world

U.S. strike kills American al-Qaida cleric in Yemen

118 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2011 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

118 Comments
Login to comment

So much for due process and freedom of speech. Goodbye. It was nice knowing you two!

-7 ( +2 / -9 )

Treason against the United States is a capital crime. If al-Awaki had desired due process and his rights as a US citizen, he should have turned himself into the authorities. Instead, he thought he could hide out in Yemen and keep going with his silly jihad shtick. Now he's a "martyr." More important, lives have been saved by his death.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

It is one thing to preach ;it is another to carry out acts of violence and kill others

It is very worrying that the US murders its own citizens covertly and without trial.

Who will be next ?

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

So is that the US is just going to do now? Kill people they disagree with rather than give them a trial?? Not going to go over well, is it?

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

So when terrorists are non-Americans, then it's OK to kill them on the spot, but if they were born on American soil then you should treat them better? I don't get the logic here...

7 ( +8 / -1 )

Al-Awlaki forfeited his right to do process when he decided to go to war against his own country, moving to a foreign country, taking side with a terrorist group that has waged Jihad agains the United States, why should the U.S. military risk their lives to try to bring this man back in order to face trail. No one told Awlaki to wage war against his own country, therefore IMHO he lost those rights and got what he deserved. If he were in the states and the FBI or police could arrest him, he never resisted, gave himself up or at least they could bring him in alive perhaps he should be given a trail, but in a foreign country to apprehend a terrorist like him, it's just almost impossible. The man committed treason, he paid a high price for his crimes and that's it. Good riddance.

7 ( +10 / -3 )

Get real people. If you want them brought to justice via a trial, then I suggest you go serve them the warrants and arrest them yourselves. Be sure to say ask nicely and say please when you do. Do you really think it's that easy? It wasn't as if these American terrorists weren't fully aware that they were wanted by the authorities for their treasonious acts. To put it simply they were killed because they resisted arrest in a very big way, by continuing their terrorist activities and attempting to kill more people, Americans included. Criminals are often shot when they resist arrest and while committing crimes.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Some of you people really crack me up. You want them to be tried in court? Fine, we'll give you the warrants so you can go serve them and arrest them. Maybe if you're nice and say please they'll ley you take them into custody. Good luck!

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Amen to that bass4funk. Petty he didn't know/feel what was coming to him.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

"You have been served!"

1 ( +2 / -1 )

This was not a man who was killed over a disagreement. He was a man who promoted, organized and instituted death against his sworn enemy, the US. Being a US citizen, this indeed is treason. And, if you forgot, the US is at war with an enemy who seeks civilians as their primary targets.

So, you can either rant about the US taking out one man who has directed murders in the past and intended to kill thousands, or read about the thousands of innocent mothers, fathers and children who were killed by one man. You pick.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

I meant "pity" of course.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@USNinJapan2-I agree 100% with both of your comments.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Liberals crack me up, they always come with these hippie Michael Moore flowery, mindless speeches that, basically if we (the U.S. in particular) get bombed, attacked, kicked, killed, physical or mental, we should just fold over, apologize, go all over the world, serve arrest warrants, bring them back, give them trails (paid for by the tax payers) and lock them either up or even give them the death penalty. Personally, I think these fanatical terrorists getting a hellfire missile up their ass would save the tax payers a whole lot of time and money. We are talking about terrorists, radical fundamental islamic terrorists that are waging a jihad! These people are not your average John Hinckley.

4 ( +7 / -3 )

"It is very worrying that the US murders its own citizens covertly and without trial Who will be next ?"

Who will be next? Murderers who murder US citizens covertly and without trial.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

paulinusa

It's not murder for two reasons: 1) Regarldess of citizenship, they are enemy combatants. 2) It's done in accordance with established ROE.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

bass4funk: Don't be so quick to stereotype liberals. I consider myself a liberal and don't see a problem with nailing this guy with a drone. And obviously neither does Obama, who ordered the hit and who is (according to descriptions by many on the right) an uber-liberal socialist who goes around the world apologizing for America's actions. Go figure.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

good riddance to this piece of crap. now he's nothing more than a greasy spot in the middle of a desert

3 ( +5 / -2 )

Now America is killing her own citizen without lawful procedures! Awesome justice!

