA, the officers in charge of finding targets knew it was only a matter of time before they would set the Predator drone's high-definition sights on an American.
"We knew at some point there would have to be a straight call made on this," one former senior intelligence official said.
It was Obama who ultimately made that call.
After the failed Christmas bombing, the Nigerian suspect told the FBI that he had met with al-Awlaki and said he was instrumental in the plot. Al-Awlaki had also called for attacks on Americans and had attended meetings with senior al-Qaida leaders in Yemen. Al-Awlaki had gone from an inspirational figure to an operational leader, officials said.
In April 2010, the White House added al-Awlaki's name to the kill-or-capture list. Senior administration officials said they reviewed the Bush administration's executive order and discussed the ramifications of putting an American on the list but said it was a short conversation. They concluded that the president had the authority, both under the congressional declaration of war against al-Qaida and international law.
"Anwar al-Awlaki is acting as a regional commander for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters in August.
What if the U.S. was wrong, Gibbs was asked, what recourse does a citizen have to save himself? The CIA had misidentified and imprisoned the wrong person before. Gibbs sidestepped the question.
The U.S. has been inconsistent in how it describes al-Awlaki. The Treasury Department called him a leader of al-Qaida in Yemen. FBI Director Robert Mueller called him the leader. On Friday, Obama called him "the leader of external operations," the first time he has been described that way.
Al-Awlaki's family rushed to court to try to stop the government from killing him, saying he had to be afforded the constitutional right to due process.
The idea of killing an American citizen provided critics with fodder for all sorts of comparisons showing the peculiarities of national security law and policy. The government could not listen to al-Awlaki's phone calls without a judge's approval, for instance, but could kill him on the president's say-so. The Obama administration opposed imprisoning terrorist suspects without due process but supported killing them without due process.
"If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state," ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner said Friday.
U.S. District Judge John Bates refused to intervene in al-Awlaki's case.
"This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion — that there are circumstances in which the executive's unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable," Bates wrote. "But this case squarely presents such a circumstance."
Like Derwish years ago, Khan, a North Carolina native, was called collateral damage in the drone attack, not the target.
Al-Awlaki may have been the perfect test case for the government. His sermons in English are posted all over the Internet and his name has been associated with several attempted terrorist attacks. In the intelligence community, many regarded him as a bigger threat than bin Laden because of his ability to inspire Westerners and his focus on attacking the U.S.
But in taking this step, the Obama administration raised questions about whom else the president has the authority to kill. In principle, such an attack could probably not happen inside the United States because the CIA is forbidden from operating here and the military is limited in what operations it can carry out domestically. But civil rights groups have questioned whether the government has opened the door to that possibility.
At the White House, spokesman Jay Carney refused to even acknowledge the government's direct role in killing al-Awlaki. He repeatedly ducked questions about the extent of Obama's authority and said only that al-Awlaki had been an operational leader for al-Qaida.
"Is there going to be any evidence presented?" Carney was asked.
"You know, I don't have anything for you on that," he responded.
King, the Republican lawmaker, said it was necessary that the president to have the authority to act against those at war with the U.S. And it was no secret to the public, he said, that al-Awlaki was at war. But he acknowledged that it set a precedent that could make people uncomfortable.
"There could be a situation where nobody knows the evidence, where you're relying on the government to say what its intelligence is," King said. "With al-Awlaki, it was clear-cut. He made it a clear call."
There is supposed to be a double standard, one set of rules for Foriegners, but ALL American citizens are entitled to the protection of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
-
even tho he needed killing, he is an American citizen and you must stick to the law and constitution.
-
even tho he needed killing, he is an American citizen and you must stick to the law and constitution.
I respectfully disagree, he denounced the American Constitution, his Pledge Of Allegiance, his upbringing, his culture, his heritage, his families, his original life, etc,...
He left American soil, to recruit, train, enable, jihadist's to kill Americans, preferably civilians,....ya' know like women and children,...
He used Al-Jazeera, and other terrorist propaganda mechanisms to promote this.,...
He(they) got what he(they) deserved....
At some point, they go too far....and deserve to meet Allah. They didn't believe in this Countries beliefs,... we are the Infidels...
The line in the sand, is drawn.
He's dead.
-
I respectfully disagree, he denounced the American Constitution, his Pledge Of Allegiance, his upbringing, his culture, his heritage, his families, his original life, etc,...
He left American soil, to recruit, train, enable, jihadist's to kill Americans, preferably civilians,....ya' know like women and children,...
He used Al-Jazeera, and other terrorist propaganda mechanisms to promote this.,...
He(they) got what he(they) deserved....
At some point, they go too far....and deserve to meet Allah. They didn't believe in this Countries beliefs,... we are the Infidels...
The line in the sand, is drawn.
He's dead.
None of that matters.
He was a US citizen.
