It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NYC Reacts to Death of American Al-Qaida Cleric, Media Finds Neocons On The Streets

page: 2
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 
I will admit, my view has changed.
The conflict I have, though, is that my current employer is the U.S. Army.

I'm not liking this.





posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by beezzer
 


stay strong is my best advice..and if the shtf, and it's us vs. them... please don't be among those used against us. =p



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp

I don't think that was called for. Beez had an opinion and a question, and by answering his question based on logic and the constitutionality of Obama's decision to have the man murdered, his opinion has apparently changed. Beez is one of the good guys, and hardly a traitor. The traitor is in the Oval Office.


Seemed to me that he was initially in approval of our government assassinating our fellow citizens without a trial or anything, but if his opinion has changed, fine. The traitor is indeed in the Oval Office, I'll give you that much. Along with the other traitors in congress and the courts.

edit on 30-9-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by OldCorp

I don't think that was called for. Beez had an opinion and a question, and by answering his question based on logic and the constitutionality of Obama's decision to have the man murdered, his opinion has apparently changed. Beez is one of the good guys, and hardly a traitor. The traitor is in the Oval Office.


Seemed to me that he was initially in approval of our government assassinating our fellow citizens without a trial or anything, but if his opinion has changed, fine. The traitor is indeed in the Oval Office, I'll give you that much. Along with the other traitors in congress and the courts.

edit on 30-9-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)
I am all for taking out the bad guys. This is a war. Bad guys are supposed to be the ones that die. In my profession, it is sometimes necesary to have blinders on.
I'm trying to take mine off.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by beezzer
 


stay strong is my best advice..and if the shtf, and it's us vs. them... please don't be among those used against us. =p

I'll always be one of the good guys.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by My.mind.is.mine
 


If it ever came down to a people vs PTB, the majority of the military will side with the people. Oh sure, there will be idiots that defend those who should not be defended, but there will be less of them than there are people.

I have had this conversation many times during three decades of service. Not once did I hear a Soldier say they would fire upon Americans unprovoked, and even then, you see it on their faces they would prefer that not happen.

Back on topic, These protesters need to identify some leaders and get a unified message out. Otherwise it is all for naught.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by illuminatislave

Originally posted by OldCorp

I don't think that was called for. Beez had an opinion and a question, and by answering his question based on logic and the constitutionality of Obama's decision to have the man murdered, his opinion has apparently changed. Beez is one of the good guys, and hardly a traitor. The traitor is in the Oval Office.


Seemed to me that he was initially in approval of our government assassinating our fellow citizens without a trial or anything, but if his opinion has changed, fine. The traitor is indeed in the Oval Office, I'll give you that much. Along with the other traitors in congress and the courts.

edit on 30-9-2011 by illuminatislave because: (no reason given)
I am all for taking out the bad guys. This is a war. Bad guys are supposed to be the ones that die. In my profession, it is sometimes necesary to have blinders on.
I'm trying to take mine off.

Beez, I know exactly where you are coming from; but you have to remember your oath brother. You and I both swore allegiance to the CONSTITUTION of the United States, NOT the President. As far as I'm concerned, that oath is still in effect. This isn't Hitler's Germany where allegiance was to one man (yet.) It is incumbent on all military personnel to disobey any order they know to be unlawful, and an order such as this definitely falls into that category.

If you haven't already, please take the time to watch this video on my YT channel and learn about Oathkeepers. (Hint: Subscribe brother!
)

Or you can just watch it here.



I've been a member for years, and I would invite you to do the same. We're ALL loyal Americans; active and retired military, enlisted and officer, police officers, firefighters, and National Guard. Our loyalty belongs to the Constitution of the United States and the citizens we swore to protect from ALL enemies - foreign AND domestic. Join us and spread the word my brother.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Let's see the evidence against them.

These are American Citizens.

I hate when the Government makes me defend these type of people.

These guys were worth capturing. Then put them on trial.

Next thing you know...We will be going in sovereign countries and hang their leaders.

Oh wait.....Bad example...

edit on 30-9-2011 by whyamIhere because: spelling


The last time Obama tried to put someone on trial, no one would allow it in their state. What was he supposed to do this time? Beg and be turned down again? I was all for the trials too but the R's blocked every attempt and even many D's in NY the last time. If no one wants to hold court, we just let them go?

