Terrorist Killed Legal or Illegal?

Just referring to terrorists like Awlaki as Americans is insulting to Americans.
 
Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn "declared war" against America, and there's actual physical proof that they killed people...How are they doing today?
Totally different situations.

This basically boiled down to this: The ability to capture, the location of the individual and what they are actively engaging in. I don't really see a problem with taking action against AN ENEMY COMBATANT. Citizenship does not matter when you are talking about active resistance on a battlefield. Now, you can claim that he was not on a battlefield but in today's world, the lines are not clear. There is no trenches or a defined battlefield. These battles are all over the world. He had a chance to surrender. He went to a country where we had no ability to capture him and where we had no ability to give him a trial. That was his choice and that choice leads to making him a legal military target. It is a MASSIVE stretch to try and fit this into Americans that are located here or in countries that we have legal access too. That is simply not the case. What would you have done? Capture may not have been a military option. Should we simply leave him alone then because he is a citizen? There are consequences to actively engaging in attacking this country and one of those is death. If he wanted the trial, he could have turned himself in.

Both Ayers and Dohrn had also declared themselves enemy combatants...So let's just take them out and have them shot, m'kay?
 
Last edited:
Bush wrote the policy on killing USA citizens abroad.

He is the one who PUT it in our national policy.

I dont like it but I do like the fact that these traitors are dead.

I think the policy should be stricken from the policy.

There is a mountain of evidence that these two were traitors but it still bothers me and I woud like to see the policy gone.

Until it is blaming the president for using policy you used to champion under Bush is pretty low shit.
 
If someone is put on the dead or alive capture list the best thing to do is to turn themselves in. Otherwise, all bets are off.

This is what should have been done with any terrorists that later ended up in Gitmo. They should have been killed on the battlefield. Once taken into custody they are then guaranteed by the constitution due process of the law.

Of course, being certain they are terrorists is of the utmost importance.

He was not put on a dead or alive list, he was put on a kill on sight list.
 
Remember when people like Cheney were ranting at Obama and others for treating terrorism like a law enforcement problem rather than like a war?

Remember when those critics got almost unanimous cheers from the Right for that?

What changed?

The same people that cheered Cheney are cheering Obama right now.
 
Bush wrote the policy on killing USA citizens abroad.

He is the one who PUT it in our national policy.

I dont like it but I do like the fact that these traitors are dead.

I think the policy should be stricken from the policy.

There is a mountain of evidence that these two were traitors but it still bothers me and I woud like to see the policy gone.

Until it is blaming the president for using policy you used to champion under Bush is pretty low shit.

Yes he did, and he was wrong. I will point out that Bush never actually made up a list, and never killed any Americans. That makes Obama marginally worse than Bush by, again, taking a Bush policy that should be abolished and making it worse.
 
The difference is? ....You know lefties. The terrorist was an American, born in the USA. Whether or not he renounced his citizenship is irrelevant. Should a president be allowed to sign a death warrant for an American citizen without a trial if he is in another country? I don't think so. What if he is in this country? Why have a trial? Just drop a bomb on him and be done with it.
 
The difference is? ....You know lefties. The terrorist was an American, born in the USA. Whether or not he renounced his citizenship is irrelevant. Should a president be allowed to sign a death warrant for an American citizen without a trial if he is in another country? I don't think so. What if he is in this country? Why have a trial? Just drop a bomb on him and be done with it.

He got exactly what anybody would get on any battlefield.
 
I'm all for upholding the Constitution, but this guy got what was coming to him. If an American wants to go to Afghanistan and join forces with people who have caused the deaths of Americans and other innocent people, then I'm not going to feel sorry for the bastard when he gets a bomb dropped on his head.
 
If someone is put on the dead or alive capture list the best thing to do is to turn themselves in. Otherwise, all bets are off.

This is what should have been done with any terrorists that later ended up in Gitmo. They should have been killed on the battlefield. Once taken into custody they are then guaranteed by the constitution due process of the law.

Of course, being certain they are terrorists is of the utmost importance.

He was not put on a dead or alive list, he was put on a kill on sight list.
Bates said the merits claims in the case raise serious issues of separation of powers and national security. Al-Awlaki has appeared on videos urging Muslims to kill Americans, and he is on a capture or kill list, the Associated Press reports, relying on information from unnamed administration officials. Al-Awlaki, an American citizen, has been linked to the Fort Hood shootings and the would-be underwear bomber.