The Constitutions Bill of rights is there to protect the ones who hold unpopular views, not just the ones the majority agree with.
You own guns, you oppose the presence of "undocumented workers".
Maybe they'll put a missile up your ass next.
Even traitors get a trial. Tokyo Rose made propaganda broadcasts for the Japanese, she got a trial and a prison term.
-
Traitors deserve to be shot.
And if found on foreign soil, taking up arms IN COMBAT, against American troops, OBTW, planning civilian targets of terrorism, they deserve to die like the wretched vermin they are.
http://listverse.com/2010/07/04/top-10-traitors-in-us-history/
Tokyo Rose was pardoned by Ford, by a rigged trial.
Tell that to Vets that listened to her, as they held their troops guts in while taking incoming fire.
-
if you are in a war zone, with the enemy( by choice) you get what ever is coming too you.
-
if you are in a war zone, with the enemy( by choice) you get what ever is coming too you.
A +1 from me to you TAB. Thank you for even spelling things correctly. ;)
-
A +1 from me to you TAB. Thank you for even spelling things correctly. ;)
now you know I'm going to edit that post and mis spell every thing right?
-
We shoot home invaders or anyone else who poses a threat our life and safety, and don't worry about their citizenship.
Since we have more chance of apprehending the home invader and bringing him to trial than this traitor I don't have any problem with taking any shot that presents itself.
-
We shoot home invaders or anyone else who poses a threat our life and safety, and don't worry about their citizenship.
Since we have more chance of apprehending the home invader and bringing him to trial than this traitor I don't have any problem with taking any shot that presents itself.
We shoot them to eliminate an immediate threat, when they leave and go to the next town we allow the Constitutionally defined legal process to deal with them.
if you are in a war zone, with the enemy( by choice) you get what ever is coming too you.
First off, last I heard the "war zone was Iraq and Afghanistan, we aren't involved in Yemen,
Second, there is a big difference between the US govt saying we need to hit this target, and what they actually said which was, "We need to kill this US citizen"
I'm surprised that some one who is such a stickler about "Property rights" is so willing to piss on rights of some one else just because you don't approve of him.
]Traitors deserve to be shot.
And if found on foreign soil, taking up arms IN COMBAT, against American troops, OBTW, planning civilian targets of terrorism, they deserve to die like the wretched vermin they are.
http://listverse.com/2010/07/04/top-10-traitors-in-us-history/
Tokyo Rose was pardoned by Ford, by a rigged trial.
Tell that to Vets that listened to her, as they held their troops guts in while taking incoming fire.
Don't even go there with 2How and I. How many years did you serve ?
It was your kind of thinking , "They're not shitting on me, f*ck the other guy" that allowed Hitler to have his way.
Obama has you hypocrites pegged.
-
F them all if they help our enemies. I dont care who they are. >:(
-
F them all if they help our enemies. I dont care who they are. >:(
That works for me.
And as it should be.
Will the lefties, do-gooders and apologists let the real people run the place and do what is needed to protect what we have
-
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Posted without comment!
-
Please read my other post Tom,.... the same Tom who called for the NYC rage protesters to be beat until the sh** ran down their legs,....where was your concern for their rights to a trial?
After the beating?
*****
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has testified to Congress that if intelligence officials believe there's a need to kill an American citizen operating with a terrorist organization, a process exists to authorize such an action.
"We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community," Blair told the House Intelligence Committee on Feb. 3, 2010. "If ... we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."
Guess who AUTHORIZED Alwaki's death?
He got what he deserved.
-
We shoot them to eliminate an immediate threat, when they leave and go to the next town we allow the Constitutionally defined legal process to deal with them.
First off, last I heard the "war zone was Iraq and Afghanistan, we aren't involved in Yemen,
Second, there is a big difference between the US govt saying we need to hit this target, and what they actually said which was, "We need to kill this US citizen"
I'm surprised that some one who is such a stickler about "Property rights" is so willing to piss on rights of some one else just because you don't approve of him.
]
Don't even go there with me. How many years did you serve ?
It was your kind of thinking , "They're not shitting on me, f*ck the other guy" that allowed Hitler to have his way.
Obama has you hypocrites pegged.
Not necessarily true...at least not for me.
If I knew there was a serial killer loose in the area and I saw him kill my neighbors and then start to escape, I'd take him down in an instant if I had the chancel
It might not be legal, but it would be the right thing to do for me.
I remember when I started thinking about this situation and made the decision that I would stop them.
Magnum P.I. episode where a Communist brain washer got to Magnum's buddy who flew the helicopter while they were POWs.
The buddy had post hypnotic suggestions and the bad guy triggered it and ordered the buddy to use the helicopter to assassinate a group of VIPs in a meeting.
Well, Magnum stopped his buddy and tracked down the bad guy, catching up with him in the wilds on one of the islands.
