Another one bites the dust...

[Kirk Freeman]

What was his hostile act?

Fort Hood. Remember that? Do you not know what he did or just refuse to believe it?

So all it takes is advocating?

Right, just like in the criminal law that you want him subjected to.

If A sez "let's go rob the bank", B nods his head and gets the car, the gun and the Darth Vader masks (actual case), then A goes down for bank robbery.

Yes, you advocate killing Americans you get a drone strike on your camel dung-spackled mud hut.

 

[rambone]

Bottom line is this individual was a direct threat to our nation, our way of life and us. He was not arbitrarily declared hostile, he was a BAD MAN. Time Critical actionable intelligence was obtained and we removed a threat.

I still am trying to figure out why we should feel threatened by him. The CIA invited him over to their place to party with them. He must be alright.

Our laws literally can not keep up with the nature of the threat, so we A. wait for the legislation and its evaluation, and accept the risk that many more innocent civillians, armed forces and friendlies die. OR B. Make the best call we can based on our principles and protect what is dear to us.

I vote B, but understand why many favor A. problem with A is that we will pay for it in our own blood.

Option B presents a much bigger danger, in my opinion. Terrorists have killed a few thousand people in the last century. In that same time, out-of-control governments murdered 200,000,000+ non-combat-related people. I refuse to give up the constitution over this hyped up fear of "terror." Our way of life is changed only when government clamps down on our liberties.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

The CIA invited him over to their place to party with them. He must be alright.

Yes, when he was publicly saying that there is no reason to kill an American in the name of Islam.

The CIA saw what it wanted to see, what it was ordered to see in the hug the world cookie pushers in the Bush Whitehouse.

Do you purposefully not understand taqiyya/kitman?

 

[rambone]

Fort Hood. Remember that? Do you not know what he did or just refuse to believe it?

Refuse to believe it.

Seriously though, there is something that smells awful about this and it would be nice if actual evidence could be vetted in a trial, if not for the defendant's sake, for the rest of ours. Was he actually tied to the Ft. Hood shooter, or does the Government just feed us that to keep us afraid of big bad Al Qaeda? You've seen Wag the Dog, right?

 

[60Driver]

What was his hostile act?

Recruiting combatants for Al Qaeda.

Directing radicals to attack our nation and people.

"Don't consult with anybody in killing the Americans," says Awlaki, sitting at a desk with a dagger in his belt. "Fighting the devil doesn't require consultation or prayers seeking divine guidance. They are the party of the devils." ​

Awlaki 2008​

And based on open source reporting he was a "regional commander " for AQAP and associated with numerous terrorists who commited actual acts.​

Ammateurs talk tactics professionals talk logistics, this man provided logistical support(recruitment) and leadership for AQAP. As I am sure you understand IDEA's can be the most dangerous tool on the battlefield.​

 

[Kirk Freeman]

So you want to see the e-mails?

I don't see that as unreasonable. Perhaps after Hasan's trial.

 

[CarmelHP]

Refuse to believe it.

Seriously though, there is something that smells awful about this and it would be nice if actual evidence could be vetted in a trial, if not for the defendant's sake, for the rest of ours. Was he actually tied to the Ft. Hood shooter, or does the Government just feed us that to keep us afraid of big bad Al Qaeda? You've seen Wag the Dog, right?

Step away from the DVD player, Ramy, you've never been the same since watching Conspiracy Theory.

 

[bigg cheese]

Fort Hood. Remember that? Do you not know what he did or just refuse to believe it?

So a criminal terrorist act committed on american soil by an american citizen is grounds for assassination? Just because he left the country, he is suddenly eligible for bombing?

That argument is so full of fail.

There are protections because the constitution PROTECTS citizens. Unless CITIZENS are expressly excluded from the protected group, then they are protected.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

Step away from the [STRIKE]DVD player[/STRIKE] microphone, Ramy, you've never been the same since [STRIKE]watching[/STRIKE] producing Conspiracy Theory.

FTFY

 

[rambone]

Another that did not even read the case before criticizing it. Are you now just phoning this crap in?

I recall this piece from last year when we discussed it.

Obama Admin targets citizens for assassination

Do you purposefully not understand taqiyya/kitman?

I'll grant you a taqiyya/kitman if you give me an Operation Northwoods.

 

[SemperFiUSMC]

So a criminal terrorist act committed on american soil by an american citizen is grounds for assassination? Just because he left the country, he is suddenly eligible for bombing?

