Obama Has U.S. Citizen Executed; No Trial Held

[spurgistan]

Technically, in order to renounce your citizenship, the closest thing to what you say is

Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA)

al-Qaeda is not a state. So, if you're actually a fan of, you know, the Constitution, al-Awlaki is still a citizen of the United States. Also, I'm not sure that any of the "proof" you have is more than "things the military tells us is true."

[saxitoxin]

He was killed on the battlefield as far as I am concerned.

He was not, however, killed on the battlefield as far as the constitution and laws of the United States are concerned:

• Combat zones are designated by an Executive Order from the President as areas in which the U.S. Armed Forces are engaging or have engaged in combat. There are currently three such combat zones (including the airspace above each):
  
  - Arabian Peninsula Areas, beginning Jan. 17, 1991 -- the Persian Gulf, Red Sea, Gulf of Oman, the part of the Arabian Sea north of 10° North latitude and west of 68° East longitude, the Gulf of Aden, and the countries of Bahrain, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.
  
  - Kosovo area, beginning Mar. 24, 1999 -- Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), Albania, the Adriatic Sea and the Ionian Sea north of the 39th Parallel.
  
  - Afghanistan, beginning Sept. 19, 2001.
  
  http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,, ... 31,00.html

Legally there's no difference between the U.S. grabbing him in Yemen and executing him, or grabbing him off the street in downtown Minneapolis and beheading him in the middle of the food court at the Mall of America.

Coming in 2012 - public executions daily from noon to 2, between the Orange Julius and Panda Express. (Must be age 10 or older to attend.) Brought to you by Obama for America - Change You Can Believe In ... UNDER PENALTY OF DEATH.

[patches70]

This individual had chosen to wage war against the United States. He was killed on the battlefield as far as I am concerned. He was killed as an act of war, not as something that required a trial and conviction. Do we go through and give a trial to every person who fights for the enemy?

Killed on the battlefield by the United State Military?

I don't think so, he was killed by a civilian owned CIA drone. There is no way this can be chalked up to a battlefield kill.....

[Timminz]

I find it amusing that Night Stick is the only one standing up for Obama.

[Pirlo]

I find it amusing that Night Stick is the only one standing up for Obama.

lol

[codeblue1018]

Saxi,

Good riddance to that piece of garbage; 100% justified. He "was" a terrorist supporter and recruiter; end of story.

Seems you dislike the US policies and practices; perhaps you should move to that part of the world? Seems as tho you would fit in nicely.

[PLAYER57832]

Seems you dislike the US policies and practices; perhaps you should move to that part of the world? Seems as tho you would fit in nicely.

Funny, here I always thought a trial before punishment was a fundament of our system, not the destruction of it.

[natty dread]

Good riddance to that piece of garbage; 100% justified. He "was" a terrorist supporter and recruiter; end of story.

What if I say you're a terrorist supporter? Am I allowed to kill you without any evidence or trial?

It's funny how no matter how corrupt or utterly immoral things some politicians do, there's always a bunch of sad people justifying their actions in the name of patriotism.

[Night Strike]

Good riddance to that piece of garbage; 100% justified. He "was" a terrorist supporter and recruiter; end of story.

What if I say you're a terrorist supporter? Am I allowed to kill you without any evidence or trial?

It's funny how no matter how corrupt or utterly immoral things some politicians do, there's always a bunch of sad people justifying their actions in the name of patriotism.

It's not patriotism, it's called war. War is not pleasant; get used to it. As long as there are people out there who despise others simply because they're alive, there will always be the need of a military to protect its citizens.

[GreecePwns]

So, Night Strike, if Obama were to sign a similar paper with your name on it, and offered no proof to the public whatsoever, it would be fine? I mean, war is not pleasant, and some people just have to get used to the reality that any American citizen now can be taken off the street, and with no proof presented to the public whatsoever, be executed at the order of the President for committing the crime of "durrr, I think ur a terrorist!"

[Night Strike]

So, Night Strike, if Obama were to sign a similar paper with your name on it, and offered no proof to the public whatsoever, it would be fine? I mean, war is not pleasant, and some people just have to get used to the reality that any American citizen now can be taken off the street, and with no proof presented to the public whatsoever, be executed at the order of the President for committing the crime of "durrr, I think ur a terrorist!"

So there is no proof that Anwar Al-Alawki was a terrorist? You people you believe that are in denial of what is going on the world.

[natty dread]

Good riddance to that piece of garbage; 100% justified. He "was" a terrorist supporter and recruiter; end of story.