Magnum had the drop on him and the guy said, you can't stop me. I will get away and you cannot kill me because that wouldn't be the "American Way".
The last scene of the episode was a view of the muzzle of Magnum's 1911....and you were wondering how it would end. It ended with the muzzle blast as he fired.
He knew the man had killed, not personally, but directed the killing, before and that he would again and he stopped it. It was illegal and he would probably be convicted if he went to trial, but it was the right thing to do. The bad guy wasn't a US citizen, but that doesn't matter. If he were a US citizen, his plans would still be the same.
-
Tom has it absolutely correct. No president has the constitutional authority to call for the execution of an American citizen without a trial--no matter how heinous, vile, or immoral the acts of that citizen may be.
By assigning the title of terrorist, and calling for Al Awlaki's murder, the prez overstepped his lawful authority as commander in chief. It's as simple as that.
Bogan could be next in line for assassination. Crusader Rabbit could be next. Haz could certainly be on the list. Almost any of us on this board could likely qualify for assassination since we are (for the most part) freedom loving gun toters who dislike intrusive government and who have already been called terrorists by our own government. TAB probably wouldn't make the list. (IMHO)
The point is, if you support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you don't get to overlook some provisions when you think somebody needs killing. Those documents were written to protect the rights of all citizens--most importantly, those with whom we most disagree.
Now, with all that said, am I sad Al Awlaki has been sent to hell? Absolutely not. But it should have been done correctly and according to Hoyle.
That's all I'm sayin'
-
Tom has it absolutely correct. No president has the constitutional authority to call for the execution of an American citizen without a trial--no matter how heinous, vile, or immoral the acts of that citizen may be.
By assigning the title of terrorist, and calling for Al Awlaki's murder, the prez overstepped his lawful authority as commander in chief. It's as simple as that.
Bogan could be next in line for assassination. Crusader Rabbit could be next. Haz could certainly be on the list. Almost any of us on this board could likely qualify for assassination since we are (for the most part) freedom loving gun toters who dislike intrusive government and who have already been called terrorists by our own government. TAB probably wouldn't make the list. (IMHO)
The point is, if you support the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, you don't get to overlook some provisions when you think somebody needs killing. Those documents were written to protect the rights of all citizens--most importantly, those with whom we most disagree.
Now, with all that said, am I sad Al Awlaki has been sent to hell? Absolutely not. But it should have been done correctly and according to Hoyle.
That's all I'm sayin'
We know where Bogan lives and have assets in place to arrest him.
Is kidnapping a US citizen allowed? Seems we would need someone with jurisdiction to arrest this guy...or start extradition procedures, with what ever chance they have of being successful and no matter how long it might take. All the while this guy is beating the drum for terrorists to attack Americans.
As for the Tin Foil Hats.... If the government is assassinating people just to cover for them selves, that is wrong regardless of the citizenship of the one assassinated. If, however, he is a traitor by his actions and deeds, down he goes.
We have considerable proof about him being a traitor and very little to show he might only have been an embarrassment.
-
I guess I missed it.
Bogan could be next in line for assassination. Crusader Rabbit could be next. Haz could certainly be on the list. Almost any of us on this board could likely qualify for assassination since we are (for the most part) freedom loving gun toters who dislike intrusive government and who have already been called terrorists by our own government. TAB probably wouldn't make the list. (IMHO)
When did you guys call for the overthrow of the US government? What terror strikes did you plan and try to carry out? Who did you encourage to attack unarmed soilders (13 dead, 29 wounded)? When did you renounce the Constitution and your citizenship? Anwar al-Aulaqi did all of those things.
We didn't kill an American citizen, we killed an enemy commander, and yes, Yemen is a war zone. The whole world is a war zone, and if Americans don't understand that, then we've already lost.
-
I guess I missed it.
When did you guys call for the overthrow of the US government? What terror strikes did you plan and try to carry out? Who did you encourage to attack unarmed soilders (13 dead, 29 wounded)? When did you renounce the Constitution and your citizenship? Anwar al-Aulaqi did all of those things.
We didn't kill an American citizen, we killed an enemy commander, and yes, Yemen is a war zone. The whole world is a war zone, and if Americans don't understand that, then we've already lost.
I can't speak for any one else but I advocate the overthrow of the current regime pretty much every time the subject comes up.
Granted there is a difference between overthrowing a form of Govt , and removing a group of politicians who are violating the rules.
Please read my other post Tom,.... the same Tom who called for the NYC rage protesters to be beat until the sh** ran down their legs,....where was your concern for their rights to a trial?
After the beating?
*****
Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair has testified to Congress that if intelligence officials believe there's a need to kill an American citizen operating with a terrorist organization, a process exists to authorize such an action.
"We take direct action against terrorists in the intelligence community," Blair told the House Intelligence Committee on Feb. 3, 2010. "If ... we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that."