Well if Bush did it, I am sure he would be getting a medal for keeping us safe just like he got applause for keeping us safe on 9/11



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:49 PM
link   
Didn't he renounce his US citizenship????



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:56 PM
link   
amerrogance kills

no justice, no world peace



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sanndy

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Let's see the evidence against them.

These are American Citizens.

I hate when the Government makes me defend these type of people.

These guys were worth capturing. Then put them on trial.

Next thing you know...We will be going in sovereign countries and hang their leaders.

Oh wait.....Bad example...

edit on 30-9-2011 by whyamIhere because: spelling


The last time Obama tried to put someone on trial, no one would allow it in their state. What was he supposed to do this time? Beg and be turned down again? I was all for the trials too but the R's blocked every attempt and even many D's in NY the last time. If no one wants to hold court, we just let them go?

Well if Bush did it, I am sure he would be getting a medal for keeping us safe just like he got applause for keeping us safe on 9/11


Keep on drinking the Kool Aid Sanndy. You're defending a murderer.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by macman
Didn't he renounce his US citizenship????

Good point. Does it count, if the U.S. doesn't recognise it?



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by macman
Didn't he renounce his US citizenship????

Good point. Does it count, if the U.S. doesn't recognise it?


There was talk about revoking it, but he never renounced it. It never was revoked. He was a US citizen at the time of his murder.
edit on 9/30/2011 by OldCorp because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp
Keep on drinking the Kool Aid Sanndy. You're defending a murderer.


I do not recall defending anyone. I am just pointing out the facts. Bush murdered plenty of people too on his watch. I just get sick of hearing about trials that no one will allow in their state. I live in NY and I blame both parties for not allowing the president to try them as criminals in the US but that is what happened. I guess if I was Obama and the last guy got a heros welcome for invading the wrong country and having all kinds of people killed, including US citizens, and no one will allow a trial then bombs away.

I am not defending anyone and I do not like the warmongering on either side but the flip flopping between when Bush did it and when Obama does it is astounding.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:03 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 

OldCorp, thank you. I found something to agree with you about. American citizens deserve a trial not assassination.

In any case I don't really buy into it. Just more propaganda. It looks like Al Alwaki got tired of pretending to be an Al Qaeda spokesman and decided to retire to Israel. His fake death came just in time for him to celebrate Rosh Hashanah. I am very tired of these Jewish fakes pretending to be Al Qaeda. It is very obvious.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by BillfromCovina
reply to post by OldCorp
 

OldCorp, thank you. I found something to agree with you about. American citizens deserve a trial not assassination.

In any case I don't really buy into it. Just more propaganda. It looks like Al Alwaki got tired of pretending to be an Al Qaeda spokesman and decided to retire to Israel. His fake death came just in time for him to celebrate Rosh Hashanah. I am very tired of these Jewish fakes pretending to be Al Qaeda. It is very obvious.


I guess you agree with Ron Paul on that one.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by OldCorp
We've passed the point of no return. Our President is now officially a dictator that claims the power to kill an AMERICAN CITIZEN without so much as a charge being levied in a court of law.

Since when do courts of law authorize or forbid military actions against Congressionally-designated enemy organizations in foreign countries? They don't. They never have. Not even if a US citizen happens to be a member of that organization.

The idea that citizens are immune to military action is contrary to history. How many members of the Confederate Army held, in a strictly legal sense, US citizenship? Almost all of them, I would guess. How many insurrectionists in the Whiskey Rebellion had US citizenship? Probably all of them. Fortunately, that one collapsed before the army got there. Other Americans have been killed fighting in foreign uniforms, or hanging around unsavory types in Yemen. (Al-Awlaki is not the first.) Citizenship is not a magic shield that protects you from the state. It allows you to participate in the state, but if you make war on the state, you have stepped outside the bounds of citizenship and all bets are off.


WAKE UP!!!

All that scumbag who occupies the Oval Office has to do in order to kill YOU now is sign a piece of paper.