What if I say you're a terrorist supporter? Am I allowed to kill you without any evidence or trial?

It's funny how no matter how corrupt or utterly immoral things some politicians do, there's always a bunch of sad people justifying their actions in the name of patriotism.

It's not patriotism, it's called war. War is not pleasant; get used to it. As long as there are people out there who despise others simply because they're alive, there will always be the need of a military to protect its citizens.

Look everyone, Night strike thinks it's ok to kill people without trial as long as it's done in the name of "war against terrorism" or whatever propaganda bullshit your government stuffs down your throat next. How does that fit with your view of "respecting the constitution" and "not giving the government too much power"?

Basically, Night Strike, your government is fucking you up the ass, and you're praising it for using lube.

[Night Strike]

Look everyone, Night strike thinks it's ok to kill people without trial as long as it's done in the name of "war against terrorism" or whatever propaganda bullshit your government stuffs down your throat next. How does that fit with your view of "respecting the constitution" and "not giving the government too much power"?

Basically, Night Strike, your government is fucking you up the ass, and you're praising it for using lube.

Anwar Al-Alawki was actively planning and executing terrorist plans to kill Americans. The American military and intelligent operatives took out that threat as part of the war on terror against Al-Queda and other terrorist organizations. Just because some people like yourself believe that terrorists won't kill us if you beg and plead with them doesn't meant that's how our government is supposed to operate. One of the primary functions of the federal government is protect its citizens from threats, both foreign and domestic. This terrorist chose to leave this country and fight with the enemy, so it was our government's responsibility to kill him (and all the others) in order to protect our nation. We do not give trials to every single person before every single drone strike, so we shouldn't start for a person who decided to renounce his nation and fight against it.

[GreecePwns]

So, Night Strike, if Obama were to sign a similar paper with your name on it, and offered no proof to the public whatsoever, it would be fine? I mean, war is not pleasant, and some people just have to get used to the reality that any American citizen now can be taken off the street, and with no proof presented to the public whatsoever, be executed at the order of the President for committing the crime of "durrr, I think ur a terrorist!"

So there is no proof that Anwar Al-Alawki was a terrorist? You people you believe that are in denial of what is going on the world.

The government has not presented the proof. So, as I have stated, any American citizen now can be taken off the street, and with no proof presented to the public whatsoever, be executed at the order of the President.

As Saxi said, it is very likely that he was guilty, but now any citizen can potentially be given the same treatment, the press secretary say "I got nothin' for ya," and another American citizen is dead.

[saxitoxin]

Good riddance to that piece of garbage; 100% justified. He "was" a terrorist supporter and recruiter; end of story.

What if I say you're a terrorist supporter? Am I allowed to kill you without any evidence or trial?

It's funny how no matter how corrupt or utterly immoral things some politicians do, there's always a bunch of sad people justifying their actions in the name of patriotism.

It's not patriotism, it's called war. War is not pleasant; get used to it. As long as there are people out there who despise others simply because they're alive, there will always be the need of a military to protect its citizens.

As previously stated:

(1) this didn't occur in a war zone

(2) the U.S. military didn't conduct the execution, the main secret police agency (CIA) did

(3) the only evidence provided as to Awlaki's guilt was uncontested assertions contained in a press release issued by the CIA - the next time you say something critical about Obama, remember they could easily issue a similar press release about you - detailing your history as a fundamentalist Muslim, the summer's you spent at a mosque in Pakistan, the frequent calls you have made for beheading small children for the glory of Allah; it doesn't matter if it's true if your right to contest it has been revoked

anyway, some more ramblings from a left-wing nutjob who doesn't know whassup -

• Thus secrecy is absolutely vital to the CIA. Secrecy covers not only operations in progress, but continues after the operations, particularly if the operations have been botched. Then they have to be covered up with more lies, which the public, of course, can't recognize as lies, allowing the CIA to tell the public whatever it wishes. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it. The CIA, functioning as a secret instrument of the U.S. government and the presidency, has long misused and abused history and continues to do so.
  
  - Vic Marchetti, former Senior Assistant to the Director of Operations - CIA

[Night Strike]

So, Night Strike, if Obama were to sign a similar paper with your name on it, and offered no proof to the public whatsoever, it would be fine? I mean, war is not pleasant, and some people just have to get used to the reality that any American citizen now can be taken off the street, and with no proof presented to the public whatsoever, be executed at the order of the President for committing the crime of "durrr, I think ur a terrorist!"

