We (Liberals) were up in arms when Bush claimed the power to detain and eavesdrop on Americans without due process. Yet Obama claims power to not only detain and eavesdrop but also to kill American citizens. If it was wrong under Bush than it's wrong under Obama, we can't have it both ways.
This is the statute:
http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/18C115.txt
I would have much more of a problem with it if this guy were Stateside, but he was essentially a defector and by all accounts violated the above-outlined statute.
You don't have a clue who he was. You just know that Big Brother made the bad man go away.
He was an imam who preached violence against the U.S. and planned and supported violent action against Americans.
He was the enemy..............now he ain't.
C
cindy CD/TV
Guest
:troll: :troll:
But I'm gonna feed him anyway. :bang: First, "Yemen experts" is an oxymoron -- these people are playing both sides against the middle and nothing they "report" can be fully trusted. Wake up. Al-Awlaki was THE heir apparent for al-Qaida, not just a part of it. Denying that FACT is like saying Hitler wasn't really part of the Nazi party, but hey, "all you know is that your government said he was ..."
:wtf: Where have you been living, dude??? Did you also miss the memo that explained the world is round? Oh, wait, nevermind, the government told me the world is round, so I can't believe that -- therefore the world is still flat. If you have doubts, why not Google the guy's name? Why don't you check al-Alwaki's own fucking website (assuming it's stilll up and running). The FBI and CIA and the Israelis have been on this guy's trail for a decade, why would they do that for a middling, terrorist lapdog? The answer is: they wouldn't. This guy was the top of the terrorist food chain. Get with the program.
Who needs facts if the other guy is too dull to comprehend them?
C
cindy CD/TV
Guest
I don't know why I even bother. No matter how hard I try, there is no known way to fix stupid. :stir: :tongue:
Mayhem
Banned
:troll: :troll:
But I'm gonna feed him anyway. :bang: First, "Yemen experts" is an oxymoron -- these people are playing both sides against the middle and nothing they "report" can be fully trusted. Wake up. Al-Awlaki was THE heir apparent for al-Qaida, not just a part of it. Denying that FACT is like saying Hitler wasn't really part of the Nazi party, but hey, "all you know is that your government said he was ..."
If you have doubts, why not Google the guy's name? Why don't you check al-Alwaki's own fucking website (assuming it's stilll up and running). The FBI and CIA and the Israelis have been on this guy's trail for a decade, why would they do that for a middling, terrorist lapdog? The answer is: they wouldn't. This guy was the top of the terrorist food chain. Get with the program.
Who needs facts if the other guy is too dull to comprehend them?
We've never met, but I'm your future husband. :goodpost: :nanner::nanner::nanner:
That's the way it is. Besides, he's an outsider.
I've met both hard-line conservatives and liberals and for some reason the liberals seem to always be nastier. And FTR, I have cousins who fit into both categories and who I dearly respect and love equally, and I live in one of the most liberal counties in North America. It's fun to kick it with them and always to throw around a little banter.
Ultimately, it's all about love, right???
Rey C.
Racing is life... anything else is just waiting.
Although I'm glad that he's dead (and I hope he had a final "oh shit!" moment before he got zapped), I also think that you make a very valid and interesting point (I hope the system lets me rep you). I think the ACLU has filed a lawsuit that is based on the same premise as you present. We have to be careful that, even as we demand justice and/or revenge, we keep our Constitution front & center. If we don't do that then we are no better than those we claim to be lawless barbarians.
And BTW, though I've always been a guy who liked promotions, I think I'd have to sleep on a promotion to the Top Guy of Al Qaeda. Doesn't seem liek there's much of a future to that. Not even a golden parachute and a mistress in the Hamptons. Just a fiery death in a cheap car with a bunch of dudes. That's pretty much my nightmare. :nono:
Rey C, really are drunk. Take a nap, brah. You're making sense (you always do) but you drank a few more than me tonight Homes, and that's saying something. Rest it off. A few hours gonna give you some SNN, SNR, SNM...whatever they call it.
emceeemcee
Banned
emceeemcee
Banned
Well said.
He is far from the terrorist kingpin that the West has made him out to be. In fact, he isn’t even the head of his own organization, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. That would be Nasir al-Wuhayshi, who was Osama bin Laden’s personal secretary for four years in Afghanistan.
