Reposted : I disapprove of the manner which Anwar al-Awlaki was killed.

[clevergirl]

Bush put no such thing in "our policy".

Yes, he did:

“After the Sept. 11, 2001, 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 Washington] Post 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.

White House won’t deny report saying it approved killing of American without trial | The Raw Story

Consequently presidents will continue to use this illegal policy with impunity, regardless party affiliation or political ideology.

To discuss this issue honestly, one must check his partisanism at the door.

No, this policy has existed since George Washington- it is known as executive privilege.

Context of 'Early 1963: CIA Plans to Assassinate Castro with Exploding Sea Shell and Poisoned Diving Suit'

1945-1975: NSA’s Operation Shamrock Secretly Monitors US Citizens’ Overseas Communications

 

[Avorysuds]

Bush had this policy and I dont remember the right not liking it then.

When it was talked against back then you all called critizing it as "being with the terrorists".

And you called it eveil and demanded he be put on trial for war crimes... Now you're just another Neocon war loving fool because it's a Democrat.

Where did I say I loved it?

Bush should have been tried for putting it in our policy.

They defended it and now its part of the tools a president has.

I want it removed but if anyone is to blame for it its Bush.

How many other presidents have used this power covertly through the CIA?

It should NOT be a power the president has.

Your team is responsible for making it a power.

If I had a team it would be Ron Paul and he voted against it... You support the policy because Obama is a Democrat, end of story, It's not suddenly a tool.

 

[Avorysuds]

He was a combatant. Not a criminal. He was killed in a war. Not "assassinated".

I mean, the whole shouting match over the past decade has been whether terrorism falls more into the "criminal" realm or "war" realm. It straddles both.

It's irrelevant. The modern battlefield is not made up of front lines. This guy was a combatant and he was killed on the modern battlefield.

If he'd have been captured then all the legal issues that came forth in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld and the other court cases would come forth. Now I am sure that there will be new law that comes out of this. Either way, he was a legitimate target.

Really, show us all what "war" he was killed in.. Find a declaration if you can.

 

[Avorysuds]

What right are those? This guy should be immune from being targeted because he was a United States Citizen?

Furthermore, Awlaki knew he was a target. His father certainly did when he took the Obama Administration to court two years ago:

Judge Dismisses Targeted-Killing Suit - WSJ.com

And as the government contended:



If Awlaki felt that he was being miss-characterized by the United States Government and inappropriately targeted, he could have turned himself in, made an official statement denouncing Al Queda, sought political asylum, or taken any number of steps to remedy the situation in the last two years. Instead, he continued doing what he was doing, which was facilitating AQ's efforts to kill Americans. He wasn't some hapless dope in the wrong place at the wrong time. He was a part of AQ, and a legitimate target.

No doubt there will be legal precedence over this matter, but this is probably a good case to build the foundation for this argument on as Awlaki was undoubtedly AQ.

Once again, another murderer of innocents is a smoking carcass int he middle of some desert shit hole.

Fuck him and fuck his other American buddy that was with him when the hellfire zapped him.

We aren't fucking around anymore.

Then we should DECLARE war -- shouldn't we? and NOT rely on somebody's dad to test a low level Federal judge to see if he might be a valid target..

That sounds pretty amatuerish compared to a Congressional Resolution..

If we're not fucking around anymore (and I'm not either) -- let's do it right..

I never really got wrapped up in the nuance of "we should declare war" when it comes to Al Qaeda. The authorization of the use of force is sufficient for me. It's pretty clear in it's scope and intent.

And there you have it, unconstitutinal. Now our Government can kill anyone at any time and they don't even have to shot proof (even if they have it) as to why.

Grats guys!

 

[Lovebears65]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/inde...pic,872.0.html

Once he had his commrads set off terrorist in this country to me he lost his rights especially when he is not living in the states. Although I do think we should have taken his american citizenship away a long time ago. He deserved to die period!! Why drag it out in court for years and years. Did the people in ft hood have that same right > He is also part of 9/11 and knew the highjackers of Flight 77 that his the pentagon.. The proof they have is in the 9/11 reports . Its been known for years but because of one dumb fucked FBI agent let him go to so call follow him. He should have been behind bars a long time ago!

 

[Avorysuds]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/inde...pic,872.0.html

Once he had his commrads set off terrorist in this country to me he lost his rights especially when he is not living in the states. Although I do think we should have taken his american citizenship away a long time ago. He deserved to die period!! Why drag it out in court for years and years. Did the people in ft hood have that same right > He is also part of 9/11 and knew the highjackers of Flight 77 that his the pentagon.. The proof they have is in the 9/11 reports . Its been known for years but because of one dumb fucked FBI agent let him go to so call follow him. He should have been behind bars a long time ago!