Guess who AUTHORIZED Alwaki's death?
He got what he deserved.
The National defense act of 1947, which authorized the CIA , specifically prohibits them from acting against US citizens. That is the job of the FBI, by law.
So the person who authorized Alwaki's murder had no more authority to do so than I do.
Not necessarily true...at least not for me.
If I knew there was a serial killer loose in the area and I saw him kill my neighbors and then start to escape, I'd take him down in an instant if I had the chancel
It might not be legal, but it would be the right thing to do for me.
I remember when I started thinking about this situation and made the decision that I would stop them.
Magnum P.I. episode where a Communist brain washer got to Magnum's buddy who flew the helicopter while they were POWs.
The buddy had post hypnotic suggestions and the bad guy triggered it and ordered the buddy to use the helicopter to assassinate a group of VIPs in a meeting.
Well, Magnum stopped his buddy and tracked down the bad guy, catching up with him in the wilds on one of the islands.
Magnum had the drop on him and the guy said, you can't stop me. I will get away and you cannot kill me because that wouldn't be the "American Way".
The last scene of the episode was a view of the muzzle of Magnum's 1911....and you were wondering how it would end. It ended with the muzzle blast as he fired.
He knew the man had killed, not personally, but directed the killing, before and that he would again and he stopped it. It was illegal and he would probably be convicted if he went to trial, but it was the right thing to do. The bad guy wasn't a US citizen, but that doesn't matter. If he were a US citizen, his plans would still be the same.
You gotta be sh!tting me.
Are you actually basing your interpretation of law on a TV show ?
Have you started smoking crack ?
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
-
You gotta be sh!tting me.
Are you actually basing your interpretation of law on a TV show ?
You beat me to it Tom..
I like Selleck, even watched the episode in the post back then but letting Hollywood decide social conscience is a bit off the mark!
I don't think he was thinking the law Tom, just used the show as an analogy of how it changed his viewpoint on whether to take the shot or let an asshole breath fresh air anymore. Correct me if I'm wrong Solus!
for the record, I'm glad he's dead and I hope there's video but I gotta go with the Constitution and my interpretation of said amendment!
-
I have been struggling with this one. What they did, and what the situation is. As of right now, and this could change:
1. If they were a part of a group engaged in a battle against us, or were with a group we were striking I would have no problem with them being hit;
2. In this case it appears that they were the target, so I see it as they should have either been captured and forced to face trial or there should have been some sort of legal procedure before hand that stripped them of their protections giving the authority to treat them as any other military threat.
The only reason that age and experience causes me to question what was done is the fact that we all know that this is just one more crack in the foundation of our Republic.
-
I have been struggling with this one. What they did, and what the situation is. As of right now, and this could change:
1. If they were a part of a group engaged in a battle against us, or were with a group we were striking I would have no problem with them being hit;
2. In this case it appears that they were the target, so I see it as they should have either been captured and forced to face trial or there should have been some sort of legal procedure before hand that stripped them of their protections giving the authority to treat them as any other military threat.
The only reason that age and experience causes me to question what was done is the fact that we all know that this is just one more crack in the foundation of our Republic.
That statement reminds us that ODumbass is in full re-election mode and EVERYTHING he's doing now is motivated by that! By subverting the law (surprising that know one has mentioned that GWB actually is attributed for the Exec. Order) and executing this fella, he's just notched another notch in his belt like Bin Laden!
At this point, no one is going to poop on his parade at the Justice Department.
-
You beat me to it Tom..
I like Selleck, even watched the episode in the post back then but letting Hollywood decide social conscience is a bit off the mark!
I don't think he was thinking the law Tom, just used the show as an analogy of how it changed his viewpoint on whether to take the shot or let an asshole breath fresh air anymore. Correct me if I'm wrong Solus!
for the record, I'm glad he's dead and I hope there's video but I gotta go with the Constitution and my interpretation of said amendment!
It doesn't matter, the action of an individual is governed by their conscience.
The actions of the Govt are governed by laws that state the CIA can not even spy on US citizens, let alone assassinate them.
-
You gotta be sh!tting me.
Are you actually basing your interpretation of law on a TV show ?
Have you started smoking crack ?
Did you decide to deliberately misrepresent what I posted or was it an honest misunderstanding?
I said that episode started me thinking of the moral question it presented, and I considered it without concern for the legal aspect.
What I decided is that, for me, it was moral to kill a person who had killed before and would again where there was no chance of stopping them through legal means. My only consideration of the legal aspects was if that would be an option to solving the problem, not a consideration as to what decision I would make.
No where in my post did I say it had any influence on my decision except to start me thinking about that moral situation.
I did recount the episode and it did end with the same moral decision being made that I came to, but it might have ended the other way had those responsible for it's content worked it that way.
