Top al-Qaida boss Al-Awlaki DEAD!!!

[cindy CD/TV]

Well said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/opinion/20johnsen.html[/I]

OMG, seriously? This MUST be some joke. PLEEEASE tell me this is some kinda joke. You're actually quoting an op-ed from the N.Y. Times (not exactly the paragon of journalistic virtue any longer)?? A fucking OP-ED piece? :wtf: You're really going to use a fellow liberal's mindless, driveling opinion to support your own bizarro-world view. :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2:
That's like saying: "Hey, I believe the world is flat. My friend here believes the same. So it must be true! Yayyy. arty: Time for a reach-around!"

Wow, you just gotta love intellectual dishonesty .. what a piece of work.

Hear's a suggestion, pal: Go to the bathroom, bring your copy of the Times with you, take a big ol' liberal-style dump (you'll know it's a liberal dump because it will smell like 100% grade-A bullshit), then wipe your ass with that Times op-ed article. I frankly can't think of a better use for that piece of scrap paper. What a shame, I remember when that paper was actually worth reading.

And at this moment, I just KNOW you're busy Googling up all those big words I used: paragon, intellectual, bullshit ...

 

[emceeemcee]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/anwar-al-awlakis-words-cut-short/story?id=14638943



http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-us-case-against-awlaki/


a bunch of government claims relayed in establishment media now qualify as criminal evidence :1orglaugh


Is modern day America trying to out-do the soviets or something?


here's the white house press conference when a journalist has the tenacity to ask the admin shill where the evidence was to support the killing:

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/312199#tab=comments&sc=0

Your buddy is meat scraps.

not my buddy- your buddy

Anwar Al-Awlaki may be the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, but he was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Fox News has learned.

Documents exclusively obtained by Fox News, including an FBI interview conducted after the Fort Hood shooting in November 2009, state that Awlaki was taken to the Pentagon as part of the military’s outreach to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the attacks.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/#ixzz1ZiM0TX3b

Is there anyone your government is at at war with that it wasn't previously employing or friends with?




:1orglaugh

 

[No_Man]

The point is not that Awlaki was or was not guilty. The point is that he was a U.S. citizen and he never received the due process necessary to determine whether or not he was guilty. Instead of stamping on his tomb stone, "Guilty of treason and terrorism beyond a reasonable doubt by an impartial jury of his peers," Awlaki's will read, "Probably a bad guy, but we'll never know because the government made him an unperson."

 

[emceeemcee]

OMG, seriously? This MUST be some joke. PLEEEASE tell me this is some kinda joke. You're actually quoting an op-ed from the N.Y. Times (not exactly the paragon of journalistic virtue any longer)?? A fucking OP-ED piece? :wtf: You're really going to use a fellow liberal's mindless, driveling opinion to support your own bizarro-world view. :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2: :rofl2:
That's like saying: "Hey, I believe the world is flat. My friend here believes the same. So it must be true! Yayyy. arty: Time for a reach-around!"

Wow, you just gotta love intellectual dishonesty .. what a piece of work.

Hear's a suggestion, pal: Go to the bathroom, bring your copy of the Times with you, take a big ol' liberal-style dump (you'll know it's a liberal dump because it will smell like 100% grade-A bullshit), then wipe your ass with that Times op-ed article. I frankly can't think of a better use for that piece of scrap paper. What a shame, I remember when that paper was actually worth reading.

And at this moment, I just KNOW you're busy Googling up all those big words I used: paragon, intellectual, bullshit ...

so something cannot be true if it is:

a) in an op-ed
b) in the NY times


are you related to the worm by any chance?


Obviously we should just all rely solely on the government for The Truth from now on.

 

[Red Spyder]

The point is not that Awlaki was or was not guilty. The point is that he was a U.S. citizen and he never received the due process necessary to determine whether or not he was guilty. Instead of stamping on his tomb stone, "Guilty of treason and terrorism beyond a reasonable doubt by an impartial jury of his peers," Awlaki's will read, "Probably a bad guy, but we'll never know because the government made him an unperson."

Yeah, but remember, it was President Obama's administration that got him killed, not President Bush's. Had it been President Bush, right now this story would be all over CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, the New York Times, etc. with the Democrats in congress and the ACLU demanding an investigation and wanting heads to roll in the Bush administration due to the fact that this guy was not given his due process he's entitled to as an American citizen.

Now, even though the guy's a terrorist supporter, someone who inspired and recruited people into whatever terror organization, it is kind of worrying to see our own government just killing the guy. I mean, killing other terrorists from other countries who are a threat to our country is one thing and I understand from Oblahblahblahblah's point of view that a dead terrorist cannot be taken to Guantanamo, unlike a captured one (he'd have no choice but to send any captured foreign terrorist to Gitmo which he promised it would be closed down just as soon as he was sworn in..... suckers!!) but this guy, as an American citizen could not and SHOULD NOT be sent to Guantanamo. Our bill of rights and our laws do apply to this guy as an American citizen (even though part of me does cheer that he's dead, sort of an internal conflict).