So there is no proof that Anwar Al-Alawki was a terrorist? You people you believe that are in denial of what is going on the world.

The government has not presented the proof. So, as I have stated, any American citizen now can be taken off the street, and with no proof presented to the public whatsoever, be executed at the order of the President.

As Saxi said, it is very likely that he was guilty, but now any citizen can potentially be given the same treatment, the press secretary say "I got nothin' for ya," and another American citizen is dead.

Then you either don't follow the news or your news sources are hiding him from you. He's been in the news for at least three years, but probably more. More recently have been the realizations that he may have been one of the primary state-side supporters of the 9-11 hijackers. He has been the leader of Al-Qaeda in Yemen for about 4 years (I believe), and many felt that he could become the head leader over the entire organization after the killing of Bin Laden. I believe he has also made many recordings/statements (but not as many as people like Bin Laden). There has been plenty of proof laid out for the public on the role this man has played in terrorist activities around the world. Just because you may not have heard them does not make them false.

[saxitoxin]

There has been plenty of proof laid out for the public on the role this man has played in terrorist activities around the world. Just because you may not have heard them does not make them false.

Osama bin Laden was indicted within 30 days of 9/11. If there's plenty of proof why couldn't they get an indictment of Awlaki after four years? Why did they have time to present the proof to CNN but not the District Court? Is Anderson Cooper now a U.S. magistrate and the studio audience of The View a federal Grand Jury? It's not even a question as to why he wasn't tried - what should be infinitely more worrying to the public is that they couldn't even get an indictment. In the words of the late Justice Solomon Wachtler:

• "a Grand Jury would indict a ham sandwich, if that's what you wanted"

Tokyo Rose broadcast to millions of people. Her guilt was obvious, common sense and pre-ordained by the press and the president. However, not only was she released, but she received an official apology from the President for her arrest. I'm sure she's glad she wasn't executed without trial. (And, unlike Awlaki, she actually was in a war zone.)

[saxitoxin]

DEBKA reports Awlaki had become a nuisance for Al-Qaeda; Zuwahiri tipped off the U.S. himself as to his whereabouts -

The tip-off which enabled two American drone-borne Hellfire missiles to kill the US-born Anwar al-Awkali by locating his convoy in the Khashef in the Jawf province of Yemen, 140 kilometers east of the capital Sanaa, reached US intelligence as a result of a power struggle within Al Qaeda's leadership in Yemen.

From the point of view of the West, Al Qaeda has lost two senior operatives. But to hardline Zuwahiri, Al Qaeda in Yemen has been purged of its American module. Therefore, while the US celebrates a major victory in its war on the Islamist terrorist organization, its new leader most probably decided to sacrifice his two American assets for the sake of tightening the ranks of AQAP and drawing a denser curtain of secrecy than ever before over his next steps.

http://debka.com/article/21350/

Winner: Obama, who gets to up his military cred with war-porn voters

Winner: Al-Qaeda, who got a nuisance eliminated without causing the infighting that would have accompanied an internal op

Loser: the victims of the next attack from a more centralized and efficient Al-Qaeda operation

[PLAYER57832]

So, Night Strike, if Obama were to sign a similar paper with your name on it, and offered no proof to the public whatsoever, it would be fine? I mean, war is not pleasant, and some people just have to get used to the reality that any American citizen now can be taken off the street, and with no proof presented to the public whatsoever, be executed at the order of the President for committing the crime of "durrr, I think ur a terrorist!"

So there is no proof that Anwar Al-Alawki was a terrorist? You people you believe that are in denial of what is going on the world.

I don't think anyone is claiming there is no proof, etc. The only question is why the US, being a nation of laws, did not use them to bring this guy to justice in the courts, but instead used this back-handed method that is more often associated (at least in public) with non-legal entities and terrorist groups.

Now, understand, I don't know enough about this particular case to know. Was this guy tried in absentia? Was there evidence that he presented an imminent and serious threat (not just "he's a bad guy and so obviously is going to do more bad things", but either we take him out now or he will be killing some of us tommorrow, specifically). Or, was it just seen as more expedient to remove him and not have to bother with all that?

[Night Strike]

So, Night Strike, if Obama were to sign a similar paper with your name on it, and offered no proof to the public whatsoever, it would be fine? I mean, war is not pleasant, and some people just have to get used to the reality that any American citizen now can be taken off the street, and with no proof presented to the public whatsoever, be executed at the order of the President for committing the crime of "durrr, I think ur a terrorist!"

So there is no proof that Anwar Al-Alawki was a terrorist? You people you believe that are in denial of what is going on the world.