-
You beat me to it Tom..
I like Selleck, even watched the episode in the post back then but letting Hollywood decide social conscience is a bit off the mark!
I don't think he was thinking the law Tom, just used the show as an analogy of how it changed his viewpoint on whether to take the shot or let an asshole breath fresh air anymore. Correct me if I'm wrong Solus!
for the record, I'm glad he's dead and I hope there's video but I gotta go with the Constitution and my interpretation of said amendment!
Let me clarify.
The show did not change my viewpoint. I have generally felt that I would do what I felt was right regardless of the law (with consideration of the legal consequences I might face). The episode just gave me a specific example of my general feeling to consider.
It posed the question. Would I act as Judge, Jury and Executioner to stop a killer if that was the only way to get the job done?
-
It doesn't matter, the action of an individual is governed by their conscience.
The actions of the Govt are governed by laws that state the CIA can not even spy on US citizens, let alone assassinate them.
This is true. I have been looking at the situation from the point of view of how I would personally handle the situation.
And I do believe Government has greater restrictions than an individual.
Sigh...now I have to think about this again....
-
Did you decide to deliberately misrepresent what I posted or was it an honest misunderstanding?
I said that episode started me thinking of the moral question it presented, and I considered it without concern for the legal aspect.
I understood it as somehow helping you either reach or articulate your conclusion.
All I can say is it's a damned sorry state of affairs when self proclaimed "Patriotic Americans" will justify the Govt murdering a citizen with out trial regardless of what kind of scumbag he may be.
Any one who can accept this type of action will deserve it when their turn comes.
-
I understood it as somehow helping you either reach or articulate your conclusion.
All I can say is it's a damned sorry state of affairs when self proclaimed "Patriotic Americans" will justify the Govt murdering a citizen with out trial regardless of what kind of scumbag he may be.
Any one who can accept this type of action will deserve it when their turn comes.
ok...I said I'd think about it...no need to rub my nose in it ;D ;D
Well, I have to flip-flop on this. Tom is rrrrr....Tom is not wrong.
Governments can't take action on what is moral as an individual can.
Not that I hold them to a higher standard than I hold myself...
Just that they have no right or wrong moral decisions to make. The HAVE to follow the Rule Book.
And the Rules MUST be Constitutional.
If there is not a legal procedure for them to eliminate a US Citizen who is out of reach, then it just can't be done.
-
ok...I said I'd think about it...no need to rub my nose in it ;D ;D
Well, I have to flip-flop on this. Tom is rrrrr....Tom is not wrong.
That's going to leave a mark!
;D ;D ;D ;)
-
The ability to reevaluate a questionable position is what separates us from the liberals. ;D
These incidents drew heavy flak
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=3491.0
http://www.downrange.tv/forum/index.php?topic=4238.0
But actually assassinating a US citizen some find acceptable ?
Baffles the crap out of me.
-
By assigning the title of terrorist, and calling for Al Awlaki's murder, the prez overstepped his lawful authority as commander in chief. It's as simple as that.
Oh, like that's never happened before!!! [/sarcasm]
Bogan could be next in line for assassination. Crusader Rabbit could be next. Haz could certainly be on the list. Almost any of us on this board could likely qualify for assassination since we are (for the most part) freedom loving gun toters who dislike intrusive government and who have already been called terrorists by our own government. TAB probably wouldn't make the list. (IMHO)
So, what am I, chopped liver? ? ? Remember, I want the Mussolini treatment for damn near ever inhabitant in the DC area who even breathes the word "Federal". Damn, what does a guy have to do to get on a list around here, huh? >:(
As for the rest, I am pleased the effer is dead, but yes, the Constitution matters in this. The line has been breached, and most likely not for the first time, as much as I would love to hang that label on bho. It is now a simple matter to keep killing US citizens abroad, and it makes crossing the US territorial limits even easier. Bad precedent. Very bad.
If he comes at you with a gun, then drop his sorry ass, and invoke the SSS rule. Dropping a missile on him from 5000 feet as he is driving along a road is not Constitutional. If he is planning something, then follow him and drop him as he prepares to act.
-
I understand this is a "hot topic", and we move forward from here.
It is a shame Congressman Dent's Resolution to have Alwaki's citizenship stripped failed in sub-committee. This scumbag has been on the kill or capture list for over a year, and no one said crap until the order was actually completed.
Yes, the gov't actually accomplished something it set out to do.
Would a resolution stripping him of citizenship mattered? Does the fact he renounced his citizenship matter? This terrorist gave up any protections he was given by the 14th Amendment. Does that matter?
Either way, I wonder what Washington was planning when he sent 12,000 troops to Pennsylvania to crush the Whiskey Rebellion.
To "arrest them" and provide quarter? After Neville was shot, Americans targeted Americans, and folks died. The country was not going to stand for treasonous acts, and the Insurrection collapsed.