-10 ( +2 / -12 )

just-a-guy

Now that's pretty ironic coming from you. Where were you from again?...

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Don't be so quick to stereotype liberals. I consider myself a liberal and don't see a problem with nailing this guy with a drone. And obviously neither does Obama, who ordered the hit and who is (according to descriptions by many on the right) an uber-liberal socialist who goes around the world apologizing for America's actions. Go figure.

@plastic Yes, you are right. My apologies.I meant "most" liberals, but yes, there are liberals that are relieved that this scum is dead.

Now America is killing her own citizen without lawful procedures! Awesome justice!

Apparently, you just glossed over the other posts and didn't bother to read them. He (Awlaki) was an enemy combatant and swore jihad and destruction on his own country and citizens and swore allegiance to "Al Qaida" to the death and destruction of America, by any means! As such, he has not rights. So the U.S. has to extend lawful procedure rights to terrorists also? Who's going to pay for that? NOT ME!

3 ( +4 / -1 )

When someone declares Jihad against America it is the same as declaring war. When you declare war you are now considered an enemy combatant and being killed becomes an occupational hazard. Al-Scumbag should have chosen another occupation! The only downside of this is pure economics. Those drone are expensive to operate and that missile costs over $250,000. On the other hand a 5.56mm round fired from an M4 is only about 25 cents! America does need to work on cheaper methods of going down the hit list!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

I'll agree to that.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This Anwar al-Awlaki was as American as Osama bin Laden. Good riddance.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

How can We justify this killing ... Mr , President can decides your Fate upon your Ideology only.

-7 ( +1 / -8 )

So when terrorists are non-Americans, then it's OK to kill them on the spot, but if they were born on American soil then you should treat them better? I don't get the logic here...

Where is anyone even suggesting this??

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

When a liberal President goes to war, it's justified and the nation to pull together to stand behind the President. If it's a conservative President, then he is a warmonger and the actions are unjustified, tears the country apart and an excuse to plunder foreign countries oil.

Hypocrisy.....naaaaw!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Interesting precedent.

If your government doesn't like you. They can kill you, no questions asked.

Make sure you're not late filing your taxes, otherwise you might find a global hawk hovering above your house.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

@Never

If you are an enemy combatant and are treasonous, then yes, they have the right and should deal with you accordingly, if it means to keep the country safe, I'm all for it. Remember, these scumbags chose to become terrorists, no one twisted their arm, they all did it on their own accord.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Awlaki was the 'spiritual' guide to MAjor Hassan,who gunned down dozens of his fellow American soldiers on a base inside the US. He declared war on the US. He was a traitor. I would say I am glad he is dead but the identity-politics crowd would twist it and try to say I am glad my government forced a black president to sign the death warrant on a brown American living abroad,or some such nonsense.Good riddance to trash like Awlaki.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

This dog, low down scum, OH I AM AN AMERICA CITIZEN?? Sorry dude! Once you go and join Al Qaeda, preach to kill innocent people inside the USA and etc..screw you! So you happen to be an American citizen with some weird accent that surely is not from New Mexico, where this skinny hairy dork happened to be born to Yemeni parent and now his dad is calling the ACLU to try and sue the CIA and the US government for taking it out this piece of dog crap?? I do hope the idiots at the ACLU pull their heads out of their butts and say, well you know this wanna be Osama bin laden did help plot the terrorists acts of 9/11 maybe the USA needs to start playing by different rules...WHY?? Terrorists do not give a crap about us, about innocent people, they just want to play Western democratic nations for fools, they know very well they could never get away with this kind of BS over in Saudi Arabia etc..so to this hairy, squinty eyed terrorist, I do hope and pray that you BURN IN HELL for say all of ETERNITY! France, the UK etc..should also learn a lesson and start killing off their own future terrorists too.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

The propaganda highlighted here, is that of the English language. The saddest part is that what Americans would call liberal is in some places the exact opposite-it's the conservative lot. And these lot were and are often so busy pointing fingers at propaganda overseas that they forget about their own neighbour, and even create a valley that needs to be bridged, before they start dealing with those overseas. But in the english speaking countries there are differences-like America does deal with the propaganda that is home grown, like in this case. Will other english countries have the balls to do the same-or are they gonna buy into the propanganda and keep pointing fingers at America.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Bass,

Perhaps you could compare the difference in the collateral bodycount between the conservative and the liberal president's going to war, and then times them by the actual gain.

