American Citizens targeted for assassination by White House. Ok/Not ok ?

After reading the story of the American-born Cleric being approved by the White House as a target for assassination I find myself with mixed feelings on this issue .
I'm not sure if I approve or disapprove of this stance that the administration has taken .

In any case , it certainly begs the question as to where we , as Americans , will draw the line in defiance of a government that has morphed into a military machine with little or no resistance from the people it is supposed te serve .

So, where do we stand on this people ?

If an American citizen is abroad and is involved in anything that is a threat to our security , then I say he/she is fair game . Keep in mind tho , that there needs to be reasonable evidence that would convict this person in a court of law .

If this is the case , then that person should be taken out of the equation to prevent any attacks on Americans , here or abroad .

But , the question is , how far do we go in agreeing with this ?

Suppose our government decides to start engaging Americans here on our own soil ? How would we feel about that ?

From what I have read about the Patriot Act , then this would authorize just such a scenario .

So , I see a dilema here . How long do we 'stand down' and let the government make the sole decisions in matters such as these ?

And it can and will happen . Randy Weaver was a 'threat' to them at Ruby Ridge . David Koresh was a threat at Waco . We all know how it turned out in both of those cases .

I feel cases like those are designed to see what the reaction will be from the American people as a whole .

So , what is your position on this ?



www.msnbc.msn.com...

[edit on 7-4-2010 by okbmd]

Here's my problem with this new declaration:

Our military of late seems to be having a problem identifying terrorists versus innocent citizens. I'm not blaming the soldiers, as they only follow orders, but I think that prior to authorizing the killing of our citizens (and theirs too, we are no better and our life is not worth more) we should have to first be better able to identify who our actual targets are.

Right or wrong I will say this: If reports start coming in about a large or increasing number of American citizens getting killed abroad, the cries to end the war will get MUCH louder. That would benefit the terrorists and I could see them trying to use that to their advantage.

Of course its ok...He's a filthy stinkin Muslim after all...

/sarcasm off

Any state that sanctions killing anybody needs to have a really good look at itself...But for that order to come from a leader of a state, that is something else...

Looks like nothing has changed in the US under Obama...So much for giving a man who orders the death of others a Nobel Peace Prize...what a joke...

Obama is in the same camp as Bush...War criminals and murderers both...

Edit to add - Nice thread O/P If you read this...Can you please edit your double posts and simply replace what's currently there with the words "double post" ? The thread is already starting to become untidy as there are 3 double posts already...

Thanks

[edit on 7/4/2010 by Retrovertigo]

reply to post by lpowell0627


Yea , you're right concerning the identification of targets .

My point is , that the Patriot Act seems to define a host of 'targets' that could be construed as a 'threat' to 'national security' .

So, what's to prevent the individual or mass slaughter of American citizens who would fall into these new guidelines of what a threat is , as defined by TPTB ?

double post

[edit on 7-4-2010 by okbmd]

Originally posted by okbmd
After reading the story of the American-born Cleric being approved by the White House as a target for assassination I find myself with mixed feelings on this issue .
I'm not sure if I approve or disapprove of this stance that the administration has taken .

Where is this story that others might read it?

reply to post by eNumbra


See OP.

Sorry .

double post

[edit on 7-4-2010 by okbmd]

But , the question is , how far do we go in agreeing with this ?

Not one inch. Assassination for the security of the State is absurd. Humanity doesn't require this, it's merely a convenient option.

gj

No it is not alright. It is far from alright.

Whatever happened to INNOCENT untill PROVEN GUILTY

This is legalised murder. Whats even more scary is that the powers that be are in the process of labeling everyone who does not agree with their agenda as an extremist. So you may well find yourself on that hit list eventualy, for no more than speaking out against their actions.

Take note of the wording in the article . That is , they 'believe' he is involved in the alledged activities .

They don't say 'we have evidence of ...'.

So, what's to stop them from reading my posts and 'believe' that I am involved in one of their fabricated allegations ?

double post

[edit on 7-4-2010 by okbmd]

I don't know what's scarier.......the fact that Obama and the US government are publicly sanctioning this or that Americans think there is nothing wrong with it..........wow. Whatever happened to innocent until prove guilty, a court of law, and trial by jury??????? I don't even remember President Bush sanctioning the outright killing of Osama bin Laden did he?

It's a very slippery slope. I mean if they are going to assassinate people why not Kim Jong Il? Ahmadinejad? I mean a lone nut threatening to use nuclear weapons against the US gets a pass but this guy is fair game? Obama makes me want to throw up.......he's such a lame duck douchebag! WAKE THE FK UP AMERICA!!!!!!!! YOU ARE LIVING IN 1984!!!!!!!!!!!!