To conclude,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_print.html
The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.
The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.
“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.
The administration has faced a legal challenge and public criticism for targeting Aulaqi, who was born in New Mexico, because of constitutional protections afforded U.S. citizens. The memorandum may represent an attempt to resolve, at least internally, a legal debate over whether a president can order the killing of U.S. citizens overseas as a counterterrorism measure.
The operation to kill Aulaqi involved CIA and military assets under CIA control. A former senior intelligence official said that the CIA would not have killed an American without such a written opinion.
A second American killed in Friday’s attack was Samir Khan, a driving force behind Inspire, the English-language magazine produced by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. An administration official said the CIA did not know Khan was with Aulaqi, but they also considered Khan a belligerent whose presence near the target would not have stopped the attack.
The circumstances of Khan’s death were reminiscent of a 2002 U.S. drone strike in Yemen that targeted Abu Ali al-Harithi, a Yemeni al-Qaeda operative accused of planning the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. That strike also killed a U.S. citizen who the CIA knew was in Harithi’s vehicle but who was a target of the attack.
The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces beyond “hot,” or traditional, battlefields such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Officials said that certain belligerents aren’t shielded because of their citizenship.
“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” an administration official said in a statement Friday.
President Obama and various administration officials referred to Aulaqi publicly for the first time Friday as the “external operations” chief for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a label that may be intended to underscore his status as an operational leader who posed an imminent threat.
A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.
Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in national security law, said the government likely reviewed Aulaqi’s constitutional rights, but concluded that he was an imminent threat and was deliberately hiding in a place where neither the United States nor Yemen could realistically capture him.
Last year, the Obama administration invoked the state secrets privilege to argue successfully for the dismissal of a lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court in Washington by Aulaqi’s father, Nasser, seeking to block the targeting of his son. Judge John Bates found that in Aulaqi’s case, targeting was a “political question” to be decided by the executive branch.
The decision to place Aulaqi on a capture or kill list was made in early 2010, after intelligence officials concluded that he played a direct role in the plot to blow up a jet over Detroit and had become an operational figure within al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen.
“If you are a dual national high in the Japanese operational group responsible for Pearl Harbor, you’re not exempt, and neither was” Aulaqi, the administration official said.
The American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights argued on behalf of Aulaqi’s father last year that there is no “battlefield” in Yemen and that the administration should be forced to articulate publicly its legal standards for killing any citizen outside the United States who is suspected of terrorism.
Otherwise, the groups argued, such a killing would amount to an extrajudicial execution and would violate U.S. and international law.
“International human rights law dictates that you can’t unilaterally target someone and kill someone without that person posing an imminent threat to security interests,” said Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The information that we have, from the government’s own press releases, is that he is somehow loosely connected, but there is no specific evidence of things he actualized that would meet the legal threshold for making this killing justifiable as a matter of human rights law.”
ACLU lawyer Ben Wizner said that Aulaqi had been targeted for nearly two years and that the government would appear to have a very elastic definition of imminent threat.
The former senior intelligence official said the CIA did reviews every six months to ensure that those targeted for possible killing remained threats as defined by law and presidential findings.
****
Everyone knows I am not in any way in support of this POTUS. If this leads to his impeachment, so be it. The law in this "new type of war", with no set boundaries, no uniformed enemy, too many rules of engagement. Is a cluster f***.
The Congress needs to enact legislation that defines this. As Alwaki meets the enemy combatant definition, but it is a slippery slope to target US citizens, even if they renounce it. This terrorist was a danger to this country. His track record upholds this.
So that's my position, and we'll go from there. There are two sides of the issue and I guess I'm on the other than you Tom.
That's it.
tw
-
Stripping him of his citizenship is just as bad.
TW, you just don't get it, this isn't an issue where we can "agree to disagree".
You either support the Constitution or you approve actions even the Nazi's shied from.
Actions that could very well bite you on the azz.
http://www.usconstitution.net/declar.html#Intro
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
What part of that don't you get ?
-
All of this brings up a few things.
First, he was born to Yemeni parents here in the US. The father was attending school here. Birth without birthright should be the norm if both parents are foreign citizens. That would cost Dems votes though. If at least one parent is not a citizen then being born here should not provide citizenship. Automatic citizenship due to birth is something that needs to be changed if the parents are foreign nationals.
Next, he had dual citizenship. Yemeni and US. I think that to be a US citizen you should be only a US citizen. You either are or are not. Someone who gains a citizenship in addition to US citizenship should, by due process, lose his US citizenship. If you become a US citizen from another nation you should renounce that citizenship to become a US citizen. I severly pissed off a lawyer where I used to work because he thought it was chic to have dual citizenship....I told him he was a traitor and should be deported.
