Senior al-Qaeda figure al-Awlaki killed in U.S. airstrike

[WarpSpeed]

For those who seek to defend this piece of traitorous trash try applying this common sense. If he had the chance to kill an American citizen or even more so the very president that took him out do you honestly think that he'd hesitate for one minute in a struggle with his conscience about violating their Constitutional rights ?

Their own religion supposedly advocates an eye for an eye does it not?

[koheesti]

It's very telling that those who would desire western civilization to collapse and with it the constitution are defended by some people using the argument that we didn't follow the constitution.

Where to begin?

1. I haven't read a single post on this thread defending the man in the OP. There are, however, a few of us defending the US Constitution. It speaks volumes that you're not one of them.

2. The crux of your response is wholly nonsensical. The US Constitution protects the rights of all US Citizens--whether they want it to collapse or not. Do you know even the slightest thing about the Constitution or constitutional law? I don't have the time or inclination to educate you, but in short, the sixth amendment guarantees a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; and the accused should be able to see evidence and witnesses against him/her; the accused should be able to produce his/her own evidence/witnesses and have access to a lawyer.

Whatever his faults/crimes, this man was a US citizen and he did not receive the fair trial that was supposed to be guaranteed.

3. You didn't respond to my query above: Is Al Qaeda now the standard that the US holds itself to? Or were you just shooting from the hip without really thinking things through?

Let's just say the constitution is a great thing just so long as a little pragmatism is applied. Had the U.S authorities put in a request to the Yemeni authorities to arrest the suspect there is a high possibility that Al-Qaeda would have found out and effected an escape. I suppose a calculation was done that this was likely and his escape was likely to lead to more U.S deaths, with the constitutional rights of resultant victims ignored. The same principle applied to Bin Laden.

There is also the small matter of constitutional rights being suspended due to pressing security concerns as Japanese living in the U.S discovered after Pearl Harbor. But then again some people would rather we fight at a perpetual handicap in order to sooth their synthetic moral outrage.

Of course there is no pleasing some people, if he had been given a trial you would have been whining about it being rigged. Nope, spit your dummy out with pleasure I applaud the U.S actions and expect that Obama will get far less heat from this than Bush would have done.

In this case the target was an American citizen. No need to ask the Yemenis permission to take his terrorist ass out.

On CNN today even partisan right wing Congressman Peter King of NY applauded Obama on this one and said he should get a medal.

[koheesti]

So US citizens who promote violence and terrorism deserve to be killed by the US govt. without a trial?

Sure, why not?

[Jingthing]

This is academic. Only the lunatic fringe on the American right and left has a serious issue with smoking that batard. It is seen as a war situation and he was an enemy combatant. Bravo, Obama!

Edited October 1, 2011 by Jingthing

[geriatrickid]

The issue isn't one of constitutional rights and all that good stuff. Rather, this was a man engaged in violent activity 24/7. He was taken down much as any law enforcement agency responds to a heavily armed lunatic who will not respond to non violent methods to keep the peace. Keep in mind the following;

- The deceased could have stopped his violence and conspiracy to commit acts of violence at any time. He made the decision to wage war and to plant bombs targeting non combatants.

- The deceased stated that he would never surrender, never be taken prisoner and would go down fighting. He got his wish. Now he can eat grapes with Osama.

- The deceased presented a clear and imminent threat to the safety and lives of non combatants.

- The methods used to prevent the deceased from engaging in his continued acts of lethal violence were an appropriate response and the only viable option to respond to a man that stated multiple times his goal was to kill, maim and terrorize U.S. citizens.

- The deceased's rights were not violated as he was given every chance to cease and desist from his activities and to surrender to the his government. The deceased chose his fate.

The actions of the U.S.A. have prevented additional death, injury and destruction. Congratulations to the various civilian and military personnel that were able to protect non combatants from this psychotic killer.

[Jingthing]

The actions of the U.S.A. have prevented additional death, injury and destruction. Congratulations to the various civilian and military personnel that were able to protect non combatants from this psychotic killer.

And most of all, congratulations to the American commander in chief, President Barack Hussein Obama (2012).

Edited October 1, 2011 by Jingthing

[cdnvic]

One unattributed photo removed.

[Ulysses G.]

The American Spring is coming

It is already here - and kudos to Obama for doing the right thing as related to drones, hateful terrorists and UN vetoes.

Edited October 2, 2011 by metisdead
Off topic video removed.

[Credo]

I am from the 'lunatic left', as some of you who are on the right side of Atilla the Hun. I think some get confused between being a liberal and being an anti-USA basher. Some posters jump up and down when the US doesn't do anything and then they jump up and down when they do.

