Evidence For Awlaki's Participation In Terrorist Plots?

This is a video of Jake Tapper interviewing Jay Carney, a member of the Obama Administration, regarding the Awlaki assassination.



During the discussion, the subject of Awlaki's participation in the plotting of the Christmas underwear bombing and other terrorist attacks was brought up. Tapper asks whether or not any evidence of these "well-established" accusations will be presented to the public, and Carney basically says no. Make of that what you will. It's likely that there are file cabinets filled with documents linking Awlaki to these terrorist attacks, but whether that's true or not, it seems that they won't be released to the public.

reply to post by TupacShakur


We should believe it because they said so...

Well that is the reasoning behind their lies anyways

I would like to see the evidence they have that ties him to the underwear bomber. Most people probably believe the same that I do. Which is that there is no evidence.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Well he says that there are as far as he knows no terrorist experts in the field who would doubt Awlaki's participation, so it sounds like he's undoubtedly a terrorist based on that. But when he says that no evidence will be presented to the public backing up his participation in those plots, that's what rubs me suspicious. Maybe if some of these experts came public (if they haven't already) and said "Look, this guy was obviously a terrorist and we've known for a while. Here's how we know...", that would be good.

But just saying "Yeah, people in the government know he's bad, so we violated the Constitution and killed him." doesn't quite cut it for me and many others.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Well he says that there are as far as he knows no terrorist experts in the field who would doubt Awlaki's participation, so it sounds like he's undoubtedly a terrorist based on that. But when he says that no evidence will be presented to the public backing up his participation in those plots, that's what rubs me suspicious.

Don't worry, if they ever sentence or execute any one of us as they see fit, there will likely be a slew of experts having thoroughly analyzed all our online posts and real-world interactions to certify that we were valid threats as well - supposedly.

Justified, see?

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by Corruption Exposed

 

Well he says that there are as far as he knows no terrorist experts in the field who would doubt Awlaki's participation, so it sounds like he's undoubtedly a terrorist based on that. But when he says that no evidence will be presented to the public backing up his participation in those plots, that's what rubs me suspicious. Maybe if some of these experts came public (if they haven't already) and said "Look, this guy was obviously a terrorist and we've known for a while. Here's how we know...", that would be good.

But just saying "Yeah, people in the government know he's bad, so we violated the Constitution and killed him." doesn't quite cut it for me and many others.

edit on 3-10-2011 by TupacShakur because: To edit my post

As far as the Christmas underwear bomber, Awlaki was not the "well dressed man" who escorted the underwear bomber onto the plane. I also highly doubt that Awlaki had the authority to get airport staff to violate their own security policies and procedures. What is important to remember here is that this Administration can say anything it wants because dead men tell no tales.

reply to post by MrWendal

As far as the Christmas underwear bomber, Awlaki was not the "well dressed man" who escorted the underwear bomber onto the plane.

I'm sure that was just a covert CIA member shadowing the organization in order to confirm that Awlaki was indeed a terrorist.

I also highly doubt that Awlaki had the authority to get airport staff to violate their own security policies and procedures. What is important to remember here is that this Administration can say anything it wants because dead men tell no tales.

Well as of right now it seems that we're not going to see any evidence connecting Awlaki to that plot, so all we have to go on is the word of the government...

War critics are beginning to have an audience. The government cannot begin its silencing of critics by bringing charges against US Representatives Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich. It begins with antiwar protestors, who are elevated into "antiwar activists," perhaps a step below "domestic extremists." Washington begins with citizens who are demonized Muslim clerics radicalized by Washington's wars on Muslims. In this way, Washington establishes the precedent that war protestors give encouragement and, thus, aid, to terrorists. It establishes the precedent that those Americans deemed a threat are not protected by law. This is the slippery slope on which we now find ourselves.



Last year the Obama Regime tested the prospects of its strategy when Dennis Blair, Director of National Intelligence, announced that the government had a list of American citizens that it was going to assassinate abroad. This announcement, had it been made in earlier times by, for example, Richard Nixon or Ronald Reagan, would have produced a national uproar and calls for impeachment. However, Blair's announcement caused hardly a ripple. All that remained for the regime to do was to establish the policy by exercising it.

Nightmare