Judge Tosses Suit Seeking to Prevent Targeted Killing of Cleric Who Urged Jihad - News - ABA Journal
 
"He got what was coming to him". There is a minor problem with that sort of reasoning. Who determines whether he "got what was coming to him"? It used to be the Constitution. Now the neo-fascist left thinks it's fine for the president to sign a death warrant as long as the target "got what was coming to him". Ever wonder how nazis gained and retained power? Look at the little nazis on the left today who justify murder as long as their guy signs the paper.
 
Obama's position:

Waterboarding KSM was illegal but putting an American citizen on an assassination list without benefit of trial is legal.


My position:

The Constitution took a major blow today.
The Constitution is not intended to restrict the government from protecting its people from sworn enemies that have proved beyond doubt to have attacked the nation before.

If you think this criminal would have surrendered to an arresting party to stand trial, you are living in la-la-land. If you think there is need for a trial to prove his guilt, you are insanely naive. Surgical warfare such as this is an excellent way . I like one shot--one kill!

I have some really super sniper videos from Afghanistan demonstrating the terrific accuracy and power of today's .50cal rifles.

The use of rockets and bombs causes more collateral damage, but if you know the target is in a terrorist training camp...use a bigger bomb and get them all.

His having been an American citizen is insignificant.
 
If someone is put on the dead or alive capture list the best thing to do is to turn themselves in. Otherwise, all bets are off.

This is what should have been done with any terrorists that later ended up in Gitmo. They should have been killed on the battlefield. Once taken into custody they are then guaranteed by the constitution due process of the law.

Of course, being certain they are terrorists is of the utmost importance.

He was not put on a dead or alive list, he was put on a kill on sight list.
Bates said the merits claims in the case raise serious issues of separation of powers and national security. Al-Awlaki has appeared on videos urging Muslims to kill Americans, and he is on a capture or kill list, the Associated Press reports, relying on information from unnamed administration officials. Al-Awlaki, an American citizen, has been linked to the Fort Hood shootings and the would-be underwear bomber.
Judge Tosses Suit Seeking to Prevent Targeted Killing of Cleric Who Urged Jihad - News - ABA Journal

The AP reports? Everyone else says it was a kill order.

BBC News - US approves killing US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki
 
Obama's position:

Waterboarding KSM was illegal but putting an American citizen on an assassination list without benefit of trial is legal.


My position:

The Constitution took a major blow today.
The Constitution is not intended to restrict the government from protecting its people from sworn enemies that have proved beyond doubt to have attacked the nation before.

If you think this criminal would have surrendered to an arresting party to stand trial, you are living in la-la-land. If you think there is need for a trial to prove his guilt, you are insanely naive. Surgical warfare such as this is an excellent way . I like one shot--one kill!

I have some really super sniper videos from Afghanistan demonstrating the terrific accuracy and power of today's .50cal rifles.

The use of rockets and bombs causes more collateral damage, but if you know the target is in a terrorist training camp...use a bigger bomb and get them all.

His having been an American citizen is insignificant.

If they had shown up to arrest him, and he resisted, then he would have deserved what happened. Actually, he probably deserved it anyway, I just object to that decision being in the hands of one man.
 
Obama's position:

Waterboarding KSM was illegal but putting an American citizen on an assassination list without benefit of trial is legal.


My position:

The Constitution took a major blow today.
The Constitution is not intended to restrict the government from protecting its people from sworn enemies that have proved beyond doubt to have attacked the nation before.

If you think this criminal would have surrendered to an arresting party to stand trial, you are living in la-la-land. If you think there is need for a trial to prove his guilt, you are insanely naive. Surgical warfare such as this is an excellent way . I like one shot--one kill!

I have some really super sniper videos from Afghanistan demonstrating the terrific accuracy and power of today's .50cal rifles.

The use of rockets and bombs causes more collateral damage, but if you know the target is in a terrorist training camp...use a bigger bomb and get them all.

His having been an American citizen is insignificant.

"Proved beyond a doubt"? Who makes that determination? It used to be the courts but the neo-fascist left gave the determination to the CIA and the president.
 
He was not put on a dead or alive list, he was put on a kill on sight list.
Bates said the merits claims in the case raise serious issues of separation of powers and national security. Al-Awlaki has appeared on videos urging Muslims to kill Americans, and he is on a capture or kill list, the Associated Press reports, relying on information from unnamed administration officials. Al-Awlaki, an American citizen, has been linked to the Fort Hood shootings and the would-be underwear bomber.
Judge Tosses Suit Seeking to Prevent Targeted Killing of Cleric Who Urged Jihad - News - ABA Journal

The AP reports? Everyone else says it was a kill order.

BBC News - US approves killing US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

From your link:
The US government has authorised the capture or killing of radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki,
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top