So, as a leftie, this guy is best not being allowed to freely circulate among his peers. If he could be caught quickly and efficiently, that would be the best option. If not, then he needs to be killed. The fact that Obama had some legal experts look at the constitutionality of the situation, says a great deal.

The more potential terrorists that are neutralized, the few military incursions and misadventures.

[koheesti]

The fact that Obama had some legal experts look at the constitutionality of the situation, says a great deal.

He also taught Constitutional Law for 12 years so that should qualify him as an expert himself.

[chuckd]

Obama did just like he did with Bin Laden...got out of the way and let the military handle the situation.

<snip>

Edited October 2, 2011 by metisdead
Off topic comments edited out.

[WarpSpeed]

I am from the 'lunatic left', as some of you who are on the right side of Atilla the Hun. I think some get confused between being a liberal and being an anti-USA basher. Some posters jump up and down when the US doesn't do anything and then they jump up and down when they do.

So, as a leftie, this guy is best not being allowed to freely circulate among his peers. If he could be caught quickly and efficiently, that would be the best option. If not, then he needs to be killed. The fact that Obama had some legal experts look at the constitutionality of the situation, says a great deal.

The more potential terrorists that are neutralized, the few military incursions and misadventures.

May I just say that based on your post you are clearly NOT qualified as the "lunatic left".. They qualify as "lunatic" because they can't see the sense and logic in a case such as this which you clearly demonstrate that you can thus disqualifying you as one of their ilk IMO..

[Ulysses G.]

I am from the 'lunatic left', as some of you who are on the right side of Atilla the Hun. I think some get confused between being a liberal and being an anti-USA basher. Some posters jump up and down when the US doesn't do anything and then they jump up and down when they do.

So, as a leftie, this guy is best not being allowed to freely circulate among his peers. If he could be caught quickly and efficiently, that would be the best option. If not, then he needs to be killed. The fact that Obama had some legal experts look at the constitutionality of the situation, says a great deal.

The more potential terrorists that are neutralized, the few military incursions and misadventures.

May I just say that based on your post you are clearly NOT qualified as the "lunatic left".. They qualify as "lunatic" because they can't see the sense and logic in a case such as this which you clearly demonstrate that you can thus disqualifying you as one of their ilk IMO..

AGREED.

[koheesti]

<snip!>

Back to the topic...

This is from the lunatic left wing fringe:

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

It is also extremely rare to have an American preach so much hate towards his own people and help plan violence against them. Too bad for the scum bag and hooray for the POTUS for staying out of the way.

Edited October 2, 2011 by metisdead
Off topic comments removed.

[Ulysses G.]

I concur.

[up-country_sinclair]

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

It is also extremely rare to have an American preach so much hate towards his own people and help plan violence against them.

How do you know that he helped plan violence against American citizens? Was there a trial where evidence was presented to a jury? No, of course not. What a silly idea to actually hold a trial to determine someone's guilt or innocence.

But the govt. told you he did these things, so it must be true.

Some here really need to try and think for themselves.

What do you think is going to happen in future administrations 10/20/30 years from now? Of course they're going to continue to use this type of killing, and perhaps at some point you'll be wondering how we got to a point where the US govt. could simply murder US citizen's abroad without a trial. I personally don't give a dam_n about the person described in the OP, but I do care about constitutional rights and holding the govt. in check. It's a shame you don't.

[Ulysses G.]

How do you know that he helped plan violence against American citizens?

Watching the 100s of videos that he put on the internet inciting hatred and Jihad and the US government's word are good enough for most people.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

How do you know that he helped plan violence against American citizens?

Watching the 100s of videos that he put on the internet inciting hatred and Jihad and the US government's word are good enough for most people.

You've seen a video where he planned violence against American citizens? Post a link.

[Jingthing]

When the slippery slope starts slipping more, send us a memo.

[chuckd]

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

It is also extremely rare to have an American preach so much hate towards his own people and help plan violence against them.

How do you know that he helped plan violence against American citizens? Was there a trial where evidence was presented to a jury? No, of course not. What a silly idea to actually hold a trial to determine someone's guilt or innocence.

But the govt. told you he did these things, so it must be true.

Some here really need to try and think for themselves.

What do you think is going to happen in future administrations 10/20/30 years from now? Of course they're going to continue to use this type of killing, and perhaps at some point you'll be wondering how we got to a point where the US govt. could simply murder US citizen's abroad without a trial. I personally don't give a dam_n about the person described in the OP, but I do care about constitutional rights and holding the govt. in check. It's a shame you don't.

Are the police violating the constitution if they kill a US citizen under suspicion of murder who is resisting arrest, say, in Oshkosh, Wisconsin?