Another wanabe America shows up to declare their joys of making up law as they go along.

This is what you get when you find yourself in a un declared War where we make the rules up as we go.

 

[Lovebears65]

I want to be clear it seems Anwar al-Awlaki was a bad person; however, my biggest problem is the manner in which this was carried out, who determines if one including american citizens are terrorists? Who determines if one is guilty of treason? Who determines if one is guilty of a crime? It seems that one man, the president of the united states can make that call without any charges or trial or evidence that is presented to a grand jury. This is a very dangerous policy and we as americans should not take it lightly.

I have seen on message boards today on many MSM websites THAT HE WAS AN ENEMY OF THE STATE so he should be killed, again I say, who gets to make that call considering he was never convicted of anything in our legal system.

More : http://www.hermancainforums.com/inde...pic,872.0.html

Once he had his commrads set off terrorist in this country to me he lost his rights especially when he is not living in the states. Although I do think we should have taken his american citizenship away a long time ago. He deserved to die period!! Why drag it out in court for years and years. Did the people in ft hood have that same right > He is also part of 9/11 and knew the highjackers of Flight 77 that his the pentagon.. The proof they have is in the 9/11 reports . Its been known for years but because of one dumb fucked FBI agent let him go to so call follow him. He should have been behind bars a long time ago!

Another wanabe America shows up to declare their joys of making up law as they go along.

This is what you get when you find yourself in a un declared War where we make the rules up as we go.

I hate Obama so I hope he goes down for this and Fast and furious!! So, have it your way I can care less . I still think this SOB needed to be dead!!!!

 

[chikenwing]

This guy is no diferent then a guy robbing a bank getting shot dead in the process,you put yourself on the battle field you can get killed.

 

[Xchel]

If the guy robbing the bank is not armed he is not shot dead for robbing the bank...we shot this guy not in self defense but over words...I would say that trial by jury is preferible...

 

[freedombecki]

Then we should DECLARE war -- shouldn't we? and NOT rely on somebody's dad to test a low level Federal judge to see if he might be a valid target..

That sounds pretty amatuerish compared to a Congressional Resolution..

If we're not fucking around anymore (and I'm not either) -- let's do it right..

I never really got wrapped up in the nuance of "we should declare war" when it comes to Al Qaeda. The authorization of the use of force is sufficient for me. It's pretty clear in it's scope and intent.

And there you have it, unconstitutinal. Now our Government can kill anyone at any time and they don't even have to shot proof (even if they have it) as to why.

Grats guys!

Digital phone records in the intelligence community are pretty good predictors of terrorist plots. I realize that a clear and present danger are immaterial to you.

 

[chikenwing]

we shot this guy not in self defense but over words...I would say that trial by jury is preferible...

This guy was part of an ACTIVE cell that is responsible for deadly acts,not words alone,he chose his fate,don't sweat one moment for him,to do so would be incredibly foolish,for he would have killed you as to not.

 

[clevergirl]

If the guy robbing the bank is not armed he is not shot dead for robbing the bank...we shot this guy not in self defense but over words...I would say that trial by jury is preferible...

The analogy is not about being armed- it's about accepting the consequences of what can or might happen when you perpetrate the crime. unarmed bank robbers have been shot and killed.

 

[Amelia]

If the guy robbing the bank is not armed he is not shot dead for robbing the bank...we shot this guy not in self defense but over words...I would say that trial by jury is preferible...

The analogy is not about being armed- it's about accepting the consequences of what can or might happen when you perpetrate the crime. unarmed bank robbers have been shot and killed.

A more apt analogy would be placing an order to kill the bank robbers after they had eluded escape and before they had a trial.


If the bank robber is killed during the criminal activity, or if any American is killed in a normal military operation when they just happened to be somewhere they shouldn't, that is completely different from putting a kill order on a specific American without benefit of a trial.

 

[Intense]

If the guy robbing the bank is not armed he is not shot dead for robbing the bank...we shot this guy not in self defense but over words...I would say that trial by jury is preferible...

The analogy is not about being armed- it's about accepting the consequences of what can or might happen when you perpetrate the crime. unarmed bank robbers have been shot and killed.

A more apt analogy would be placing an order to kill the bank robbers after they had eluded escape and before they had a trial.


If the bank robber is killed during the criminal activity, or if any American is killed in a normal military operation when they just happened to be somewhere they shouldn't, that is completely different from putting a kill order on a specific American without benefit of a trial.

Or if the Bank Robber made it to Yemen, say to invest in some Arm's, They'd be fair game.

