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

[William Joyce]

You know, I hate that we wage the Jews' wars. But I guess if I had to be completely honest, I'd say that I just don't give a shit that a sand ****** got offed. Fuck him, and fuck Mohammad. God bless the USA.

 

[Lakhota]

You know, I hate that we wage the Jews' wars.

Me too! I also hate that we send Israel over $3 billion yearly. Pretty good pay for killers, land thieves amd squatters.

By Ran Dagoni

The budget proposes $3.075 billion in US military aid for Israel, $75 million more than in fiscal year 2011. The aid proposal is based on the US-Israeli understandings signed on August 16, 2007. US military aid is set to increase by a further $25 million to $3.1 billion in fiscal year 2013, and remain at that level through 2018, assuming that the US foreign aid program remains as is. Israel is also due to receive $20 million in aid for integrating refugees.

The joint US-Israel missile defense programs, including the Arrow and David's Sling are slated to receive $106.1 million in 2012. Congress normally increases this aid by tens of millions of dollars over the administration's request, but it is not certain that this will happen this year.

More: Obama 2012 budget has rise in US aid to Israel - Globes

 

[MikeK]

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.

I agree with you. For the reasons you've laid out and more.

I didn't like the way bin Laden was killed -- much like a Mafia hit. I didn't like the way Timothy McVeigh was executed in record time. More recently, I didn't like the way the Troy Davis execution went forward without a public hearing of the new evidence in his case. If these killings are being done in my name, or in the public name, by a government I have absolutely no reason to trust or believe, even if they are guilty I want to hear what these condemned people have to say before they are killed.

I especially wanted to hear from McVeigh. Not because I thought he might be innocent or because I thought he might deserve clemency but because I wanted the public to hear what he had to say about the primary motivations for what he did, which, according to his writings, were the Waco Massacre and certain things about Operation Desert Storm, which he'd participated in as a soldier. That is the reason why McVeigh was executed within days after his guilty plea, not months or years as is typical. In effect, even though McVeigh deserved to die for what he did his execution was expedited to silence him.

I also wanted to hear what Osama bin Laden had to say about the relationship between the Bush dynasty and the Saudi Royal Family and about the primary motivations for the 9/11 attack. It would have been just as easy for Seal Team Six to bring bin Laden back alive as to kill him and bury him at sea. In my opinion the reason that wasn't done is glaringly obvious.

 

[Lakhota]

I also wanted to hear what Osama bin Laden had to say about the relationship between the Bush dynasty and the Saudi Royal Family and about the primary motivations for the 9/11 attack. It would have been just as easy for Seal Team Six to bring bin Laden back alive as to kill him and bury him at sea. In my opinion the reason that wasn't done is obvious.

I totally agree! Osama bin Laden had a story to tell, and we had a right to hear it.

Saddam was lynched - but the Bushes live on.

 

[geauxtohell]

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

Fuck him. This is the smart way to fight the war on terror. If we really wanted to get serious, we'd take the gloves off the CIA and let them start killing the fucking finanicers in Saudi Arabia and Yeman whose names are never mentioned in Al Queda propaganda as well as the high level targets.

Here's the dumb way: declare war on a country that has nothing to do with AQ, put hundreds of thousands of troops there, piss people off, and create future terrorists.

I am glad that we are finally doing surgery with a scalpel and not a mallet.

 

[Lakhota]

I am glad that we are finally doing surgery with a scalpel and not a mallet.

Me too. Boy Bush liked the Gallagher approach...

 

[Ropey]

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

Fuck him. This is the smart way to fight the war on terror. If we really wanted to get serious, we'd take the gloves off the CIA and let them start killing the fucking finanicers in Saudi Arabia and Yeman whose names are never mentioned in Al Queda propaganda as well as the high level targets.

Here's the dumb way: declare war on a country that has nothing to do with AQ, put hundreds of thousands of troops there, piss people off, and create future terrorists.

^+1

I am glad that we are finally doing surgery with a scalpel and not a mallet. It's one of the few things I agreed with Biden about and from the beginning.

 

[driveby]

Kill them, but do not, under any circumstances, ever even consider...

























Waterboarding any of them, ever! .......

 

[naturegirl]

Kill them, but do not, under any circumstances, ever even consider...
























