When the President can kill whoever he wants

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Oh good. Let's stick up for an Al Qaeda operative. I thought that not liking terrorists and killing them was a good thing.

Oh that's right. I forgot, ever since Obama became president, the political right turned anti war all of a sudden and are aghast at the idea of indefinite detention, torture, or killing people, (even though just a couple years ago killing these people was the highlight of a right wingers day.)

I can't help myself. Very good!

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Not to defend too much but it is not the President it is the Military and his position as commander that is responsible for the targeting and taking out of terrorists. We are in a war.

Are all our soldiers guilty of murder of innocent Iraqi and Afghans too?

Yes, ANYONE regardless of which colored cloth icon they sport, who followed illegal orders deserves a trail.. "just following orders" is not a valid legal defense. Justice is (supposed to be) blind, emotional patriotic affinity is meaningless.

Define what a "terrorist" is?.. done by royal/elitist decree? or due process of law?..

1930s Germans trusted their dear party leader to kidnap, torture, imprison, and kill people.. how'd that work out?.. it's a historic fail. (plus aggressive wars, occupations, "peoples courts")

State sanctioned extra judicial assassinations are Nazi.. the elite have this place looking a lot more like a 4th Reich "papers now" police state.. than the land of the free respectful of the rule of law.

All by design btw.. there is a bigger game being played here and just like 1930s Germany, many so called patriots here in America bit the fascist bait, hook, line and sinker.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by TupacShakur

 

Oh good. Let's stick up for an Al Qaeda operative. I thought that not liking terrorists and killing them was a good thing.

Oh that's right. I forgot, ever since Obama became president, the political right turned anti war all of a sudden and are aghast at the idea of indefinite detention, torture, or killing people, (even though just a couple years ago killing these people was the highlight of a right wingers day.)

obmao, bushmao and all their lackeys deserve fair trails... most critical thinkers out grew the left vs right divide & conquer mindset a long time ago. The GOP & DNC are the 4th Reich.. their fervent flock: 1930s Germans.. being led through a fascist swamp of stale intellectually crippling doublethink insanity.

btw he was never found guilty, or charged with anything.. this death sentence was carried out based on unchallenged allegations by politicians.

US politicians are failures at running competent govt, liars, NWO stooges and useful idiots for war profiteers.. yet experts at doling out death sentences, totally trustworthy too..lol

I see, so our Right wing friends over at FOX News and Conservatives like Ron Paul are now terrorist sympathizers. They love Al Qaeda and the Taliban and now are fighting for their cause?

Just because it was Obama that did it. If George W. Bush had done this, the right would be all atwitter about how we got this evil traitor. But because a Democrat did it, it's an affront to the Constitution.

I cry BULL #!

The guy was an admitted terrorist and traitor, he got what he deserved, and the right is being very hypocritical whining about the Constitution when the previous administration could have cared less for the Constitution.

Sorry, but this is political spin based solely on party politics and not reality.

Sure, if the opportunity arose to take this guy into custody without endangering our own servicemen's lives in the process, I would agree, he should have stood trial. But apparently that wasn't an option so he was taken down like the dog he was.

I'm not crying for a terrorist and traitor of the US.

Originally posted by HauntWok

The guy was an admitted terrorist and traitor, he got what he deserved, and the right is being very hypocritical whining about the Constitution when the previous administration could have cared less for the Constitution.

Yes, but was it against the law?
If examining the 5th Amendment, it was.


Doing the right thing the wrong way just is not a good path.

reply to post by macman


the path it leads to is the feds can kill whoever they want and all they have to do is tag

them as "terrorists"

sets a dangerous precident one wrong word about this country or the potus here comes that bullet or drone.

its only a matter of time before that crap is on the streets here.

reply to post by macman

Yes, but was it against the law?
If examining the 5th Amendment, it was.


Doing the right thing the wrong way just is not a good path.

Again, it depends on the circumstances. Would it have been any better to send in troops into Yemen, into harms way in a terrorist infested area, just to capture this a hole alive? How many of our own troops would have had to die in order for it to be justifiable to just blow this dirtbag away?

