Terrorist Killed Legal or Illegal?

[Katzndogz]

Al Awlaki was not nearly as successful as liberals would have had him be. Awlaki's propaganda was their propaganda and it's over for him. There will be others. There is no shortage of terrorists, or terrorists holding American citizenship to take up the Awlaki mantle.

 

[Liability]

I don't believe that President Bush "changed" any laws regarding enemy combatants at all.

When he acted upon prior precedent, the laws got changed under his feet.

That this particular scumbag piece of crap, al-Awlaki, was an American doesn't change the fact that he was one of the enemy in time of war.

Enemy combatants have this strange habit of getting dead in time of war.

It is not now -- nor was this EVER -- a criminal law matter. So, no. He was deserving of no trial.

What possible "issue" could have been put before a military tribunal that would have altered the decision that he was a legitimate target? There never was any doubt about what he was preaching or that he WAS succeeding in recruiting committed scumbag enemy filth to engage in their war efforts against us -- with tragic success. (Lt. Nadal to name just one.)

While I understand the concern Oddball expresses, I am still not persuaded that he is right on this one. I readily confess that I might be missing something important in my analysis. So, I am trying to keep an open mind on it. It is certainly an important enough issue to try to keep an open mind about -- in both directions.

Still, until I am persuaded to the contrary by some argument I am not seeing or "getting," I remain content that it was perfectly legal, Constitutional and moral to strike at al-Awlaki. May he roast in hell.

 

[Amelia]

What I see here are those that wish to damage the current Presidency using any excuse to do so.

The man was actively engaged in actions meant to kill US Citizens, and damage our government. He was not in a place where we could have feasably captured him. Perhaps we should have a policy of trying, in absent, traitors, and condemning them to death. But doing so right before a strike would be warning enough to abort the strike.

Get real, folks. We had a dangerous enemy that was determined to harm our nation and the citizens of the nation. We took him out. A job well done.

Right, people like Rachel Maddow are trying to damage the Presidency using any excuse to do so.

She was the first person I heard object to this back when Obama first put Awlaki on the hitlist without due process.

I was waiting to see how she would respond to this. She still felt it was wrong. I was pleased to see that she was consistent about this.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Get real, folks. We had a dangerous enemy that was determined to harm our nation and the citizens of the nation. We took him out. A job well done.

Ignoring the Constitution and violating due process is not ‘getting real.’ It undermines the foundation of Constitutional law and renders meaningless its fundamental tenets. If we can justify killing Americans overseas without a trial we can justify the same here at home.

However much a trite cliché, this is indeed a dangerous slippery slope.

 

[westwall]

Philosophically I have no problem killing someone waging war against us from foreign soil. I do however have a huge problem if while killing the prick an innocent bystander is killed. Situations like this are ideal for the Hellfire drone strike because the people in the convoy are not innocent.

Also while I agree there are constitutional issues in play I believe (and this true whether the bad person is on US soil or foreign) that once a perp has demonstrated a complete lack of appreciation for others rights, I no longer feel so compelled to grant him any.

I firmly believe you fight a war the way your enemy does. If he fights dirty, you fight dirty. Just don't harm innocents. And if you do, be prompt with the weregild.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn "declared war" against America, and there's actual physical proof that they killed people...How are they doing today?

Oh yeah...McVeigh and Kaczynski actually killed people first-hand, and managed to get trials.

And I had addressed this point but you seem to have ignored it. He was not in a location that made capture or arrest possible, they were. Simple as that. You hid in a nation that we cannot go into and get you and then proceed to actively engage hostilities against our nation you will be stopped. PERIOD.


It seems to me that you are all missing the fact that he was actively engaging in acts against the nation. I guess that if he were launching missiles over here we would simply have to take it right? After all, he needs a trial. Sorry but the military does not work that way. I don't care if the bombs come in the form of a rocket or a pair of underwear, they amount to the same thing and require the same actions. IF the individual is in a location that allows for capture with acceptable risks, we capture. If he is not, we kill. There is no way around that. What the hell do you expect our military to do in these situations where capture simply is not feasible?

What proof do we have that he was actively engaged in anything? All I have seen is vague allegations made by government officials, and no evidence.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What I see here are those that wish to damage the current Presidency using any excuse to do so.

The man was actively engaged in actions meant to kill US Citizens, and damage our government. He was not in a place where we could have feasably captured him. Perhaps we should have a policy of trying, in absent, traitors, and condemning them to death. But doing so right before a strike would be warning enough to abort the strike.

Get real, folks. We had a dangerous enemy that was determined to harm our nation and the citizens of the nation. We took him out. A job well done.

We have an enemy that wants to undermine our way of life, so we should throw it away in order to defeat them. Makes sense to me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bush changed the laws regarding "enemy combatants". If the right has a problem with this killing, they should talk to him. As for the terrorist, good riddance. May he fry in Hell for all eternity.