Now, of course, I understand that the FBI cannot just go knock on the guy's door to serve an arrest warrant, but still, the U.S. government killing a U.S. citizen? Wasn't this what the bad guys in those Bourne movies did? Remember how evil they were and we were supposed to cheer against them? Heck, I'd even say that those movies were the way leftists saw the Bush administration.

By the way, whatever happened to John Walker Lindh, a U.S. citizen fighting for the Taliban? Did W. have him killed before he left?

:stir:

 

[No_Man]

Our bill of rights and our laws do apply to this guy as an American citizen (even though part of me does cheer that he's dead, sort of an internal conflict)

Absolutely. And I have the same internal conflict. The world is probably a better place with this man dead. But I wouldn't want my guilt or innocence decided based on "probably," so I cannot, in good conscience, support killing a U.S. citizen based on "probably" either.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is an incredibly high standard of proof for good reason. And as recent cases have demonstrated, even when the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is met, there's still controversy over whether or not we should execute someone. So why is it that it's suddenly OK for the President to show up at your home with a predator drone and blow you into tiny bits because he and the news media have decided you're probably better off dead?

 

[Ulysses31]

Absolutely. And I have the same internal conflict. The world is probably a better place with this man dead. But I wouldn't want my guilt or innocence decided based on "probably," so I cannot, in good conscience, support killing a U.S. citizen based on "probably" either.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" is an incredibly high standard of proof for good reason. And as recent cases have demonstrated, even when the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is met, there's still controversy over whether or not we should execute someone. So why is it that it's suddenly OK for the President to show up at your home with a predator drone and blow you into tiny bits because he and the news media have decided you're probably better off dead?

The US/UK invaded Iraq because Saddam 'probably' had WMDs, don't know how people who supported the invasion sleep at night knowing all those people died over a single blatant lie. If I was to support such an act I'd want absolute proof laid out in front of me so we could say we had the moral and ethical high ground and were fighting for a just cause, not the flimsy evidence Colin Powell tried to fool us with, his 'presentations' made me laugh and I can't believe people took what he was saying as fact.

 

[No_Man]

The US/UK invaded Iraq because Saddam 'probably' had WMDs, don't know how people who supported the invasion sleep at night knowing all those people died over a single blatant lie. If I was to support such an act I'd want absolute proof laid out in front of me so we could say we had the moral and ethical high ground and were fighting for a just cause, not the flimsy evidence Colin Powell tried to fool us with, his 'presentations' made me laugh and I can't believe people took what he was saying as fact.

I agree to a point. However, there's a difference between giving one of your own citizens a fair trial and giving another country a fair trial. The closest we have to that is Congress's "purse strings" authority over the military, a law that Bush obeyed for Iraq but, once again, Obama has utterly violated in regard to Libya.

Remember, the evidence for WMD's in Iraq may have been flimsy and based on a lot of "probably's," but it was still evidence that Congress overwhelmingly and with complete bipartisanship signed-off upon. You can blame Powell and Rumsfeld and Bush all you want, but at the end of the day 111 Democrats in Congress - including our current Vice-President and Secretary of State - voted for the Iraq War Resolution. Whether it was a mistake or not, Iraq was tried and convicted by the U.S. Congress.

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

I have to laugh at the people that seem to think we could have just walked up to him and cuffed him. It's also hard to charge somebody with a crime when you don't have them in custody.

Yep. I don't think the guy would be too impressed with an arrest warrant. People would then complain that we didn't knock on the door in a more sensitive and politically correct manner. For shame if we do it while the great man is praying too.

There was no neat tidy way to get this character so he had to be taken out. Does anybody think he's not only not guilty, but actually an innocent?

 

[No_Man]

Yep. I don't think the guy would be too impressed with an arrest warrant. People would then complain that we didn't knock on the door in a more sensitive and politically correct manner. For shame if we do it while the great man is praying too.

There was no neat tidy way to get this character so he had to be taken out. Does anybody think he's not only not guilty, but actually an innocent?

Aha... so civil rights end if it's inconvenient. Gotcha.

 

[emceeemcee]

Does anybody think he's not only not guilty, but actually an innocent?

on what basis is he guilty of all the things he is accused of when no evidence has been presented and no trial has been conducted?

 

[Little Red Wagon Repairman]

Aha... so civil rights end if it's inconvenient. Gotcha.

on what basis is he guilty of all the things he is accused of when no evidence has been presented and no trial has been conducted?

Show me how to apprehend him in your way and lay out the specifics please. I'd be more than happy to try him in court if I thought getting him there in one piece is possible.