It might be simply luck of the draw, but Mr Obama's tenure has seen the deaths of probably the two most un-speakable members of the alQaeda crazies.

It's frankly un-believable however that some people have a problem with this guy being toast. It's a shame he can't be revived and killed again.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Everybody deserves a trial and everybody is innocent until proven guilty.

The constitution is quite clear on that. No exceptions. The government cannot pick and choose who the constitution applies to. The rights inherent on inalienable. That means that no government can remove those rights from any individual, that means you, me and yes, even him.

I'm not sure about what this character did or didn't do. At this stage, these are just accusations. And this man deserves his day in court like everybody else. If the accusations are proven true in a court of law then let the law be applied and punishment issued.

The constitution has no exceptions! Even traitors are due their day in court.

The government is not the judge, jury and executioner. Once it becomes that, we're in totalitarianism.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

The constitution is therefore out-dated in this area and needs amending. I don't think the forefathers can be blamed for not predicting 21st century terrorists.

Other posters have already visited the utter futility in giving individuals such as the due process, whilst they continue to plot and execute further heinous crimes on fellow Americans, not to mention any other nationality unlucky enough to be involved....

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Alwaki's American citizenship is immaterial. It was determined that he was involved at the highest operational levels with an organization (AQAP) that had initiated armed attacks upon American citizens and soldiers.That made him eligible for target by lethal force,and without warning,anywhere he was found. Fools and myst wizards can protest,but they're just spittin in the wind.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Never Submit: Everybody deserves a trial and everybody is innocent until proven guilty.

You can agree with that yet have no problem with what happened to this guy. There are actually plenty of examples where police or the military are authorized to use deadly force without a trial. Even regular people can use it for self defense. Your position is not a black and white absolute by any means. Obviously there have to be some logistics and common sense applied otherwise your position could easily be counterproductive, especially if this guy continues to live and kill more.

People are going to weigh the freedom/security trade-off and I think most understand the truly unique nature of this situation. Exceptions have been accepted and applied in other situations as well.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Unfortunately or fortunately, there's a sweeping law passed just after 9/11 that effectively makes the at-war with al-Qaeda (and specifically al-Qaeda, not just any terrorist organization) and thus gives the U.S. government the legal greenlight to kill or capture al-Qaeda terrorists, regardless if he's an American citizen. It's the same law that's used to go inside Afghanistan and Iraq. That law is pretty broad and without definite end (how long will the war against al-Qaeda last?).

Since for all intents and purposes, no al-Qaeda terrorist would be brought to court in the U.S. under this law (and which U.S. court would even take it on behalf of al-Qaeda?), it's practically impossible to challenge the constitutionality of this law. Thus, as long as that law is in the books, it makes the U.S. action legal under the Constitution.

Ironically, if the U.S. government wants to bug the phone-lines of suspected al-Qaeda terrorists, the U.S. government would first need a court order allowing authorization. But if the U.S. government wants to kill those al-Qaeda terrorists, under this law, all the U.S. government needs is authorization from the President. This law gives broad powers, but continue unchallenged, it remains legal.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

As ever, the conservatives get confused when you talk about principles. They don't know what principles are. They see the world in terms of people only; friends, enemies, and those who are not clearly one or the other yet.

