Assassinating American Citizens ... for or against?

[Ravi]

Why should we charge enemy combatents?

Why should we charge anyone, if an accused child molestor is caught leaving the area of a crying child find the nearest tall tree grab a rope and hang the bastard.

A bit like shooting a couple of cops dead if you come upon them beating someone as you have advocated in another thread?

LOL! Seriously?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why should we charge enemy combatents?

Why should we charge anyone, if an accused child molestor is caught leaving the area of a crying child find the nearest tall tree grab a rope and hang the bastard.

A bit like shooting a couple of cops dead if you come upon them beating someone as you have advocated in another thread?

I have explained that already

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why should we charge anyone, if an accused child molestor is caught leaving the area of a crying child find the nearest tall tree grab a rope and hang the bastard.

A bit like shooting a couple of cops dead if you come upon them beating someone as you have advocated in another thread?

LOL! Seriously?

move along liar you've had your 15 mins of stupid fame.

 

[idb]

Why should we charge anyone, if an accused child molestor is caught leaving the area of a crying child find the nearest tall tree grab a rope and hang the bastard.

A bit like shooting a couple of cops dead if you come upon them beating someone as you have advocated in another thread?

I have explained that already

I don't recall, remind me why that's different.
You come upon two cops beating someone up and without warning or enquiry you shoot them dead.
That's what you said you would do.
Where's due process?

 

[idb]

What war?

You don't consider the US to be under attack?

Join half way into the discussion and ask a question
Being attacked is not being in a war.

Oh.
Constant attacks from a declared enemy don't constitute a war?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't consider the US to be under attack?

Join half way into the discussion and ask a question
Being attacked is not being in a war.

Oh.
Constant attacks from a declared enemy don't constitute a war?

Is new zealand being Constant attack?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A bit like shooting a couple of cops dead if you come upon them beating someone as you have advocated in another thread?

I have explained that already

I don't recall, remind me why that's different.
You come upon two cops beating someone up and without warning or enquiry you shoot them dead.
That's what you said you would do.
Where's due process?

Search for it I am not going back and find the post.

 

[Dune]

The guy was NOT assassinated ,he was killed on the battle field,as the enemy,it really is that simple.

No. you have it completely backwards.

Yemen is not a battlefield.

He was targeted by a drone.

He was clearly assassinated.

This war isn't two armies facing each other on a 'battlefield'.
It's terrorists hiding among civilians anywhere in the world that they can find a place to operate from.

Sorry, not a battlefeild. Words still have meaning.
There is no U.S. fighting going on in Yemen,
Awlaki was targeted by remote controll.
He was assassinated.

 

[idb]

Join half way into the discussion and ask a question
Being attacked is not being in a war.

Oh.
Constant attacks from a declared enemy don't constitute a war?

Is new zealand being Constant attack?

Nope

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh.
Constant attacks from a declared enemy don't constitute a war?

Is new zealand being Constant attack?

Nope

Didn't y'all fight in Iraq? do you have terroist alerts?

 

[idb]

Is new zealand being Constant attack?

Nope

Didn't y'all fight in Iraq? do you have terroist alerts?

Nope. Nope.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope

Didn't y'all fight in Iraq? do you have terroist alerts?

Nope. Nope.

New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 9/04)
Multi-National Force

 

[idb]

Didn't y'all fight in Iraq? do you have terroist alerts?

Nope. Nope.

New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 9/04)
Multi-National Force

They weren't deployed in a fighting role, and then only after bullying from your administration.

Following a series of high-level rebukes and trade retaliation by the Bush administration over critical statements made by the New Zealand prime minister of the Iraq war, the Labour government has decided to send troops and army engineers to Afghanistan and Iraq.

(Prime Minister) Helen Clark announced last week that 60 defence force engineers will be sent to help “rebuild” Iraq and a contingent of 100 armed soldiers to operate alongside so-called “provincial reconstruction teams” in Afghanistan. The troops will join New Zealand soldiers already on mine-clearing duty in Iraq and may be further boosted by the return of a navy frigate to the Gulf of Oman as well as an Orion reconnaissance aircraft.

New Zealand military to join occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

Bush: "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."

 

[Si modo]

"Bullying"?

What a weanie.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Nope. Nope.

New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 9/04)
Multi-National Force

They weren't deployed in a fighting role, and then only after bullying from your administration.

Following a series of high-level rebukes and trade retaliation by the Bush administration over critical statements made by the New Zealand prime minister of the Iraq war, the Labour government has decided to send troops and army engineers to Afghanistan and Iraq.

(Prime Minister) Helen Clark announced last week that 60 defence force engineers will be sent to help “rebuild” Iraq and a contingent of 100 armed soldiers to operate alongside so-called “provincial reconstruction teams” in Afghanistan. The troops will join New Zealand soldiers already on mine-clearing duty in Iraq and may be further boosted by the return of a navy frigate to the Gulf of Oman as well as an Orion reconnaissance aircraft.

New Zealand military to join occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

Bush: "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."

They were there from 2003 until 2004 and some God bless them were killed.

 

[idb]

"Bullying"?

What a weanie.

Almost made us cry you did

 

[Si modo]

"Bullying"?

What a weanie.

Almost made us cry you did

 

[idb]

New Zealand: 61 troops (deployed 9/03-withdrawn 9/04)
Multi-National Force

They weren't deployed in a fighting role, and then only after bullying from your administration.

New Zealand military to join occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan

Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

Bush: "Either you're with us or you're with the terrorists."

They were there from 2003 until 2004 and some God bless them were killed.

It was a dangerous place alright!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

"Bullying"?

What a weanie.

Almost made us cry you did

 

[geauxtohell]

If those enemy combatants are U.S. citizens, and if we know their name and are specifically seeking them out, then we should charge them to preserve the efficacy of the Constitution.

Ordering the death of a specific person because it would be too messy to charge him is making a mockery of due process.

We didn't kill Awlaki because it was "too messy". We killed him because it was the best way to reach him in Yemen, where he was hiding out.

Once gain, Awlaki knew the government was after him for two years, he did nothing to change his fate. He didn't even change his tone.

If I align myself with the terrorist group responsible for the Cole, 9-11, Khobar Towers, Ft. Hood, and a multitude of other events, I wouldn't expect any quarter to be given on the battlefield simply because I am an American citizen.

From my reading it appears that the reason he was never charged was because they couldn't come up with a charge which would stick, and not one which would merit more than 15 years in prison.

In September 2010 they were still trying to figure out what the charges might be, in case they couldn't kill him.

But they couldn't figure out charges, so they d@mn well had to kill him.




No ... you shouldn't expect quarter on the battlefield for being an American citizen. Big difference between things happening in the heat of battle, and you being specifically targeted for death for being a propagandist.

By your reading? Where did the government say: "Not enough to indict him, better just kill him." What's the point in indicting someone who is hiding out in Yeman?

He was a target of opportunity. The opportunity presented itself, and we pulled the trigger.

It's that simple.

I am equally bewildered by this notion that propagandists for the enemy aren't fair targets. As I said before, no one doubted that Goebbels was a legitamate target in World War II. He killed himself because he knew that was more merciful than what the Soviets would do to him.