I don't think anyone is claiming there is no proof, etc. The only question is why the US, being a nation of laws, did not use them to bring this guy to justice in the courts, but instead used this back-handed method that is more often associated (at least in public) with non-legal entities and terrorist groups.

Now, understand, I don't know enough about this particular case to know. Was this guy tried in absentia? Was there evidence that he presented an imminent and serious threat (not just "he's a bad guy and so obviously is going to do more bad things", but either we take him out now or he will be killing some of us tommorrow, specifically). Or, was it just seen as more expedient to remove him and not have to bother with all that?

It was most likely decided that it was safer to attack him with a drone than to send in a strike team to capture or to kill like they did with Osama.

[spurgistan]

Correct, it was much safer. Can you imagine if an American soldier died while assassinating an American citizen?

[saxitoxin]

So, Night Strike, if Obama were to sign a similar paper with your name on it, and offered no proof to the public whatsoever, it would be fine? I mean, war is not pleasant, and some people just have to get used to the reality that any American citizen now can be taken off the street, and with no proof presented to the public whatsoever, be executed at the order of the President for committing the crime of "durrr, I think ur a terrorist!"

So there is no proof that Anwar Al-Alawki was a terrorist? You people you believe that are in denial of what is going on the world.

I don't think anyone is claiming there is no proof, etc. The only question is why the US, being a nation of laws, did not use them to bring this guy to justice in the courts, but instead used this back-handed method that is more often associated (at least in public) with non-legal entities and terrorist groups.

Now, understand, I don't know enough about this particular case to know. Was this guy tried in absentia? Was there evidence that he presented an imminent and serious threat (not just "he's a bad guy and so obviously is going to do more bad things", but either we take him out now or he will be killing some of us tommorrow, specifically). Or, was it just seen as more expedient to remove him and not have to bother with all that?

It was most likely decided that it was safer to attack him with a drone than to send in a strike team to capture or to kill like they did with Osama.

Or it may have had something to do with the fact that if he had been captured there would have been nothing they could do with him. As previously stated repeatedly, in four years the US had been unable to obtain an indictment against Awlaki due to lack of evidence. Since he wasn't on a field of battle he could only be held 48 hours before he'd have to be released.

• You know who really needs to be terrified about this? Screenwriters on the hit CBS crime drama CSI Miami. Now, in the first 20 minutes of each episode - once they have a suspect - viewers are going to expect the Miami PD can just haul him into an alley and shoot him once in the back of the head. That's going to leave 40 minutes of airtime they'll need to fill each week that they used to spend investigating the crime, trying to pull together evidence, get an arrest warrant, etc. Does CBS really need to get saddled with this right now? C'mon Obama.

[saxitoxin]

One hundred percent destined to fail but history would have looked kinder on Germany if the Reichstaag had at least made an attempt to secure a vote of no-confidence against Chancellor Hitler. This will at least establish a permanent legal record of what happened in September 2011 for the eventual Truth & Reconciliation Commission or all-but-guaranteed future UN Criminal Tribunal for Events in the United States to review.

Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul

Ron Paul said Monday that President Barack Obama’s targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki might be an impeachable offense.

Asked at a Manchester, N.H. town hall meeting about last week’s killing of the American-born Al Qaeda leader, the Texas congressman said impeachment would be “possible,” but that he wants to know more about how the administration “flouted the law.”

Paul called the killing a movement toward “tyranny.”

“I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction,” Paul said. “We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.”

The comments once again put Paul at odds with his Republican rivals over foreign policy and the war on terror in the latest indication of how his foreign policy views stray far from Republican orthodoxy even in a GOP that’s taken on an increasingly isolationist bent.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/10 ... z1Zl7LnMoL

[Symmetry]

One hundred percent destined to fail but history would have looked kinder on Germany if the Reichstaag had at least made an attempt to secure a vote of no-confidence against Chancellor Hitler. This will at least establish a permanent legal record of what happened in September 2011 for the eventual Truth & Reconciliation Commission or all-but-guaranteed future UN Criminal Tribunal for Events in the United States to review.

Ron Paul a possibility, says Ron Paul

Fixed

[Qwert]

lol,these all situation remind me like terorist tactic.
Terorist use suicide bombers to attack some target-
USa use drons to attack some target-
Its look that US and Al-quaida use same strategy-kill dont ask who is who.
Unfortunatly in bouth attack ,most damage take civilians, and again in bouth ways, nobody get jails for these crimes.