No one sheds a tear for the murder of al-Awlaki But some of us shed a tear for the principles that were just murdered, and as with the last batch that did, we watch as principles get murdered closer and closer to home. Yesterday it was foreigners. We saw bin Laden was executed, while the government swore they were actually trying to apprehend him. Many of us called shenanigans, but the idiots didn't care. And we said it will come back on us citizens. So today, its a citizen, and not even any mock pretense of trying to apprehend him. Why bother, since so many of you declared you didn't care? Tomorrow, it will be a citizen on American soil. Soon, trials will be done away if anyone is suspected of terrorism (and idiots don't know what the word "suspected" means you know.). And the idiots will cheer and declare trials inconvenient and expensive anyway. And they will think the president, pentagon and CIA incapable of using this extra-judicial power for ill, right up until their neighbors get predator droned to death for being a whistle blower.

America needs to have a king again, so they can remember why our Founding Fathers set up the system they did. Many here are gleefully crapping on all of it, and somehow think they are patriots.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Incidentally, there's also another law, an old law that dates back to WW2. If an American citizen dons the uniform of Nazi Germany and fights alongside them, the US soldiers can treat him an enemy combatant and need not afford him the rights enjoyed by an American citizen.

Well, whichever law, currently the U.S. government wouldn't give which specific legal justification since otherwise it'd be an explicit admission of government involvement in Yemeni soil. So we may never know...........

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Mr Bill,

Methinks as long as you aren't planning a Jihad operation against you're own countrymen then your rights of due process will be respected.

I doubt any of the people you're taking for "conservatives" on this thread would support anything other than targetted assasination of an undisputed enemy combatant on foreign soil.

What you're effectively saying is that it ismore important to give these animals rights, than to take them out - despite that you must surely understand that they will kill more innocents left to act with impunity - simply because there is no feasible way to haul them into a US court.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

@tmarie

Third comment says

It is very worrying that the US murders its own citizens covertly and without trial.

From the news, the man is clearly presented as a terrorist, and apparently involved enough to be on the "wanted dead or alive" list.

There were many terrorists killed by US attacks before, so why make it about where the man was born?

People can debate about whether the killing was right or wrong all they want, I just wanted to point out that in that case, I really don't see what birthplace has to do with anything.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

What you're effectively saying is that it ismore important to give these animals rights, than to take them out -

No. What I am saying is that it takes a trial to determine who is a monster, not a CIA investigation, a presidential order, and the flick of a switch.

because there is no feasible way to haul them into a US court.

Right. Tell me, are you one of the ones who swears they were actually trying to catch bin Laden or no?

I think your problem is not with feasibility, more with inconvenience.

Methinks as long as you aren't planning a Jihad operation against you're own countrymen then your rights of due process will be respected.

Sure. Just have faith. Who needs courts if you have faith?

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

"Most notably, they believe he was involved in recruiting and preparing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian who tried to blow up a U.S. airliner heading to Detroit on Christmas 2009, failing only because he botched the detonation of explosives sewn into his underpants."

I'm as concerned about citizens' rights as any American, but in this case I believe al-Awlaki had as close to a trial as was possible. The intelligence community presented evidence to the President and the President pronounced a conviction. And if he had been present and questioned about his activities, what would al-Awlaki have said? "No, I didn't do these things?" Or, "Hell yes I did and I'm happy my recruits did what I told them to do." I'm comfortable that I know the answer, and prefer that no airliners be blown out of the sky. And I do suspect that it is rare for US airliners to not have at least a few passengers from other countries.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

And it seems his main crime was running his mouth. The rest amounts to suspicion and guesswork.

America martyred a propogandist. War profiteers must be pleased, because this action ensures more al-Qaida recruits.

-6 ( +1 / -7 )

"Right. Tell me, are you one of the ones who swears they were actually trying to catch bin Laden or no?"

Absolutely not. A trial for bin Laden would have been a ridiculous propoganda piece him and his cause, not to mention the astronomical cost to the tax-payer - instead of a high risk, high tech mission that ended with Mr Bin Laden getting a bullet in the face. I applaud the decision to take him out, and think it was the defining moment of Obama's presidency, something even our few moderate conservatives will grudgingly conceed.

"I think your problem is not with feasibility, more with inconvenience."