[edit on 7-4-2010 by Zosynspiracy]

Originally posted by okbmd
So , what is your position on this ?

I'm torn. I ask what is the difference between this guy and Osama Bin Laden? Bin Laden hasn't been tried in a court and found guilty, either. Yet, no one seems to be complaining that his "capture or kill" is approved.

So, this guy was born on US land. What difference does that really make?

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia.

Yeah, I know... American counterterrorism officials have lied before. But there's a lot about the last administration that is different than this administration. (I know that's arguable, but that's my personal feeling).

al-Awlaki is a radical extremist terrorist. I don't care that he was born here (in my state, no less) We don't have all the information that the intelligence agencies have on this guy.

“The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one. Awlaki knows what he’s done, and he knows he won’t be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone.”

And it doesn't surprise me. And I can't find it within myself to get too upset about it.

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
I don't even remember President Bush sanctioning the outright killing of Osama bin Laden did he?

No, you don't remember it because Obama didn't do it and a bunch of Obama-haters didn't make a big deal about it.

Shortly after the attacks of 9/11, US president George W. Bush issued a statement that as a consequence of the 9/11 attacks, he now hoped to "kill or capture" Bin Laden

Source

In 1999 the CIA, together with Pakistani military intelligence, had prepared a team of approximately 60 Pakistani commandos to infiltrate Afghanistan to capture or kill bin Laden

Too bad they weren't successful, huh?

Thing is, if this al-Awlaki guy managed to follow through on his plans and killed 3000 Americans, you all would be bashing Obama for not doing enough when he had the chance.


[edit on 4/7/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]

For the American government to declare "open season" on American citizens is just beyond comprehension.

That being said, there are a lot of so called "American citizens" that are about as "American" as Obama is... so in that case, I have no objection.

[edit on 7-4-2010 by expat2368]

Originally posted by expat2368
For the American government to declare "open season" on American citizens is just beyond comprehension.

And that's your interpretation of this? They're approving the capture or kill of ONE particular person and that means, to you, that the government is declaring "open season" on American citizens?

"Open season"... I don't think that means what you think it means.

I dont no much about this case (not from america) but from the info in this post i atualy agree with it but could be mistaken. however i do genraly ( dare i say it on a conspricy forum) advocate, limited, asasination when evidence is suficiant to warent a sentance in a equivilant court - mabeye there should be a asasination jury presented evidence for confomation, of ordenary people but kept secet until verdict is carried out then tapes of the session could be releaced.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Maybe you misunderstood my post . I wasn't complaining that he was targeted .

If he is indeed a threat , then by all means , take measures to eradicate that threat .

I'm simply asking , to what lengths would you feel they are justified in labeling an American Citizen a threat or a terrorist and an approval being made from the Commander in Chief to assassinate said citizen .

Just saying , What if your neighbor or someone you know held anti-government views and was labled as a domestic terrorist according to the Patriot Act .

Would you be okay with the POTUS issuing his approval to assassinate him/her ?



Bin Laden is not an American Citizen . (as far as I know)

[edit on 7-4-2010 by okbmd]

Originally posted by okbmd
Maybe you misunderstood my post . I wasn't complaining that he was targeted .

Oh, I didn't think you were complaining. I was just answering the question you posed. I was just giving my position on this, speaking to the thread readers in general.

I'm simply asking , to what lengths would you feel they are justified in labeling an American Citizen a threat or a terrorist and an approval being made from the Commander in Chief to assassinate said citizen .

Here's my thought on that. I don't like the idea. BUT unlike many around here, I don't hate or fear Obama or think he's a secret Muslim out to destroy the world. It's a matter of having a certain amount of trust in his motives. I still do. I don't trust him completely as he is a politician and there are things he does that I don't like or agree with. But not being privy to the information he has, I pretty much trust his judgment and that he still has our best interests at heart in most cases.

Just saying , What if your neighbor or someone you know held anti-government views and was labled as a domestic terrorist according to the Patriot Act .

The label isn't enough. If the government had information that my neighbor was plotting to kill or terrorize American citizens, I'd very much support them preventing that. How do I know my government has that information? I don't. I learned not to trust George Bush. But I haven't had any reason to think that I can't trust Obama. So, unless and until Obama proves to be untrustworthy (as GWB did), I will trust his judgment on something like this.

Bin Laden is not an American Citizen . (as far as I know)

I know. And my question is what's the difference? People have no control over where they're born. Evil can be born in New Mexico just as easily as in Saudi Arabia. If protecting INNOCENT American citizens from a terrorist attack means taking these 2 guys out, then I'm all for it. I don't care where they were born.

[edit on 4/7/2010 by Benevolent Heretic]