That argument is so full of fail.

There are protections because the constitution PROTECTS citizens. Unless CITIZENS are expressly excluded from the protected group, then they are protected.

No, but continuing to recruit, plan, and direct terrorists acts from foreign soil is grounds for a military response, regardless of your nationality.

Your argument is full of lunacy.

The Constitution protects citizens, not enemy combatants. When he chose to engage as an enemy combatant he lost his costitutional protections. But you know that. You just don't like it.

 

[Magneto]

What about Adam Gadahn? What if we kill him? Will that be just as much a travesty of justice? Or if Alwaki had already been charged with treason would that make this ok?

 

[bigg cheese]

What about Adam Gadahn? What if we kill him? Will that be just as much a travesty of justice? Or if Alwaki had already been charged with treason would that make this ok?

If he were charged AND convicted, sure. No one has shown me how he, a US citizen, can be deprived of due process while his citizenship is intact.



I will say again (just to make sure no one tries to argue it), I have no issue with his death if he were resisting arrest or was involved in a firefight with US forces)

 

[bigg cheese]

No, but continuing to recruit, plan, and direct terrorists acts from foreign soil is grounds for a military response, regardless of your nationality.
The Constitution protects citizens, not enemy combatants. When he chose to engage as an enemy combatant he lost his costitutional protections. But you know that. You just don't like it.

You have the burden of proof to show how he was NOT a citizen. He was not formally stripped of it, and he did not renounce it according to the best definition I can find (but am open to correction if one exists).

 

[Bill of Rights]

I can see both sides of this, as usual, which can be really confusing.

If Al-Awlaki did do everything we're told he did, yes, he was guilty of treason; giving aid and comfort to (self-proclaimed) enemies of this country.

The catch is that great big two letter word, "If". We have no way of knowing if he really did or if everything was fabricated a la conspiracy theory writ large... or if, as in most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

While I'd like to have seen real evidence against him, our government has more than enough resources to fabricate any necessary "proof".

He was going to die, either by missile attack or by death warrant issued by a court. In the final analysis, doing it this way probably saved money carrying out the sentence.

Not, I hasten to add, that economics should trump justice, but again, if he really did conspire in the Ft. Hood murders and other assaults on this country and our countrymen, even if we have not officially declared war (because we declare war on countries, not organizations or people,) he declared war against our country. Citizen, former citizen, whatever the hell he was, he was making war.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. If he really did make war against this country, I hope his 72 virgins are all very male and much more into pitching than catching.

 

[rambone]

Even the devil himself should be put to trial

What about Adam Gadahn? What if we kill him? Will that be just as much a travesty of justice? Or if Alwaki had already been charged with treason would that make this ok?

The following is from a play called "A Man For All Seasons," by Richard Bolt, made into an Oscar-winning film in 1966. Part of the story involves the trial of a dissenter to the King. Sir Thomas More challenges the king's men saying that even the devil should get the benefit of a trial.

William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!
​

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBiLT3LASk

For your question, ANY traitor/terrorist/whatever should be charged, captured, tried, convicted, and then issued his punishment, in that order.

 

[wtfd661]

Beat me to it! Looks like some Pred or Reaper Drivers earned their pay!

The world just got slightly better.
No more YouTube rants.
No more radicalization of asshats in the US.

Momentum in clearing up the most wanted room is building.

Great job! Keep it up boys!

 

[Bitter Clinger]

I don't agree with Ron Paul on many things, but I do here -- he has a right to due process

I don't like this precedence assasinating american citizens without due process is not a good thing.

Annnnnnnnnd.............we're off!

 

[RockofStrength]

No, but continuing to recruit, plan, and direct terrorists acts from foreign soil is grounds for a military response, regardless of your nationality.

Your argument is full of lunacy.

The Constitution protects citizens, not enemy combatants. When he chose to engage as an enemy combatant he lost his costitutional protections. But you know that. You just don't like it.

I fail to find that anywhere. He is merely an alleged enemy combatant until proven otherwise in a court of law unless he is actively attacking those sent to detain him.

 

[spearheadersarge]

US citizen or not, he was an enemy combatant; period! Congratulations to those involved in his demise. He knew what he was doing when he went to Yemen. He had been playing puppet master while recruiting American terrorists. I say good riddance and hope for more of his associates to join him post haste!