Was it feasible to go into the Yemen and arrest this man? Were the Yemeni authorities able to track him down?

"Sure. Just have faith. Who needs courts if you have faith?"

OK - show us a civil case in the US recently where due process has been denied and the accused executed out of court. I'm all ears on this one, put your money where your mouth is.

al-Awlaki can no longer plot, encourage or incite mindless, gratuitous voilence on innocents from the sanctuary of a failed state. Sing Kumbya all you like.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Cont...

In fact I disagree right to the very foundation of your arguments.

Rather than setting a bad precedent, I think the absolute opposite applies. It sends a message to these inviduals, especially the rats now jostling to take al-Awlaki's place, that no matter where they cower and plot their acts of terrorism -a guided missile awaits courtesy of the USof A. I wish my native Europe were as proactive.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I find it curious that so many people are confident he was a "bad man" or an "animal" just because they read news reports about him.

Don't think for a second that you know the truth. You're simply sitting at your computer and passing judgement simply because you read an article. Have you ever met this guy. How can you be certain the accusations against him are true.

Who decides who a terrorist is anyways? What is the precise definition?

Don't forget that the British deemed the American founding fathers to be terrorists.

Any government can conjure up anything to portray anybody as terrorist.

The founding fathers knew that...

Innocent until Proven guilty. NO EXCEPTIONS!

And don't forget the right of self defense applies only if there's a clear and present danger and government officials ie police have a duty to apprehend instead of just shooting suspected criminals in the head.

-5 ( +2 / -6 )

Heh, your attempts to paint this individual as some sort of a victim would be amusing were it not troublesome.

I suppose when al Alwaki penned an essay in Arabic titled "Why Muslims Love Death" on the Islam Today website, praising the Palestinian suicide bombers' fervor he was just kidding right?

And all those rencontres over the years with all those that did carry out, or attempt to carry out terrorist attrocities were simple accidents, wrong mosque at the wrong time, right?

What about his English language sermons consisting of unabashed advocacy of jihad and mujahideen organizations? Can we put this down to a normal response to Geroge W Bush and declare him innocent afterall?

Get a grip.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The first mistake is declaring war on terrorism, war is a state of conflict between two or more sovereign states, you cannot declare war against an individual or a group of individuals. If the following can be done then 9/11 is completely legitimate or the US would need to answer to various carpet bombing during past wars as war crimes. Remember al-Qaida declared war on the US way before 9/11 so it was a military exercise by al-Qaida and should not be considered a crime if declaring war against an individual is possible. If it was a crime then due process to all suspects should be applied, if war is possible then the Geneva convention should be applied. The US fails to recognize either against their enemy which is a gross misconduct at the highest level placing the US gov. at it's lowest in terms of morality.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Bah, after 50 comments on the threade I just don't get the protest.

Would you guys be using the same arguments if this was 1943 and the Allies had managed to kill Hitler in a bombing raid?

Would Hitler's due process be more important than shortening the war by two years, thus saving un-told lives?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

How about Jeffery Dahmer? He was a bad guy was he not. Why did he deserve due process? Shouldn't the arresting officer just have shot him in the head?

And if it's okay to arbitrarily shoot serial killers, why not execute regular murders without a trial.

How about a rapist, why should they get due process, they are bad people. Shouldn't they be killed immediately without a trial. Why is giving a speech in a mosque deemed worse than rape.

There's an easy solution to all this confusion.

Just follow the Constitution.

Freedom of Speech - Muslim, Christian or whatever Due Process - For everyone, no exceptions or excuses. Innocent until proven guilty in a correct of law - No exceptions, no matter how bad the media paints someone to be

The founding fathers had it right, now 230 years of history and precedent has been flushed in the toilet

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

Because the police had the possibility of capturing Dahlmer, a luxury no person in their right mind would compare to a fugitive fundie in a semi-lawless state.

We're supposed to be allies with Pakistan yet the only sure way to get bin Laden was a top secret night raid with a previously un-seen chopper.

According to the republicans we're at war with terror so I guess that covers the legalities constitution angle, as others have already posted and that you have failed to refute.