Would you want to write their families and tell them that their son died because we had to take a known traitor alive? How about delivering their families a folded flag, saying how brave junior was for sacrificing his own life so that we could have a fair trial for a guy that although born in the US had in all intents and purposes renounced that citizenship and took up arms AGAINST the United States.

Our Constitution and bill of rights doesn't extend to people overseas or people that have renounced and severed all ties to the US.

reply to post by HauntWok


You conveniently ignore the fact these "terrorists", so called, have been found "guilty" of same by virtue of political decree.. not due process of law.

It was pure unadulterated fascism when Nazi party leaders did it.. change a few names, swap one colored cloth on a stick for another, replace Jew with Muslim.. and viola!!.. it's re-branded American justice.

Sadly it took the carpet bombing of Germany to bitch slap them out of their patriotic drunken stupor... if only enough of them had looked through impartial objective eyes.

reply to post by GovtFlu


Soo, lemme get this straight, it was ok when Bush and Co did it, but now that the Democrats have the white house, it's a no no to do exactly what the previous administration did?

I'll agree, if there was a safe way to have cuffed and stuffed the guy and bring him back to the US for trial, we should have done that. But in all reality, there really wasn't a way to do that without the strong possibility of getting our own guys hurt or killed in the process.

Again, this guy was a known traitor, he branded and advertised himself as waging jihad against the US. I personally don't see the problem in sending this dirtbag to his maker.

Maybe they should send you and the OP into the next terrorist infested hell hole to tickle the terrorist into submission with feathers so that he can have a trial. (That the right wingers won't let happen either) You know, that way you can do it right and show em all up.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by macman

 

Yes, but was it against the law?
If examining the 5th Amendment, it was.


Doing the right thing the wrong way just is not a good path.

Again, it depends on the circumstances. Would it have been any better to send in troops into Yemen, into harms way in a terrorist infested area, just to capture this a hole alive? How many of our own troops would have had to die in order for it to be justifiable to just blow this dirtbag away?

Would you want to write their families and tell them that their son died because we had to take a known traitor alive? How about delivering their families a folded flag, saying how brave junior was for sacrificing his own life so that we could have a fair trial for a guy that although born in the US had in all intents and purposes renounced that citizenship and took up arms AGAINST the United States.

Our Constitution and bill of rights doesn't extend to people overseas or people that have renounced and severed all ties to the US.

Look, I understand that and what you have stated.
If he renounced his citizenship, then yes, the flood gates are open.
But, since I can't find anything suggesting that he did, we have to assume that he is still a US citizen.
Just because the Govt has deemed him a threat, does not give the green light for execution without trial, unless he was an active and immediate threat at time of the interaction, a fleeing felon if you will. With that said, he could not be deemed a fleeing felon, because he was never brought to trial. A catch 22 if you will.

Should we have placed service members in harms way to get him?
I have to say yes, if that is what the Military wanted. We signed up fully aware of our jobs and positions.
Do I want them in after him? No. But, I am not in charge.

What Obama did, was illegal, as per the 5th. Just because he was out of country, does not mean the US gets to throw out the rules.
US citizen, facing force from the US is still protected by the laws of the US, even outside the country.


But again, am I sad that he is dead? Not one bit.

Still, it was doing the right thing the wrong way.

Outside of high valued terror targets The POTUS has yet to enact this order against the citizenery and will not activate upon this.

So sorry! This one is disproven!

Instead of wasting space to use any lame excuse to attack Obama how about you ask what you can do to improve life for all!

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
Outside of high valued terror targets The POTUS has yet to enact this order against the citizenery and will not activate upon this.

So sorry! This one is disproven!

Instead of wasting space to use any lame excuse to attack Obama how about you ask what you can do to improve life for all!

Sorry, but Anwar Al-Awlaki was still a US citizen. Your retort is false.
Just because he was deemed a high value target, does not then remove US rights to a US citizen.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

Outside of high valued terror targets The POTUS has yet to enact this order against the citizenery and will not activate upon this.

You contradict yourself. See, even though Awlaki was a terrorist, he was still an American citizen. As far as I know there is no legal procedure that revokes one's citizenship upon leaving the country and willingly becoming a terrorist (while it doesn't sound like a bad idea), so he was still a citizen. So in reality, this order was given against an American citizen in direct violation of the 5th amendment.