I had a problem when he did it, but at least he did not unilaterally decide he to kill anyone who disagreed with him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And yeah, dud, if Ayers had been put on a dead or alive list the police or the FBI would have been justified in shooting him dead at the time.

Not if he was not trying to kill someone when they found him.

 

[FA_Q2]

Oh yeah...McVeigh and Kaczynski actually killed people first-hand, and managed to get trials.

And I had addressed this point but you seem to have ignored it. He was not in a location that made capture or arrest possible, they were. Simple as that. You hid in a nation that we cannot go into and get you and then proceed to actively engage hostilities against our nation you will be stopped. PERIOD.


It seems to me that you are all missing the fact that he was actively engaging in acts against the nation. I guess that if he were launching missiles over here we would simply have to take it right? After all, he needs a trial. Sorry but the military does not work that way. I don't care if the bombs come in the form of a rocket or a pair of underwear, they amount to the same thing and require the same actions. IF the individual is in a location that allows for capture with acceptable risks, we capture. If he is not, we kill. There is no way around that. What the hell do you expect our military to do in these situations where capture simply is not feasible?

What proof do we have that he was actively engaged in anything? All I have seen is vague allegations made by government officials, and no evidence.

And what type of proof would be acceptable to you? You do realize that today's field of battle is far different than that of the past. Do you believe that the government is lying when they claim that he is part of the terrorist network and planning/recruiting terrorist actions against the us.
At some point, there has to be a way to wage war against terrorism. You can't have a trial every time that the military has a legitimate target. It is also not like the government simply skipped the judicial branch either. A judge had stamped the OK on the target as well. If you disagree with what happened then give us an alternative that makes sense. I don't believe that there is one.

 

[yidnar]

I was murging 3 threads and tried to delete just one duplicate post from it and the whole thread disappeared. My most humble apologies.
Having said that....carry on....

I don't give ashit as long as he is dead !!

 

[Ravi]

And I had addressed this point but you seem to have ignored it. He was not in a location that made capture or arrest possible, they were. Simple as that. You hid in a nation that we cannot go into and get you and then proceed to actively engage hostilities against our nation you will be stopped. PERIOD.


It seems to me that you are all missing the fact that he was actively engaging in acts against the nation. I guess that if he were launching missiles over here we would simply have to take it right? After all, he needs a trial. Sorry but the military does not work that way. I don't care if the bombs come in the form of a rocket or a pair of underwear, they amount to the same thing and require the same actions. IF the individual is in a location that allows for capture with acceptable risks, we capture. If he is not, we kill. There is no way around that. What the hell do you expect our military to do in these situations where capture simply is not feasible?

What proof do we have that he was actively engaged in anything? All I have seen is vague allegations made by government officials, and no evidence.

And what type of proof would be acceptable to you? You do realize that today's field of battle is far different than that of the past. Do you believe that the government is lying when they claim that he is part of the terrorist network and planning/recruiting terrorist actions against the us.
At some point, there has to be a way to wage war against terrorism. You can't have a trial every time that the military has a legitimate target. It is also not like the government simply skipped the judicial branch either. A judge had stamped the OK on the target as well. If you disagree with what happened then give us an alternative that makes sense. I don't believe that there is one.

Exactly. If we were required to do that we would never have defeated any enemy, anywhere.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And I had addressed this point but you seem to have ignored it. He was not in a location that made capture or arrest possible, they were. Simple as that. You hid in a nation that we cannot go into and get you and then proceed to actively engage hostilities against our nation you will be stopped. PERIOD.


It seems to me that you are all missing the fact that he was actively engaging in acts against the nation. I guess that if he were launching missiles over here we would simply have to take it right? After all, he needs a trial. Sorry but the military does not work that way. I don't care if the bombs come in the form of a rocket or a pair of underwear, they amount to the same thing and require the same actions. IF the individual is in a location that allows for capture with acceptable risks, we capture. If he is not, we kill. There is no way around that. What the hell do you expect our military to do in these situations where capture simply is not feasible?

What proof do we have that he was actively engaged in anything? All I have seen is vague allegations made by government officials, and no evidence.

And what type of proof would be acceptable to you? You do realize that today's field of battle is far different than that of the past. Do you believe that the government is lying when they claim that he is part of the terrorist network and planning/recruiting terrorist actions against the us.
At some point, there has to be a way to wage war against terrorism. You can't have a trial every time that the military has a legitimate target. It is also not like the government simply skipped the judicial branch either. A judge had stamped the OK on the target as well. If you disagree with what happened then give us an alternative that makes sense. I don't believe that there is one.

We have no, repeat no, proof that Alwaki did anything beyond making a few videos that called for people to attack the country. When asked directly what evidence actually exist the White House claims state secrets and refuses to answer.

A battlefield is still a place where there are people on one side that are actively shooting at people on the other side who are shooting back. If that is not happening, it is not a battlefield. The government is always happy to issue elaborate justifications for its actions, but we should not allow them to get away with it.