But even if it didn't, I don't buy what you're sellin'. I'll make an exception for certain individuals. For me, it could be that a great many people's lives have been saved because of this man's death.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

I agree with Obama's hit on these two American 'enemy combatants' but it says a lot about President Obama's incoherent policy when it comes to the fight against Islamic terrorists. Obama has been trying to force the use of US civilian trials for foreign enemy combatants as a way to get rid of the hated Guantanemo Bay detention center. He wrongly believes they have rights that need to be protected and so pledged as his first act as president to close Gitmo - which of course he has failed to do. He also believes that he cannot capture anymore terrorists because he doesn't want to send anyone to Gitmo. Therefore, he forgoes their rights and kills them. We all know Bin Laden could have been captured but he didn't want to send him to Cuba - so he ordered him killed. Even better, why put yourself in the situation when you might be tempted to torture a terrorist when you can just kill him and be done with it.

It goes without saying that if Bush had ordered the assassination of bin Laden and two American citizens that the press would be in full outrage over it. Nancy Pelosi would be running before every camera to denounce him. But since it's Obama these perceived sins are tolerated for what is in their eyes, the 'greater good.'

Obama's anti-terror policies didn't make much sense when he first began to express them on the campaign trail and when he began implementing them as president nearly three years ago. They make even less sense now.

I congratulate Obama for putting aside his own screwy thinking and getting the job done in Yemen. After all, with his poll numbers at record lows, he could use the boost before next years election.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Heh, it's painful whilst reassuring to watch you wolfpack.

It pains you to congratulate the call, but you know that you've got to. Which puts you above the rest of the partisan nutcases that have failed to chime in therefore credit is due, despite the obvious pain it has inflicted.

This guy was small-fry, but you never can tell. In Carlito's way, Pacino called Benny Blanco a punk, but at the end died from his bullet.

It was the call on bin Laden that makes Obama shine. A poker face that even I am envious of, and I've seen the footage of them all sat watching as the raid un-folded live on Whitehouse FM. The guy has what it takes, balls of steel. This call was nothing compared to the gutsy mission that removed bin Laden. I could almost watch The Delta Force with Chuck Norris without cringing from that moment on....

:)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Bass4Funk pretty much said what I said earlier on a different site. This man pretty much revoked his US citizenship when he started advocating for the death of his "fellow" US citizens and waging a guerilla war with the support foriegn entities (the terrorist organizations) against the US. If you become a French citizen, and then go to another country with hopes to advocate attacks and directly declare war using the other countries facilities against France what do you expect? People need to figure out the difference between a citizen that follows the laws of the country they are a citizen of, and those that pretty much renege on their citizenship by waging war on the country of their citizenship.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Heh, your attempts to paint this individual as some sort of a victim

Exactly as I said, conservatives can only see people and can't comprehend principles long enough to not go right back to making this about people again. Thank you so much for proving it so clearly.

Nobody is painting him as a victim. We don't know because he never got a trial. And "we don't know" is just another phrase that throws your average convervative for a loop, because they have this over-riding need to be sure and will lie, to us and themselves, believe anything, and blow people up to avoid the inconvenience of doubt.

Would Hitler's due process be more important than shortening the war by two years, thus saving un-told lives?

Its loony to compare Hitler, Germany and WWII to al-Awlaki, al-Quaida and the war on terror. Al-Quaida is but a shell of its former self. What have they done lately to have anyone so worried? And in case you did not know, we did apprehend Nazi leaders and put them on trial. Did some think they were martyrs? Sure. But that is not really an avoidable consequence and failure to have a trial is more likely to make martyrdom stick.

And thanks again for floating yet another conservative principle-less favorite: The ends justifies the means. And you cannot even get that one right! Killing Hitler would not have shortened the war. And killing al-Awlaki will not shorten the war on terror. When you are dealing with people willing to suicide bomb, death to them is not a deterent.

OK - show us a civil case in the US recently where due process has been denied and the accused executed out of court.