PS:

Major Nidal Hassan was known to have visited and corresponded with Al Alawki prior to murdering 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873

[koheesti]

When the slippery slope starts slipping more, send us a memo.

He won't because it never does.

[Jingthing]

Such a cavalier attitude.

Such a cavalier TERRORIST. Again, thank you President Obama.

I would be concerned if they start doing this within US borders, when the perps can simply be arrested. I doubt that will ever happen, so again, if it does, send a memo.

Edited October 2, 2011 by Jingthing

[up-country_sinclair]

Are the police violating the constitution if they kill a US citizen under suspicion of murder who is resisting arrest, say, in Oshkosh, Wisconsin?

Al Awlaki resisted arrest? Post a link.

PS:

Major Nidal Hassan was known to have visited and corresponded with Al Alawki prior to murdering 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873

Again, where is the evidence that Al Awlaki committed a crime? Why not have a trial? At the very least try him in absentia.

But there's no need for all that, right? Because the govt. said he's guilty and that's good enough.

[chuckd]

Are the police violating the constitution if they kill a US citizen under suspicion of murder who is resisting arrest, say, in Oshkosh, Wisconsin?

Al Awlaki resisted arrest? Post a link.

PS:

Major Nidal Hassan was known to have visited and corresponded with Al Alawki prior to murdering 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/fort-hood-shooter-contact-al-qaeda-terrorists-officials/story?id=9030873

Again, where is the evidence that Al Awlaki committed a crime? Why not have a trial? At the very least try him in absentia.

But there's no need for all that, right? Because the govt. said he's guilty and that's good enough.

When was Al-Awlaki in Oshkosh? Link?

[up-country_sinclair]

^Yawn. Sophomoric posts like this only illustrate you've lost the debate.

Anyway, the US govt. won't even discuss the legal process of "targeted killings".

Perhaps that's because it's not actually legal?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/1011/Whats_the_legal_process_for_targeted_killings_like_AlAwlakis.html?showall

Edited October 2, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[metisdead]

Discussion regarding Senior al-Qaeda figure al-Awlaki killed in U.S. airstrike would be on topic to this thread while discussions of the Tea Party, the Union Protests on Wall Street, etc., would different topics altogether. Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[Ulysses G.]

Why not have a trial?

al-Awlaki WAS an unlawful combatant and had NO protection under the Geneva Convention. Assassination of unlawful combatants IS legal with presidential approval.

[transam]

Are the police violating the constitution if they kill a US citizen under suspicion of murder who is resisting arrest, say, in Oshkosh, Wisconsin?

Al Awlaki resisted arrest? Post a link.

PS:

Major Nidal Hassan was known to have visited and corresponded with Al Alawki prior to murdering 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood.

http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=9030873

Again, where is the evidence that Al Awlaki committed a crime? Why not have a trial? At the very least try him in absentia.

But there's no need for all that, right? Because the govt. said he's guilty and that's good enough.

And ''pray'' tell, what religion are you ?.

Think you would protect Hitler.

[SteeleJoe]

I'm somewhere between the two extremes of this thread, I guess.

In terms of the morality, I have zero problems with it.

As for legality: I personally view this guy as I did Osama bin Laden - an enemy combatant who, like bin laden, would have also described himself as such. He died in his war against the US just as other combatants do on both sides. However, I think there are legitimate questions about the legality and I think it's important that they are raised and examined and that we are aware of the potentially slippery slope.

I don't understand arguing that he might not be guilty and arguing that he shouldn't be targeted for assassination because it's unconstitutional (it makes no more sense than saying, the constitution doesn't apply because he was guilty). If one thinks he shouldn't be killed because he's possibly not guilty, then that should supersede any concern about the constitution. But if one thinks its unconstitutional, his guilt or innocence is completely irrelevant.

And as implied in my parenthetical comment above, I also think the argument of those who say never mind the legality he was a bad guy who deserved to die is fundamentally flawed in a number of ways (legally, morally, and strategically).

[SteeleJoe]

Are the police violating the constitution if they kill a US citizen under suspicion of murder who is resisting arrest, say, in Oshkosh, Wisconsin?

Al Awlaki resisted arrest? Post a link.

PS:

Major Nidal Hassan was known to have visited and corresponded with Al Alawki prior to murdering 13 soldiers at Ft. Hood.

http://abcnews.go.co...tory?id=9030873

Again, where is the evidence that Al Awlaki committed a crime? Why not have a trial? At the very least try him in absentia.

But there's no need for all that, right? Because the govt. said he's guilty and that's good enough.

And ''pray'' tell, what religion are you ?.

Think you would protect Hitler.

What religion?! &lt;deleted&gt;?