Waterboarding any of them, ever! .......

Nope, waterboarding is torture!! Just send in the robot to keel them.

 

[code1211]

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

This particular traitorous snake had declared himself to be an enemy of the state. That and actually participating in acts of terror against the citizens of the US should be sufficient to effectively and legally brand a person as a future former person.

Was it proven in a court of law? No.

By that standard, the Big 0 has departed from his self inflicted standard and is a hypocrite. In order for the Big 0 to do anything even moderately sensible, he must become hypocritical since most of what he says is pure idiocy. Such is the nature of Progressive Liberalism.

I do think that this breaks numerous International Laws and is probably real bad and so forth, but it was the right thing to do with regard to American interests and my personal safety.

It is only in areas in which the Big 0 is a hypocrite that I can find common ground with him.

 

[saveliberty]

I also wanted to hear what Osama bin Laden had to say about the relationship between the Bush dynasty and the Saudi Royal Family and about the primary motivations for the 9/11 attack. It would have been just as easy for Seal Team Six to bring bin Laden back alive as to kill him and bury him at sea. In my opinion the reason that wasn't done is obvious.

I totally agree! Osama bin Laden had a story to tell, and we had a right to hear it.

Saddam was lynched - but the Bushes live on.

I bet htis makes less sense in the morning when you sober up.

 

[code1211]

When the Constitution is ignored, terrorists win.

When terrorists are killed, I win.

As a side note, we do plenty to destroy the Constitution from within.

When the unemployment rate stays above 9%, the Terrorists win.

 

[code1211]

Who needs a trial he is a terrorist!
Remember the partiot act that the TP re-upped.

hell yeah!!! The Bu$h II Doctrine

Bush Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

We will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime.

sound familiar?

I NEVER vote Repub

If you voted, then you voted for a guy that is asserting the Bush Doctrine. Are we feeling at all foolish?

 

[TruthSeeker56]

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

I disapprove of terrorists who hijack planes and crash them into buildings.

I disapprove of terrorists who strap bombs to their women and children and send them off on suicide missions into crowded marketplaces.

I disapprove of American citizens who commit treason by joining terrorist groups and committing terrorist acts against the United States.

If there is ONE thing that I agree with Obama about, it's the fact that he has given the green light to our special ops people to aggressively go after dangerous terrorists and KILL THEM DEAD.

If anybody believes that Obama is unilaterally choosing "bad guys", finding them, and ordering them killed, you are nothing more than a partisan hack. It takes a lot of hard-working people to track down and kill these terrorist bastards, not just one man.

 

[Xchel]

U.S. citizen to be added to a list of persons approved for targeted killing by the CIA.

Ok we have a secret list of citizens that are supposed to be killed by the CIA, that is scary. When I look through this stuff about him I am ever more alarmed...