Benjamin Franklin said "They, who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security".. amazing what the people today have forgotten and allowed our government to execute.

reply to post by macman


Dude became a threat the second he swore his allegiance to the enemy. American or not you get dealt with the same way dude got his. We get a little touchy feelly and emotional when it comes to allegiance. Swear it to the USA above all others and you're good, wish for her destruction and watch what happens.

He declared himself an enemy of America and swore on it's destruction. Does this not matter? Does the fact he was involved in terror attacks not mean a thing. His actions led to the death of our servicemen directly.

How's that for nearly $10 Million in saved money for food, housing, healthcare, electricity for what would've been the rest of his life?

This is the only thing that matters, once you back and pledge allegiance or support for the enemy in warfare the rules have changed.

Originally posted by TupacShakur
reply to post by TheImmaculateD1

 

Outside of high valued terror targets The POTUS has yet to enact this order against the citizenery and will not activate upon this.

You contradict yourself. See, even though Awlaki was a terrorist, he was still an American citizen. As far as I know there is no legal procedure that revokes one's citizenship upon leaving the country and willingly becoming a terrorist (while it doesn't sound like a bad idea), so he was still a citizen. So in reality, this order was given against an American citizen in direct violation of the 5th amendment.

By an order of POTUS any citizen who declares allegiance or sides with our declared enemy can effectively be stripped of citizenship.

reply to post by TupacShakur



I think it is save to assume that Obama is a puppet and that his administration is controlled by the power elite. What happened is something I would expect from rumsfeld and cheney and therefore does the whole event reverberate the way of thinking among TPTB...and they are moving their agenda forward fast.

It is bad news, what just happened is the moral code that can be expected from an administration under people like Obama. I am not an american but I have a strong sense that the US citizens should wake up fast and get past the phase of denial.

Originally posted by TheImmaculateD1
reply to post by macman

 

Dude became a threat the second he swore his allegiance to the enemy. American or not you get dealt with the same way dude got his. We get a little touchy feelly and emotional when it comes to allegiance. Swear it to the USA above all others and you're good, wish for her destruction and watch what happens.

He declared himself an enemy of America and swore on it's destruction. Does this not matter? Does the fact he was involved in terror attacks not mean a thing. His actions led to the death of our servicemen directly.

How's that for nearly $10 Million in saved money for food, housing, healthcare, electricity for what would've been the rest of his life?

This is the only thing that matters, once you back and pledge allegiance or support for the enemy in warfare the rules have changed.

I hate to disagree, me more so then alot here on ATS, but no, you are wrong.
Look at people here that back other known organizations that go against the US and the Govt. La Raza and the off shoots of take back the West, the Weather Underground, PLO and many others. They are Militant in nature, and there are people that swear allegiance to these above the US.
That does not grant the US Govt authority to kill them.

I am sad to say, really I am, but there is no known account of Anwar Al-Awlaki renouncing his citizenship nor the US Govt stripping it away. The Obama admin and Holder are really twisting and stretching on this matter. And I believe there will be a break in the twisting and stretching.

reply to post by macman

I am sad to say, really I am, but there is no known account of Anwar Al-Awlaki renouncing his citizenship

Stunning. You have no idea what it means to be a muslim. Their faith and culture demands that they become muslims. They, by their acceptance of Islam, cannot be the citizens of any country. They are members of the Ummah. You confer upon them the rights of our culture while they seek to destroy it.

Please learn about Jihad and Islam before you hand over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to those who would see them burned on the altar of Allah.

Originally posted by mike_trivisonno
reply to post by macman

 

I am sad to say, really I am, but there is no known account of Anwar Al-Awlaki renouncing his citizenship

Stunning. You have no idea what it means to be a muslim. Their faith and culture demands that they become muslims. They, by their acceptance of Islam, cannot be the citizens of any country. They are members of the Ummah. You confer upon them the rights of our culture while they seek to destroy it.

Please learn about Jihad and Islam before you hand over the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to those who would see them burned on the altar of Allah.

HEY, MR Johnny Come Lately.
What are you babbling about?