He was by definition a US citizen and should not have been assasinated. If he was killed on the battlefield in a conflict or while engaged in criminal activity or by threatening the life of someone in the presence of law enforcement that would be different. Calculated elimination using assasination by the government is a crime.
Randy Weaver's son and wife would probably agree with us if they were alive. By the way...who went to jail for that?
-
At some point, we as a country have to decide how imminent a threat is. This terrorist was a threat, and a unrelenting one.
If I go to Canada and threaten life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to folks in the US, and hold up in an area that does not warrant a capture scenario....
Than what? Read me my Miranda rights? We are dealing with a scumbag, enabler of the worst kind.
Don"t placate the Nazi's offering a point of justification for their actions. WTF does that have to do with this?
This douchebag wanted you dead. Our way of life eradicated. Women and children slaughtered for Allah. What are you missing?
Target acquired.
Request permission to fire.
Permission granted.
Fire.
Target destroyed.
Sounds like due process this terrorist deserved.
-
I may be over-simplifying this, but it was basically no different (in my mind) than an old-fashioned lynching (with the gubmint acting as the lynch mob). He needed killin' don't cut it.
I'll take 'Circumventing the US Constitution for $200, please Alex.'
Who's next?
-
<snip>
I'll take 'Circumventing the US Constitution for $200, please Alex.'
Who's next?
It's all in who gets to interpret who a terrorist is and who has the power. Big Sis has already made it clear patriotic Americans who own guns and former military are terrorists waiting to happen.
Might be that you are next.
-
Hi;
This guy was actively trying to kill Americans for some years now. He was no different than a Bank Robber who when during a shoot out with Police was taken out. If he had been captured and interrogated - he may have given some good Intel But time did not give us a chance to handcuff him - so I believe it was better to take him out. No different than suicide by cop scenrio. Dont make a Saint out of this guy or his "rights", He got some good old Western Justice - Dead or Alive !
-
Hi;
This guy was actively trying to kill Americans for some years now. He was no different than a Bank Robber who when during a shoot out with Police was taken out. If he had been captured and interrogated - he may have given some good Intel But time did not give us a chance to handcuff him - so I believe it was better to take him out. No different than suicide by cop scenrio. Dont make a Saint out of this guy or his "rights", He got some good old Western Justice - Dead or Alive !
I've granted right along that this guy was a scumbag.
But before you go saying "screw his rights" you better remember that DHS considers you, as a gun owner to also be a potential terrorist.
Is it OK for them to decide you need a missile up your ass.
This is exactly the same type of thing the Founding Fathers rebelled against, enforcement or of laws at the whim of your betters.
Every one of the anti Hitler conspirators that were executed were condemned in accordance with Nazi law, and each one recievd a legally binding trial.
Every dissident the Soviet union executed, imprisoned, or placed in a mental institute was legally sentenced at trial in accordance with Soviet law .
American law says no one can be punished with out a trial. Where was this guys trial ?
-
For a guy my size, 6'1" and about 260# I've got a little ass...
They might need a larger target!
;D ;D
There have been a few copters flying around recently.
-
I don't know Tim, those missiles are pretty darn accurate. ;D
But I have to add, the fact that some one who claims to care about gun rights, and then could vote "No the Constitution only applies to people we approve of" on this poll absolutely disgusts me.
-
This bothers me in the same way that the killings of Bonnie and Clyde in 1934 bothers me. In each case, representatives of our government took it upon themselves to execute American citizens without due process of law. The fact that in each case these people "needed killing" is irrelevant. Due process requires an attempt at apprehension to be made, period. It happened that way in neither case.
Speaking as someone whose ass IS big enough to be used as a missile target, not to mention someone Janet from another planet has already grouped into the terrorist category, this incident bothers me greatly.
Don't confuse something that may be "justice" with that which is "legal". The two are not necessarily synonymous.
-
I don't know Tim, those missiles are pretty darn accurate. ;D
But I have to add, the fact that some one who claims to care about gun rights, and then could vote "No the Constitution only applies to people we approve of" on this poll absolutely disgusts me.
They're heat seekers - Don't Fart!!! :o
-
The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 states that legal rights are extended to combatants only if they are under the command of a recognizable person responsible for his subordinates, are wearing or displaying a distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, are carrying arms openly, and conduct themselves according to international laws of war. Unless ALL of these conditions are met, the combatants may be considered francs-tireurs (in the original sense of "illegal combatant") whose punishment may include summary execution.
A very famous case of this was recorded on film and in a Pulitzer Prize-winning photograph in Vietnam on February 1, 1968, when Nguyen Van Lem, a Viet Cong guerilla, was summarily executed by Nguy?n Ng?c Loan, the chief of the national police.
Neither Lem nor al-Awlaki met the Convention’s requirements, and under international law their executions were legal.