A civil case would be so called because it went to trial. This case would have gone to criminal, obviously, not civil. And my prediction, as most predictions are, was for the future, not the past! I will show you the case when it comes up!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

He wrongly believes they have rights that need to be protected

Guilty until proven dead.

I liked innocent until proven guilty much better. God, how you must hate the Founding Fathers for bringing that British nuisance to our justice system!

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

@Honest

Exactly, even had he been in the U.S. doing the same thing, he became an enemy of the state and would have been subjected to any local, state or federal law that would ensure in either capturing him, provided he would give himself up willingly or by the use of any necessary force if he would not comply. You are given a choice usually during a possible raid, of course with terrorists, they have to approach them with the highest of extreme caution, but if they give themselves up, they will be finger printed, interrogated allowed to have a lawyer a trail and jury and a conviction. This is just a hypothetical situation were this to happen in the U.S., but we are NOT talking about the U.S, we are talking about a rouge Ex-American citizen that wanted and plotted to kill as many Americans (his own countrymen) as he could. So if any of you liberal moonbats think that he deserved a fair trial, then think about through the last 12 years of all the innocent people that were needlessly killed in the name of Jihad. Did these people get ANY kind of justice. I do not see anything wrong with what Obama did. On this one especially not.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Nobody is painting him as a victim. We don't know because he never got a trial. And "we don't know" is just another phrase that throws your average convervative for a loop, because they have this over-riding need to be sure and will lie, to us and themselves, believe anything, and blow people up to avoid the inconvenience of doubt.

No need for a trail, he was an enemy combatant.

The ends justifies the means. And you cannot even get that one right! Killing Hitler would not have shortened the war. And killing al-Awlaki will not shorten the war on terror. When you are dealing with people willing to suicide bomb, death to them is not a deterent.

No, but at least it's one less treasonous scumbag we have to worry about.

A civil case would be so called because it went to trial. This case would have gone to criminal, obviously, not civil. And my prediction, as most predictions are, was for the future, not the past! I will show you the case when it comes up!

The good thing is, now that he's dead, it helped the U.S. tax payer from wasting more money.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

It pains you to congratulate the call, but you know that you've got to.

No Madverts, it doesn't pain me at all to credit President Obama for his aggressive drone program. It is one of the few things that he has been clear about since his campaign and throughout his time in office that has been prescient about in an otherwise naive and amateurish presidency. A presidents job is simply to make decisions. Therefore, the actual credit goes to those in the military that carried out the mission successfully. Truthfully, this decision and the one for Bin Laden were not very hard decision to make at all. For this kind of thing, the only bad decision is the one that fails (as in Carter's Iranian hostage rescue fiasco). Never-the-less, the killing of two US citizens like this without due process does make a mockery of his stand on terrorist detainees. Again, if former President Bush had done this, the response from the Left would be quite different than the near total silence now.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

if former President Bush had done this, the response from the Left would be quite different than the near total silence now.

Yes, indeed. You would be hearing liberals protesting for months and yelling that he is an abuser of human rights and yet, silence. Since the media is 90% liberal and the President is a liberal, liberal Americans will see it as a victory and will rally that we should stand by the president.

Had it been Bush doing the exact same thing....we all know exactly what liberals would have said. Funny, haven't heard anything from Moore or Code Pink, yet

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Mary Ellen O'Connell, international law professor at the University of Notre Dame's law school:

"The fact that ( Awlaki ) was a dual U.S.-Yemini citizen means that he had extra protections under the U.S. Constitution... so the president has done something in my view that is highly questionable under our own Constitution."

Oh good grief, OK, well, I guess the Constitution will have to be amended.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Yes, indeed. You would be hearing liberals protesting for months and yelling that he is an abuser of human rights and yet, silence.

We executed Germans after the Nuremburg trials for the things that Bush did: launching a military invasion of another nation under false pretenses. President Obama hasn't come close to doing that. The above is the chattering of the nutty conservatives.

But there is not silence on the liberal side. Many of us disagree with President Obama's continuing of many of Bush's less egregious policies. However we also know that, with few exceptions (such as Ron Paul), the right-wing is far, far worse.