Nor is Mr. Awlaki the deputy commander, a position held by Said Ali al-Shihri, a former detainee at Guantánamo Bay who was repatriated to Saudi Arabia in 2007 and put in a “terrorist rehabilitation” program. (The treatment, clearly, did not take.)
Mr. Awlaki isn’t the group’s top religious scholar (Adil al-Abab), its chief of military operations (Qassim al-Raymi), its bomb maker (Ibrahim Hassan Asiri) or even its leading ideologue (Ibrahim Suleiman al-Rubaysh).
Rather, he is a midlevel religious functionary who happens to have American citizenship and speak English. This makes him a propaganda threat, but not one whose elimination would do anything to limit the reach of the Qaeda branch.
He’s not even particularly good at what he does: Mr. Awlaki is a decidedly unoriginal thinker in Arabic and isn’t that well known in Yemen. His most famous production is a lengthy sermon-lecture series called “Constants on the Path of Jihad,” which emphasizes the global nature of holy war: “If a particular people or nation is classified as ... ‘the people of war’ in the Shariah, that classification applies to them all over the earth.” But “Constants” isn’t really his own creation; it’s an adaptation of a work written by a Saudi militant killed in 2003. At most, Mr. Awlaki is a popularizer, someone who takes the work of others and makes it his own.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/opinion/20johnsen.html
'top of the food chain' :1orglaugh
I think you've been watching too many episodes of '24'
Ron Paul attacks 'unconstitutional' Obama after Awlaki death
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bama-Anwar-al-Awlaki-death.html#ixzz1ZeN5ZVhr
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...bama-Anwar-al-Awlaki-death.html#ixzz1ZeN5ZVhr
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
Excellent. Samir Khan is dead too.
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.
I wonder what people expect the president to do. Let somebody continually plot to kill innocent people that the president is responsible to protect while the perpetrator also encourages others to do so with no real repercussions because he doesn't have his fingers over a detonator or his hands on a trigger of a gun pointed at somebody that exact second and because he's out of the country where we can't easily apprehend him. I pretty big on the civil rights side of things, but some people are not even thinking rationally here. Nobody has the right to plot to attack innocent people without recourse for us or repercussions for that person, and if killing that person is the only reasonable alternative to keep that from happening then that is what has to be done as much as I would not want to kill people.
If I have to choose between a good chance for much more people to die from somebody like that, while we wait to capture him, (if we ever do), or just bombing him when we can and sparing all the potential victims he wants to inflict harm on the choice is easy.
There isn't even any moral or ethical concern here. The president even has both of those covered. When it gets down to it I bet more likely than not the courts wouldn't even legal wrongdoing with the action.
As much as the term has been abused by administrations in the past to do things we really shouldn't have done, this is one instance where the term "enemy combatant" actually makes sense, and the person should be treated as such.
I wonder what people expect the president to do. Let somebody continually plot to kill innocent people that the president is responsible to protect while the perpetrator also encourages others to do so with no real repercussions because he doesn't have his fingers over a detonator or his hands on a trigger of a gun pointed at somebody that exact second and because he's out of the country where we can't easily apprehend him. I pretty big on the civil rights side of things, but some people are not even thinking rationally here. Nobody has the right to plot to attack innocent people without recourse for us or repercussions for that person, and if killing that person is the only reasonable alternative to keep that from happening then that is what has to be done as much as I would not want to kill people.
If I have to choose between a good chance for much more people to die from somebody like that, while we wait to capture him, (if we ever do), or just bombing him when we can and sparing all the potential victims he wants to inflict harm on the choice is easy.
There isn't even any moral or ethical concern here. The president even has both of those covered. When it gets down to it I bet more likely than not the courts wouldn't even legal wrongdoing with the action.
As much as the term has been abused by administrations in the past to do things we really shouldn't have done, this is one instance where the term "enemy combatant" actually makes sense, and the person should be treated as such.
Mayhem
Banned
From where did you snag this talking point from, dude?
This is all so much fun...
I had to stop in the middle. Talk about a one-sided conversation.
Mr. Graham needs to learn how to not lead a witness and it would help if he would shut up and let the witness answer.What we should have done was say we were bombing something else and Al-Awlaki just happened to get in the way.
BioDefenseGrad
Banned
We've killed plenty of terrorists who weren't the head of the organization. Facilitators, couriers, bomb makers and computer experts are all important to terrorist organizations.
But still, LOL @ emceeemcee because a couple of his beloved Islamists got blasted. It never fails.