 

[Ulysses31]

Obama used secret DOJ memo to justify Awlaki killing...but now he won't let you see it

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...t-DOJ-memo-justify-killing.html#ixzz1ZlWktUUU

 

[Red Spyder]

Well, just to make it clear. I do applaud President Obama for calling the shot (no pun intended) he did. Regardless of the fact that the guy was an American citizen, he still was someone who waged war against his own country. He was not a common criminal, either a drug trafficker or child molester or rapist or fraudster who even though most of us would like to see these kinds of people's tickets punched, these common criminals ARE NOT waging war against the U.S.

Breaking our laws, even committing murders is completely different from wanting to bring down our government and killing as many of us as possible due to them not agreeing with our system, lifestyles, laws, predominant religion, or whathaveyou. I have no problem with the call that was made since the man was an enemy to his own country, therefore becoming a traitor.

BUT, what I'm talking about is, where is the outrage in the mainstream media about the killling of an American citizen? I just want you guys to remember this lack of outrage next time a Republican president (hopefully starting Jan. 2013) calls the shot to kill an American citizen who willingly and knowingly joined Al-Qaida to wage war against us.

 

[CunningStunts]

Aha... so civil rights end if it's inconvenient. Gotcha.

I agree, but this is a tough issue... I believe in civil rights as much as anyone and I think the Patriot Act is unconstitutional... but some of these terrorists living overseas are tough to deal with... they are not reserved a trial since they are not citizens, and if they are actively plotting to kill innocent people, it's really hard not to excuse some sniper from pulling the trigger and taking the guy out.

I'm torn on this issue, but if it is some guy hiding in a cave who is actively trying to kill people, pragmatism kicks in at a certain point and I have to agree with taking the scumbag out. I usually agree with Dr. Paul 98% of the time, but this is a rare instance where I respect his opinion, but agree that the world is better off with one less terrorist. :2 cents:

 

[Master Roshi]

by supporting this action, you basically support the right for a US president to authorize an assassination of US Citizens based off a beliefs rather than sound hard evidence, scary path we are treading nowadays IMO

 

[cindy CD/TV]

^^^^WHAT? How the hell do you make that leap? Remember Timothy McVeigh? He got his fair trial.



Al-Awlaki gave up his civil rights, right to due process and ALL of his Constitutional rights the moment he dragged his sorry ass to the Middle East, of his own free will, and began waging jihad against his own country. Being an American shouldn't be only decided by the happy coincidence of being born within our borders. He may have been born here and studied here, but his heart and soul were always "over there." He was not an American, I don't give a shit what his birth certificate says, therefore he gets no benefit from American rights.

 

[cindy CD/TV]

BTW, Al-Awlaki was a Yemeni citizen, too. How the fuck do you untangle that legal mess? Who tries him? Who has jurisdiction? Let's say Yemen grabs him. They'll put him up in a nice posh room somewhere, do a nice little dog and pony show of putting him thru their "legal process" and politically decline all our requests to have him turned over to us. Making us look like jackasses. (Sorta like the way our new Libyan pals won't hand over the Lockerbie bomber.) Yemen is in such a precarious position because of all the extremists in its population, the Yemeni government wouldn't DARE to harm one hair on his head.

 

[emceeemcee]

Al-Awlaki gave up his civil rights, right to due process and ALL of his Constitutional rights the moment he dragged his sorry ass to the Middle East....

you show an outstanding ignorance of your own country's constitution

(1) the most ignorant claim justifying the Awlaki killing is that he committed “treason” and thus gave up citizenship; there’s this document called the “Constitution” that lays out the steps the Government is required to take before punishing a citizen for “treason” (“No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court“); suffice to say, it’s not met by the President secretly declaring someone guilty backed up by leaked, anonymous accusations to the press;
http://politics.php3.salon.com/2011/10/03/awlaki_7/singleton/

 

[cindy CD/TV]

you show an outstanding ignorance of your own country's constitution

But the whole operative term is "citizen" is it not? I you're no longer a citizen how can you be protected as such? He conspired to have foreigners commit acts of terrorism in this country and abetted those efforts -- which makes him an "enemy combatant," for the lack of a better term. It would be different if a member of the U.S. military passed classified info. onto the enemy, or a scientist smuggled secret technology to another country. These people would get due process and stand trial, fairly. See the difference?

Many German-American citizens left the U.S. to fight for Hitler against America during WWII. Did we try and sort out which ones were American citizens in the middle of battle, or make an effort to go behind enemy lines and "arrest" the traitors and send them home for trial? Hell, no! For two reasons: 1) It wasn't practical. 2) Those Germans stopped being citizens the moment they took up arms for a foreign country against America. The German-Americans who sided with Hitler freely chose their path and, by default, accepted the consequences: death on the field of battle, or risk being captured, tried and executed by the U.S. military -- not under the Constitution, but under the articles of war.

Al-Awlaki by default gave up his citizenship when he joined a foreign crusade/jihad/war against this country. Once you renounce your citizenship and join a foreign force, you CANNOT expect to be protected by the very same Constitution you turned your back on. He was an enemy commander and we took him out like one. Period.