By the way, if anyone told you a judge stamped an OK on this at any point they were lying to you. The only judge that ruled on it at all basically said he did not have the power to revue the decision to order the death of a person the administration deems a threat. That is a far cry from saying it is right.

What we have here is the government ordering the death of a human being without an indictment or trial simply because it was easier than trying to prove he did something.

 

[Avorysuds]

~

 

[Avorysuds]

Dead terrorists are good under Republicans.

Dead terrorists killed under Democrats are freedom fighters to be pitied.

If you're Dud, that is.

The "War" on terror under a Republican is evil and worthy of being put on trial for war crimes.
The "War" on terror under a Democrat is A-*******-mazing and worthy of a second Nobel Peace Prize if it’s under a Democrat.

Glad we got that covered.

Now, the constitution does not agree with this killing no matter who is President.

 

[Ravi]

Dead terrorists are good under Republicans.

Dead terrorists killed under Democrats are freedom fighters to be pitied.

If you're Dud, that is.

The "War" on terror under a Republican is evil and worthy of being put on trial for war crimes.
The "War" on terror under a Democrat is A-*******-mazing and worthy of a second Nobel Peace Prize if it’s under a Democrat.

Glad we got that covered.

Now, the constitution does not agree with this killing no matter who is President.

Yeah, it does.

And this is what should have happened under Bush: any terrorists should have been killed, not put in Gitmo. Once they are in Gitmo, they do deserve due process under our constitution.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dead terrorists are good under Republicans.

Dead terrorists killed under Democrats are freedom fighters to be pitied.

If you're Dud, that is.

The "War" on terror under a Republican is evil and worthy of being put on trial for war crimes.
The "War" on terror under a Democrat is A-*******-mazing and worthy of a second Nobel Peace Prize if it’s under a Democrat.

Glad we got that covered.

Now, the constitution does not agree with this killing no matter who is President.

Yeah, it does.

And this is what should have happened under Bush: any terrorists should have been killed, not put in Gitmo. Once they are in Gitmo, they do deserve due process under our constitution.

Your position is that it is constitutional to kill people but not to arrest them? That will certainly solve a lot of state budget problems, we no longer need trials or prisons, just kill everyone who we dislike.

 

[Ravi]

The "War" on terror under a Republican is evil and worthy of being put on trial for war crimes.
The "War" on terror under a Democrat is A-*******-mazing and worthy of a second Nobel Peace Prize if it’s under a Democrat.

Glad we got that covered.

Now, the constitution does not agree with this killing no matter who is President.

Yeah, it does.

And this is what should have happened under Bush: any terrorists should have been killed, not put in Gitmo. Once they are in Gitmo, they do deserve due process under our constitution.

Your position is that it is constitutional to kill people but not to arrest them? That will certainly solve a lot of state budget problems, we no longer need trials or prisons, just kill everyone who we dislike.

Nope, not my position at all. It is constitutional to kill someone that joins a terrorist group and actively calls for others to kill Americans.

I know it kills you as you'd rather see terrorists given free access to our airliners.

Well, tough ******* shit.

 

[Avorysuds]

Dead terrorists are good under Republicans.

Dead terrorists killed under Democrats are freedom fighters to be pitied.

If you're Dud, that is.

The "War" on terror under a Republican is evil and worthy of being put on trial for war crimes.
The "War" on terror under a Democrat is A-*******-mazing and worthy of a second Nobel Peace Prize if it’s under a Democrat.

Glad we got that covered.

Now, the constitution does not agree with this killing no matter who is President.

Yeah, it does.

And this is what should have happened under Bush: any terrorists should have been killed, not put in Gitmo. Once they are in Gitmo, they do deserve due process under our constitution.

Sorry, Bush was wrong and so is Obama, there is no Bush did it and Neocons liked it then so now it's awesome under Obama.

Obama is destroying his base and the Democrat party in the process. You guys (liberals) need to have a higher standard and start holding him accountable rather than change (flip flop) on your positions.

 

[Ravi]

The "War" on terror under a Republican is evil and worthy of being put on trial for war crimes.
The "War" on terror under a Democrat is A-*******-mazing and worthy of a second Nobel Peace Prize if it’s under a Democrat.

Glad we got that covered.

Now, the constitution does not agree with this killing no matter who is President.

Yeah, it does.

And this is what should have happened under Bush: any terrorists should have been killed, not put in Gitmo. Once they are in Gitmo, they do deserve due process under our constitution.

Sorry, Bush was wrong and so is Obama, there is no Bush did it and Neocons liked it then so now it's awesome under Obama.

Obama is destroying his base and the Democrat party in the process. You guys (liberals) need to have a higher standard and start holding him accountable rather than change (flip flop) on your positions.

I've never flip flopped. Bush should have allowed the military to kill terrorists instead of imprisoning them on the off chance that torturing them would yield information.

Yeah, I see a lot of lefty nutjobs are upset with him. So what. In the end, what he did was right even if it costs him some votes.

Obama is okay in my book in this case.