That's pretty much true, provided the piece of paper passes review by the National Security Council, the Covert Action Planning Group, and the Gang of Eight, and various paramilitary and military officers are satisfied the order is legal. An order to kill me, for instance, would not be legal. I'm not a member of Al Qaeda. I'm in US territory, not in a state of insurrection, with a functioning court system and law enforcement agencies. There is no legal instrument that authorizes lethal action against me. The order to kill Anwar al-Awlaki was legal. His killing was authorized by the President's Constitutional commander-in-chief powers, the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force Resolution, and the National Security Act (if the CIA was in charge).

If I ever found myself on a designated Al Qaeda list, it would be easy enough for me to turn myself in to the US authorities and enter the court system. Can't be killed when you're a prisoner, and as a citizen, I'm entitled to combatant status review. Or, if I really were an Al Qaeda member, I would endeavor to gain protected status, either by formally and publicly resigning my AQ membership or asking for parley. Former combatants cannot be targeted, nor can parlementaires. Or I might just stay on the run and continue to be a terrorist, but in that case I couldn't complain when a Hellfire exploded next to me. So I won't complain on Anwar's behalf.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sanndy

Originally posted by whyamIhere
Let's see the evidence against them.

These are American Citizens.

I hate when the Government makes me defend these type of people.

These guys were worth capturing. Then put them on trial.

Next thing you know...We will be going in sovereign countries and hang their leaders.

Oh wait.....Bad example...

edit on 30-9-2011 by whyamIhere because: spelling



The last time Obama tried to put someone on trial, no one would allow it in their state. What was he supposed to do this time? Beg and be turned down again? I was all for the trials too but the R's blocked every attempt and even many D's in NY the last time. If no one wants to hold court, we just let them go?

Well if Bush did it, I am sure he would be getting a medal for keeping us safe just like he got applause for keeping us safe on 9/11


Have you ever heard of "The Hague"?

Besides, He is an American. He is/was guaranteed due process.

Also, he was in Yemen..."You zip in, You zip out, it's like Wisconsin".



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 06:17 PM
link   
reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
 


If al-Awlaki was taking part in a battle and he was killed as a result, I would not shed a single tear; but he wasn't. The President's order was to have him killed wherever he was found. I don't know all of the details of his murder yet, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't engaged in active hostilities at the time he was killed.

I believe you are wrong about an executive order having to be authorized by anybody but the President. If I'm wrong, please provide a link that proves it.

It is my opinion that the President directly violated al-Awlaki's 5th Amendment rights as a natural born American citizen, and that ordering his death based on hearsay, without ANY kind of judicial review, was an act of cold-blooded, extra-judicial murder. Come Monday, I'm going to call the Attorney General of New Mexico and see what he has to say about the murder of one of his citizens.



posted on Sep, 30 2011 @ 07:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OldCorp
 


I do agree with you.
This is the White House reasoning though.

Who? As an international law matter, is Al-Aulaqi a lawful target? The US government sees him as taking part in hostilities, part of the operational leadership of an associated force with Al Qaeda, the AQAP. So, yes, he can be targeted with lethal force — and targeted without warning, without an attempt to arrest or apprehend as a law enforcement matter.

Where? Does it matter that he was in Yemen, and not an “active battlefield” in a conventional hostilities sense? The US government does not accept the idea that the armed conflict with Al Qaeda — or armed conflict generally — is confined as a legal matter to some notion of “theatres of conflict” or “active battlefields” or related terms that have been used in recent years by academics and activist groups. As I understand the US government position, it sticks by the traditional concept of “hostilities,” and that where the hostiles go, the possibility of armed conflict goes too (I try to explain this evolution of these views in this short essay). So the fact that he was present in Yemen does not make him beyond targeting, because he is not present in some “active” battlezone such as Afghanistan.

This claim — the conflict follows the participants — frequently leads to a complaint that this means the US might target him in Paris or London. The US position is that the standard for addressing non-state actor terrorists taking safe haven somewhere depends on whether the sovereign where the terrorist is hiding is “unwilling or unable” to address the threat. No, there won’t be Predators Over Paris; Yemen or Somalia is another matter, as President Obama has repeatedly and without cavil said in speeches over the last few years.

iowntheworld.com...




top topics



 
3
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join