 

[ScienceRocks]

The guy was a traitor to this nation and another islamic member of a enemy of our nation. The islamic thug got what he deserved...He is with Allah in hell now.

 

[georgephillip]

When Anwar al-Awalki's father sought a court order preventing his son's assassination, the DOJ argued such decisions are "state secrets" and thus beyond court scrutiny. Giving any Chief Executive the power of judge, jury and executioner seems like issuing a 21st century Bill of Attainder:

"The United States Constitution forbids bills of attainder under Article I, Section 9. It was considered an excess or abuse by the British monarchy and Parliament.

"No bills of attainder have been passed since 1798 in the UK. Attainder as such was also a legal consequence of convictions in courts of law, but this ceased to be a part of punishment in 1870.[11]

"The provision forbidding state law bills of attainder, Article I, Section 10, reflects the importance that the framers attached to this issue, since the unamended constitution imposes very few restrictions on state governments' power."

Bill of attainder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Colin]

If the guy robbing the bank is not armed he is not shot dead for robbing the bank...we shot this guy not in self defense but over words...I would say that trial by jury is preferible...

It sounds to me as though you haven't bothered to check into his activities. More than words...actions and activities. They speak louder than words.

 

[Intense]

Targeted killing is the deliberate, specific targeting and killing, by a government or its agents, of a terrorist or of an "unlawful combatant" (i.e., one taking a direct part in hostilities in the context of an armed conflict) who is not in that government's custody.[1] The target is generally a person accused of taking part in or supporting armed conflict or terrorism, whether by bearing arms or otherwise, and of thereby losing rights and protections such as those of the Geneva Conventions.[1] Targeted killing has been used by governments around the world, and has become a frequent tactic of the United States and Israel in their fight against terrorism.[1][2] The tactic can raise complex questions and lead to contentious disputes as to the legal basis for its application, who qualifies as an appropriate target, what circumstances must exist before the tactic may be employed, whether it results in greater or lesser collateral damage, and a number of other pros and cons.[1][2][3][4] Opinions range from people considering it a legal form of self-defense that reduces terrorism, to people calling it an extrajudicial killing that lacks due process, and which leads to more violence.[1][5][6]

Methods used have included firing a five-foot-long (1.5 m) Hellfire missile from a Predator or Reaper drone (an unmanned, remote-controlled plane), detonating a cell phone bomb, and long-range sniper shooting. Countries such as the U.S. (in Pakistan and Yemen) and Israel (in the West Bank and Gaza) have used targeted killing to kill members of groups such as Al-Qaeda and Hamas.[1]

Predators, with high-precision zoom lens cameras, and video cameras with both electric optic and infrared capability that can see at night, can lock on a target for their two Hellfire missiles when they are so far away that the target can neither see them nor hear them.[7] "Nano-drones" are now being developed for targeted killing, that are about 2.5 inches (6.4 cm) long, which like little killer bees will be able to follow their target, even entering a room through an open window. Aerial refueling tanker drones are also being developed that will allow these drones to refuel, without ever landing.[4]

In early 2010, with President Barack Obama's approval, Anwar al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be approved for targeted killing by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Targeted killing - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[clevergirl]

If the guy robbing the bank is not armed he is not shot dead for robbing the bank...we shot this guy not in self defense but over words...I would say that trial by jury is preferible...

The analogy is not about being armed- it's about accepting the consequences of what can or might happen when you perpetrate the crime. unarmed bank robbers have been shot and killed.

A more apt analogy would be placing an order to kill the bank robbers after they had eluded escape and before they had a trial.


If the bank robber is killed during the criminal activity, or if any American is killed in a normal military operation when they just happened to be somewhere they shouldn't, that is completely different from putting a kill order on a specific American without benefit of a trial.

AA was killed during normal criminal activity. His activity was arming and training terrorists. There is no proof he had stopped this activity.

 

[georgephillip]

"Last year a worried group of robotic specialists, philosophers and human rights activists formed the International Committee for Robot Arms Control (ICRAC) (icrac).

"They fear that such instruments may make wars more likely by the strong against the weak because there will be fewer human casualties by those waging robotic war.

"But proliferation is now a fact. Forty countries are reported to be working on drone technology or acquiring it. Some experts at the founding conference of ICRAC forshadowed hostile states or terrorist organizations hacking into robotic systems to redirect them.

"ICRAC wants an international treaty against machines of lethal autonomy along the lines of the ones banning land mines and cluster bombs.

"The trouble is that the United States, unlike over one hundred signatory nations, does not belong to either the land mines treaty or the more recent anti-cluster bomb treaty.

"Historically, the U.S. has been a major manufacturer and deployer of both. Don't count on the Obama White House to take the lead anytime soon."

As the Drone Flies... | Common Dreams