The FBI interviewed al-Awlaki four times in the eight days following the 9/11 attacks. [44][62] One detective told the 9/11 Commission he believed al-Awlaki "was at the center of the 9/11 story". And an FBI agent said that "if anyone had knowledge of the plot, it would have been" him, since "someone had to be in the U.S. and keep the hijackers spiritually focused".[44] One 9/11 Commission staff member said: "Do I think he played a role in helping the hijackers here, knowing they were up to something? Yes. Do I think he was sent here for that purpose? I have no evidence for it."[44] A separate Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks suspected that al-Awlaki might have been part of a support network for the hijackers, according to its director, Eleanor Hill.[44] "In my view, he is more than a coincidental figure", said House Intelligence Committee member Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA).[75]
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Awlaki was sought as a media source for questions about Islam and the attacks who could speak English well. He was interviewed by National Geographic[76], The New York Times and other media. He condemned the attacks, stating "There is no way that the people who did this could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion." He also pointed to U.S. foreign policy and that others might "say that Muslim land is now invaded by the U.S., there are U.S. soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia and in the Gulf. And then, the state of Israel is an occupying force which is supported by the U.S." He presented an image as a moderate who could "bridge the gap between the United States and the worldwide community of Muslims"[77]
Writing on the IslamOnline.net website six days after the 9/11 attacks, al-Awlaki suggested that Israeli intelligence agents might have been responsible for the attacks, and that the FBI "went into the roster of the airplanes, and whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default".[48]
Months after the 9/11 attacks, as the U.S. Secretary of the Army was eager to have a presentation from a moderate Muslim as part of an outreach effort to ease tensions with Muslim-Americans, a Pentagon employee invited al-Awlaki to a luncheon in the Secretary's Office of General Counsel.[78][79]
Al-Awlaki was the Congressional Muslim Staffer Association's first imam to conduct a prayer service at the U.S. Capitol in 2002.[80][81] The prayers were for Muslim congressional staffers and officials for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).[82]
The FBI conducted extensive investigations of al-Awlaki, and he was observed crossing state lines with prostitutes in the D.C. area.[24][48] To arrest him, the FBI considered invoking the little-used Mann Act, a federal law prohibiting interstate transport of women for "immoral purposes".[24] But before investigators could detain him, al-Awlaki left for Yemen in March 2002.[24][48]
Weeks later, he posted an essay in Arabic titled "Why Muslims Love Death" on the Islam Today website, praising the Palestinian suicide bombers' fervor. Months later, at a videotaped lecture in a London mosque, he lauded them in English.[24][48] By July 2002, he was under investigation for having been sent money by the subject of an U.S. Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation. His name was placed on an early version of what is now the federal terror watch list.[8][24][83]
In June 2002, a Denver federal judge signed off on an arrest warrant for al-Awlaki for passport fraud.[84] On October 9, the Denver U.S. Attorney's Office filed a motion to dismiss its complaint, and vacate the arrest warrant. It did so because prosecutors felt ultimately that they lacked evidence of a crime, according to U.S. Attorney Dave Gaouette, who authorized its withdrawal.[3] While al-Awlaki had falsely listed Yemen as his place of birth on his 1990 application for a U.S. Social Security number, which he then used to obtain a passport in 1993, he later changed his place of birth information to Las Cruces, New Mexico.[3][85] Prosecutors could not charge him, because a 10-year statute of limitations on lying to the Social Security Administration had expired.[86] The motion was approved by a magistrate judge on October 10, and filed on October 11.[8][24][87] As a result, agents were unable to arrest him when he arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in the U.S. on October 10, 2002, the day the judge signed the order rescinding his warrant

we have indicted, convicted and assasinated a US citizen with no grand jury, no trial and no appeal...that scares the hell out of me that a president can essentially order anyone assasinated....

 

[code1211]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...der-condemns-killing-of-al-qaedas-awlaki.html

In fact here it is... If you wana follow the constitution you're "unelectable" by the very in tune conservatives lol.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

 

[TruthSeeker56]

U.S. citizen to be added to a list of persons approved for targeted killing by the CIA.

Ok we have a secret list of citizens that are supposed to be killed by the CIA, that is scary. When I look through this stuff about him I am ever more alarmed...