There is nothing that says we must “fight fair” with extranational forces whose actions – indeed, whose very existence – is largely unanticipated by the laws of war. On the moral question, I submit that until the Nobel committee begins to award prizes for veterinary medicine, mad dogs may be put down with impunity.
***
Elvis has left the building, and I am done with this post. No one is changing anyone's mind. We all have our positions, and I am moving on.
-
If you were older you might remember the absolute shitstorm that was stirred by Lem's execution, the reason the photo got a Pulitzer prize was because it so graphically illustrated the lefts contention of what evil bastards we were supporting.
It became a propaganda poster for the anti war movement and resulted in more lasting damage to the Saigon Govt than the entire Tet offensive.
The Geneva convention is irrelevant. What you can't get through your head is no matter what his advocated, no matter where he was, he was a US citizen murdered with out trial by the US govt.
And the fact that you could even consider condoning this appalls me.
They're heat seekers - Don't Fart!!! :o
They aren't that sensitive.
It's OK as long as you don't light them ;D
-
I also advocate that the Constitution is our national supreme law of which is not subject to terms and conventions of any foreign convention we sign up to. If something we sign up to is in opposition to our constitution it was wrongfully signed. If an agreement addresses instances not covered by the US Constitution that would bind us to that convention legally.
I still want to know who went to jail for shooting Randy Weaver's minor son in the back as his arm was dangling by a piece of meat screaming for his daddy. Who went to jail for shooting Weaver's wife in the face?
Killing citizens without due process will end badly for U.S.
-
I also advocate that the Constitution is our national supreme law of which is not subject to terms and conventions of any foreign convention we sign up to. If something we sign up to is in opposition to our constitution it was wrongfully signed. If an agreement addresses instances not covered by the US Constitution that would bind us to that convention legally.
I still want to know who went to jail for shooting Randy Weaver's minor son in the back as his arm was dangling by a piece of meat screaming for his daddy. Who went to jail for shooting Weaver's wife in the face while she was holding a baby?
Killing citizens without due process will end badly for U.S.
FIFY :-\
Then there is the incineration of the Branch Davidians who weren't guilty of anything at all.
Here's another issue, who says he was a terrorist at all ?
Where is the evidence.
Are you going to take the Govt's word with out the slightest bit of verification ?
The same Govt that smuggled guns to drug cartels so they could use the "iron river" as an excuse to abridge your rights ?
I'm am just totally flabbergasted that any who calls themselves an American can justify this.
-
They aren't that sensitive.
It's OK as long as you don't light them ;D
My farts have the escence of rose petals with a glistening, spring dew!
8)
-
<snip>
Then there is the incineration of the Branch Davidians who weren't guilty of anything at all.
<snip>
I should have brought up the idiot Koresh and his bunch too. There was a great expose' of the ATF in the Sunday Times Picayune after that incident (The ATF ran the operation out of the Metairie office on Lake Ave & Veterans Blvd.....just 5-6 blocks or so down from where I lived). The Sheriff for the county said he could have driven up to arrest Koresh peacefully at any time. You probably did not see the two cattle trucks loaded up with ATF agents giving the Branch Davidians the end of the world they were waiting for. Anyway, a friend of mine's wife worked for the Lafayette, La. branch of Customs (no longer open) when the guy running the ATF op called requesting Custom's officers to assist. The guy heading up Customs there could tell it was something that smelled and said no. The ATF guy pretty much dressed him down demanding why they could not participate in which Customs responded they had a need-to-know op....ATF manager demanded to know what it is and the Customs guy said "need-to know" and hung up.
I still remember the black Ford Taurus's the ATF guys roared up and down the road on back at Lake Avenue. Some of them acted quite arrogantly at the quick stop there on the corner or at Schwegmann's Grocery or the at the cleaners across the street from their office....left you with no doubt they were better than you....others were polite and nice.
Davidians....Weaver.....Fast & Furious....what do they have in common? Fascism outside of due or legal process?
I don't doubt the guy who ate the missile was a bad guy...it just sets a precedent for the rest of us. I wonder if Big Sis or Holder or some other demigod in the government is planning a Davidian's/Weaver type thing for before the election to whip up some support for the Dems? I mean hey, if what they say the world is by their outlook doesn't come true it's up to them to manufacture truth, justice and the liberal-american way.
Gosh, I would hate to know I was a flag-waving paid puppet for those guys.
-
I still want to know who went to jail for shooting Randy Weaver's minor son in the back as his arm was dangling by a piece of meat screaming for his daddy. Who went to jail for shooting Weaver's wife in the face?
A rhetorical question, I know, but NO ONE to the best of my knowledge!! >:(
Lon Horiuchi, was brought up on manslaughter charges for his involvement at Ruby Ridge (and he was at Waco too) had the case dismissed. >:(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lon_Horiuchi
BASTARDS!!