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

[Truthmatters]

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.

 

[WillowTree]

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

It was proven. Which world do you live in? He had proven ties to the Fort Hood Shooter, The Underwear bomber, and the And the New York car bombing plots. All of which are acts of terrorist WAR not CRIME upon the citizens of the US. He died as he should have, hunted down and blown to bits as an ENEMY COMBATANT. and as to WHO DECIDES? well that's easy.. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DECIDES. Thanks for asking.

 

[MikeFrank]

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

It was proven. Which world do you live in? He had proven ties to the Fort Hood Shooter, The Underwear bomber, and the And the New York car bombing plots. All of which are acts of terrorist WAR not CRIME upon the citizens of the US. He died as he should have, hunted down and blown to bits as an ENEMY COMBATANT. and as to WHO DECIDES? well that's easy.. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DECIDES. Thanks for asking.

What proof? All the documents I have seen all say alleged ties. This man was in custody several times by our government and let go every time. Please bring some facts.

 

[flacaltenn]

He was acting as an enemy on the battlefield against us and was killed on that battlefield in a manner that suited the piece of shit that he was.

More oxygen for me.



Everybody cheered when UBL was killed.

Now this waste of flesh gets a pass???

**** him with his 40 virgins

Hey I'm not asking for much here. Less than the ACLU or Ron Paul or Gary Johnson is asking for. In this rare case -- I'm the moderate...

ALL that is required is for Congress to do their duty and write a declaration of hostilities against Al Queada. Make it clear that ANY member of their organization is an enemy and may be taken out while they're on the crapper in a Hilton Hotel.

That way -- there's no future loophole for a Prez to "wing it" when it comes to assassinations and declaring "enemies of the state".. I don't need a team of lawyers and a trial -- just a LIST of those entities who's "rights" have been suspended and are NOW combatants and fugitives.

Actually -- there's a marvelous "2nd way".. And that is to invoke the "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" clause that is contained in our wonderfully prescient Constitution. This clause allows the Congress to signify "pirates and enemies of the state" and allow ANYONE to privateer and go after them. Seems like our founders KNEW how to handle STATELESS terrorists even back in the 18th century.. They wouldn't have balked about taking out taking out pirates even IF they were citizens.

I just want Congress to fill out the paperwork.. So that the "sentence" and terms of engagement are clear.. And no future Prez can declare the ACLU or Libertarian Party an "enemy combatant" or stateless terrorist group without declarations from the people's representatives.

 

[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

The USA and its allies are fighting a war against al Qaeda and terrorism in general. As a senior member of al Qaeda, al-Awlaki was a legitimate target for death. His activities were were well known to the authorities and he was even banned from entering Britain. Good riddance to the slimeball. I'm all for giving ALL islamic terrorists a helping hand to meet their maker!

Yeah. It's not like we hit this guy with a hellfire missile while he was standing out in a cornfield in Iowa. He was in Yeman, working with AQ. I am sure there will be legal challenges and precedent that comes out of this, but this guy was a combatant.

No one was terribly concerned with the South's Habias corpus right's during Gettysburg.

 

[whitehall]

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.

Scuse me but I don't think a president ever signed a kill on sight death warrant for an American.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

 

[clevergirl]

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.

Bush put no such thing in "our policy". Do you ever know what you are talking about?

See Ex parte Quirin

 

[clevergirl]

At the First Hague Conference, which opened on 6 May 1899, there was a disagreement between the Great Powers—which considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture—and a group of small countries headed by Belgium—which opposed the very principle of the rights and duties of armies of occupation and demanded an unlimited right of resistance for the population of occupied territories. As a compromise, the Russian delegate, F. F. Martens, proposed the Martens Clause, which is included in the preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention II – Laws and Customs of War on Land. Similar wording has been incorporated into many subsequent treaties that cover extensions to humanitarian law.

 

[Intense]

At the First Hague Conference, which opened on 6 May 1899, there was a disagreement between the Great Powers—which considered francs-tireurs to be unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture—and a group of small countries headed by Belgium—which opposed the very principle of the rights and duties of armies of occupation and demanded an unlimited right of resistance for the population of occupied territories. As a compromise, the Russian delegate, F. F. Martens, proposed the Martens Clause, which is included in the preamble to the 1899 Hague Convention II – Laws and Customs of War on Land. Similar wording has been incorporated into many subsequent treaties that cover extensions to humanitarian law.

And how did that Treaty cover the use of Drones?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

If he was "killed in a war" THEN HAVE Congress declare that war!!! And the list of group members who have had their non-combatant rights suspensed...

 

[RadiomanATL]

You need to work on your reading comprehension problem!



You should be more concerned about why the PRESIDENT is so hot on giving trials to FOREIGNERS, bringing them here from a foreign battlefield to stand trail in our civilian courts, and not affording an American citizen the same.

I show you in the constitution and in the writings on the fifth itself where it is allowed, using your own link, and all you can say is that I need to work on my comprehension problem?

I bet you didn't do very well in Constitutional Law when you were in law school. Did you?

From my link:

Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Grand Jury Exception Clause -
Burns vs. Wilson
The Supreme Court created a new "right" for military personnel to use federal courts in Burns vs. Wilson, 1953. Military personnel do not claim the same free speech protections that civilians claim because of the nature of the military. Certain forms of disrespectful or contemptuous speech would be harmful to the military's mission.

In this case, the defendant claimed that his free speech rights were being violated by the military and the military court had convicted him. He appealed to the Supreme Court claiming that the military court had not protected his constitutional right to free speech. The Court agreed that military personnel have certain constitutional rights just like civilians, but also said that they may be applied in different ways in the military setting. This created a door for military personnel to appeal cases out of the military courts on the grounds that the military had manifestly refused to consider the defendants claim of having his rights violated. This essentially grants people in the military the same basic rights as civilians.

Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Grand Jury Exception Clause -
Rasul vs. Bush

Guantanamo Bay
detainee

Further, in 2004, the Supreme Court ruled in Rasul vs. Bush that federal district courts could hear challenges by detainees held at America's Guantanamo Bay military base. This remains a very controversial decision in the eyes of many observers. This is the first time that foreign enemies have been granted the right to appeal military punishments outside of the military courts in American history. Many people argue that foreign citizens do not have the rights given to American citizens in the Constitution. Some people say that they should have those rights, whether the Constitution says so or not.





Fifth Amendment Court Cases - Grand Jury Exception Clause -
Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld
In another "War on Terrorism" case, Hamdi vs. Rumsfeld, 2004, the Supreme Court declared that a US citizen who is being held as an enemy combatant by the military must be allowed to challenge his detention in civil courts. In this case, an American citizen was found to be cooperating with the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Court overruled the government's claim that he should be held as an enemy combatant and instead he must be given the same privileges and rights given to any citizen charged with a crime. You can read more about the Hamdi case here.

Too bad the courts disagree with your assesment:

"This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the executive's unilateral decision to kill a US citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable," Bates wrote. "But this case squarely presents such a circumstance."

You can suck Obama's dick from now until kingdom come. It doesn't make you right.

You really don't pay much attention, do you?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Al Qaeda is so "omg evil" that you have to go back ten years to their only real attack on the US... More people die or get hurt from countless other activities or hate in this country. Gangs kill more, cars kill more, drinking kills more than this great evil that you claim is reason to erode our constitution.

You are weak and scared.

So because I believe in killing terrorists, I am weak and scared?

So, conversely, you want all terrorists to go free?

Is that really your argument?

You're a loon.

So, I accuse you of being a terrorist and your death warrant is sealed! Groovy!

Let me know how this strawman works out for you

 

[WillowTree]

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

It was proven. Which world do you live in? He had proven ties to the Fort Hood Shooter, The Underwear bomber, and the And the New York car bombing plots. All of which are acts of terrorist WAR not CRIME upon the citizens of the US. He died as he should have, hunted down and blown to bits as an ENEMY COMBATANT. and as to WHO DECIDES? well that's easy.. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DECIDES. Thanks for asking.

What proof? All the documents I have seen all say alleged ties. This man was in custody several times by our government and let go every time. Please bring some facts.

You haven't seen any documents dummie. You get the news the same as I do. The documents are classified information.

 

[geauxtohell]

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.

If he was "killed in a war" THEN HAVE Congress declare that war!!! And the list of group members who have had their non-combatant rights suspensed...

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:

The government, in its court arguments, didn't confirm plans to kill Mr. Awlaki. It argued that the cleric, as a U.S. citizen, could ensure his safety by turning himself in to U.S. authorities or filing suit himself.

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.

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

We aren't ******* around anymore.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

 

[geauxtohell]

I show you in the constitution and in the writings on the fifth itself where it is allowed, using your own link, and all you can say is that I need to work on my comprehension problem?

I bet you didn't do very well in Constitutional Law when you were in law school. Did you?

From my link:

Too bad the courts disagree with your assesment:

"This court recognizes the somewhat unsettling nature of its conclusion – that there are circumstances in which the executive's unilateral decision to kill a US citizen overseas is 'constitutionally committed to the political branches' and judicially unreviewable," Bates wrote. "But this case squarely presents such a circumstance."

You can suck Obama's dick from now until kingdom come. It doesn't make you right.

You really don't pay much attention, do you?

Seriously. Awlaki knew he was a target for the last two years. His father (who I feel for) plead for his safety. Did he change anything he did? No. He was a part of Al
Qaeda. He was a legit target.

 

[Colin]

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

He was an American born in the USA. Does that make a difference to the left anymore? He wasn't killed bearing arms against the US on the battlefield. The president signed his death warrant.

He may be American by birth, but do you really believe that al-Awlaki would have considered himself an American? I would suggest that he relinquished his rights under US citizenship when he started making statements like this:

"Fighting the devil doesn't require consultation or prayers seeking divine guidance. They are the party of the devils.
Fighting them is what is called for at this time. We have reached a point where it is either us or them.
We are two opposites that will never come together. What they want can only be accomplished by our elimination. Therefore this is a defining battle."

BBC News - In quotes: Anwar al-Awlaki

This was a statement he made against the USA and the West. He also called for attacks against U.S. military personnel worldwide and claimed all Americans were valid targets, and directed followers to engage in armed conflict with the United States."

Due process is not a viable way to deal with terrorists living in the Middle East. Furthermore, these terrorists who have publicly declared war against the USA and its allies do not deserve due process. Jihad can be made to work both ways. Send it right back to the bastards!

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

If he was "killed in a war" THEN HAVE Congress declare that war!!! And the list of group members who have had their non-combatant rights suspensed...

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:

The government, in its court arguments, didn't confirm plans to kill Mr. Awlaki. It argued that the cleric, as a U.S. citizen, could ensure his safety by turning himself in to U.S. authorities or filing suit himself.

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.

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

We aren't ******* 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 ******* around anymore (and I'm not either) -- let's do it right..

 

[geauxtohell]

If he was "killed in a war" THEN HAVE Congress declare that war!!! And the list of group members who have had their non-combatant rights suspensed...

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:

The government, in its court arguments, didn't confirm plans to kill Mr. Awlaki. It argued that the cleric, as a U.S. citizen, could ensure his safety by turning himself in to U.S. authorities or filing suit himself.

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.

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

We aren't ******* 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 ******* 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.