The FBI interviewed al-Awlaki four times in the eight days following the 9/11 attacks. [44][62] One detective told the 9/11 Commission he believed al-Awlaki "was at the center of the 9/11 story". And an FBI agent said that "if anyone had knowledge of the plot, it would have been" him, since "someone had to be in the U.S. and keep the hijackers spiritually focused".[44] One 9/11 Commission staff member said: "Do I think he played a role in helping the hijackers here, knowing they were up to something? Yes. Do I think he was sent here for that purpose? I have no evidence for it."[44] A separate Congressional Joint Inquiry into the 9/11 attacks suspected that al-Awlaki might have been part of a support network for the hijackers, according to its director, Eleanor Hill.[44] "In my view, he is more than a coincidental figure", said House Intelligence Committee member Representative Anna Eshoo (D-CA).[75]
Shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Awlaki was sought as a media source for questions about Islam and the attacks who could speak English well. He was interviewed by National Geographic[76], The New York Times and other media. He condemned the attacks, stating "There is no way that the people who did this could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion." He also pointed to U.S. foreign policy and that others might "say that Muslim land is now invaded by the U.S., there are U.S. soldiers stationed in Saudi Arabia and in the Gulf. And then, the state of Israel is an occupying force which is supported by the U.S." He presented an image as a moderate who could "bridge the gap between the United States and the worldwide community of Muslims"[77]
Writing on the IslamOnline.net website six days after the 9/11 attacks, al-Awlaki suggested that Israeli intelligence agents might have been responsible for the attacks, and that the FBI "went into the roster of the airplanes, and whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default".[48]
Months after the 9/11 attacks, as the U.S. Secretary of the Army was eager to have a presentation from a moderate Muslim as part of an outreach effort to ease tensions with Muslim-Americans, a Pentagon employee invited al-Awlaki to a luncheon in the Secretary's Office of General Counsel.[78][79]
Al-Awlaki was the Congressional Muslim Staffer Association's first imam to conduct a prayer service at the U.S. Capitol in 2002.[80][81] The prayers were for Muslim congressional staffers and officials for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).[82]
The FBI conducted extensive investigations of al-Awlaki, and he was observed crossing state lines with prostitutes in the D.C. area.[24][48] To arrest him, the FBI considered invoking the little-used Mann Act, a federal law prohibiting interstate transport of women for "immoral purposes".[24] But before investigators could detain him, al-Awlaki left for Yemen in March 2002.[24][48]
Weeks later, he posted an essay in Arabic titled "Why Muslims Love Death" on the Islam Today website, praising the Palestinian suicide bombers' fervor. Months later, at a videotaped lecture in a London mosque, he lauded them in English.[24][48] By July 2002, he was under investigation for having been sent money by the subject of an U.S. Joint Terrorism Task Force investigation. His name was placed on an early version of what is now the federal terror watch list.[8][24][83]
In June 2002, a Denver federal judge signed off on an arrest warrant for al-Awlaki for passport fraud.[84] On October 9, the Denver U.S. Attorney's Office filed a motion to dismiss its complaint, and vacate the arrest warrant. It did so because prosecutors felt ultimately that they lacked evidence of a crime, according to U.S. Attorney Dave Gaouette, who authorized its withdrawal.[3] While al-Awlaki had falsely listed Yemen as his place of birth on his 1990 application for a U.S. Social Security number, which he then used to obtain a passport in 1993, he later changed his place of birth information to Las Cruces, New Mexico.[3][85] Prosecutors could not charge him, because a 10-year statute of limitations on lying to the Social Security Administration had expired.[86] The motion was approved by a magistrate judge on October 10, and filed on October 11.[8][24][87] As a result, agents were unable to arrest him when he arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in the U.S. on October 10, 2002, the day the judge signed the order rescinding his warrant

we have indicted, convicted and assasinated a US citizen with no grand jury, no trial and no appeal...that scares the hell out of me that a president can essentially order anyone assasinated....

As long as you are not a murdering bastard terrorist, you have nothing to worry about.

Makes me wonder about you.........................

 

[code1211]

You know, I hate that we wage the Jews' wars. But I guess if I had to be completely honest, I'd say that I just don't give a shit that a sand ****** got offed. Fuck him, and fuck Mohammad. God bless the USA.

You've got a little less tact than a sledge hammer. You capture my sentiments on this exactly.

 

[code1211]

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

I disapprove of terrorists who hijack planes and crash them into buildings.

I disapprove of terrorists who strap bombs to their women and children and send them off on suicide missions into crowded marketplaces.

I disapprove of American citizens who commit treason by joining terrorist groups and committing terrorist acts against the United States.

If there is ONE thing that I agree with Obama about, it's the fact that he has given the green light to our special ops people to aggressively go after dangerous terrorists and KILL THEM DEAD.

If anybody believes that Obama is unilaterally choosing "bad guys", finding them, and ordering them killed, you are nothing more than a partisan hack. It takes a lot of hard-working people to track down and kill these terrorist bastards, not just one man.

You do know how this works, don't you? The Big 0 is the Commander in Chief. If he says to do it, then the cadre of folks you cite does it. If he says don't do it, then the cadre of folks you cite stops.

In truth, it IS one man who is doing this.

It is the right thing to do, but it is probably illegal. Law is not always just. That's why we have justices.

 

[code1211]

<snip>

we have indicted, convicted and assasinated a US citizen with no grand jury, no trial and no appeal...that scares the hell out of me that a president can essentially order anyone assasinated....

Like it or not, the guy in that office has the power to do whatever he wants to do whenever he wants to do it.