Funny, haven't heard anything from Moore

Really? Then you have not been listening. Moore will be live on CSpan tomorrow. I can guarantee he will have a lot of sharp criticism to level at President Obama. It's a problem that you can't report on very much with any degree of honesty or integrity.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yes, indeed. You would be hearing liberals protesting for months and yelling that he is an abuser of human rights and yet, silence.

Obama is an abuser of human rights. But he is still the better of two evils.

Since the media is 90% liberal and the President is a liberal, liberal Americans will see it as a victory and will rally that we should stand by the president.

Rally around the prez? You must be joking. Nobody has said that, not even those who support this extra-judicial murder by robot.

Had it been Bush doing the exact same thing....we all know exactly what liberals would have said.

No you don't, since liberals are not scared to have their own voice and their opinions would vary. If Obama is not being hit as hard, its because he did not start the fire, as much as he is a piss poor fireman.

If you must know, I never loved him. I preferred him. Its a difference a small mind cannot understand I suppose. And while I did not begin by hating Obama, I am getting there now. If someone like myself hated Bush sooner, it had everything to do with Bush being Bush. If Obama has the skill to stave off the hate longer, well that is because Obama is Obama.

But anyway, yet again, we have a conservative trying to place people on the sides of people, rather than principles. This is a key reason why you football team/ cheerleading squad types can't understand the academics, because you keep making this about alliegience to people rather than principles.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

It was the call on bin Laden that makes Obama shine. A poker face that even I am envious of, and I've seen the footage of them all sat watching as the raid un-folded live on Whitehouse FM

If you are referring to the famous "situation room" photo - (Hillary Clinton covering her mouth as though shocked) it was all staged, I'm sorry to say.

“A photograph released by the White House appeared to show the President and his aides in the situation room watching the action as it unfolded. In fact they had little knowledge of what was happening in the compound,” reports the London Telegraph.

In an interview with PBS, Mr Panetta said: “Once those teams went into the compound I can tell you that there was a time period of almost 20 or 25 minutes where we really didn’t know just exactly what was going on. And there were some very tense moments as we were waiting for information.

The notion that Obama “saw the terror chief shot in the left eye” live on video is a total fabrication.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This is quickly becoming a conflict similar to the British/IRA conflict where each side competes for a bigger "trophies" wanting vendetta from each other completely losing sight of original intentions. Neither side is going to be "Victorious" against the other and body bags are going to mount up in the name of "Collateral damage" on both sides.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I hear Chloe O'Brien was key to the success of this strike.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Then you have not been listening. Moore will be live on CSpan tomorrow. I can guarantee he will have a lot of sharp criticism to level at President Obama. It's a problem that you can't report on very much with any degree of honesty or integrity.

I have been listening to him and it's more of the usual macaroni-eating diatribe that Moore is so infamous for. Let him criticize Obama all he wants, on this, Obama gets my praise! Another notch for him.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

No you don't, since liberals are not scared to have their own voice and their opinions would vary.

Yes, I do, 99% of the time, it's the same typical rhetoric and protesting and ad hominem attacks that liberals are so famous for.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Yes, I do, 99% of the time

Okay. Post the liberal link calling us to rally around the president for this action. Or is that the 1 percent of the time you are wrong?

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Mr President You made a Big mistake...

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Madverts is now a conservative. NICE! hehehe

Never Submit: Tomorrow, it will be a citizen on American soil. Soon, trials will be done away if anyone is suspected of terrorism (and idiots don't know what the word "suspected" means you know.). And the idiots will cheer and declare trials inconvenient and expensive anyway. And they will think the president, pentagon and CIA incapable of using this extra-judicial power for ill, right up until their neighbors get predator droned to death for being a whistle blower.

Well it's not really fair to tell everyone else that we should be making policy based off of irrational fears that happen only in your imagination. Remember that we are a group of people who cry bloody murder when someone asks us to take our shoes off at the airport. I don't think we'll be throwing away the trial system anytime soon.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sorry, the above comment should have been attributed to Mr. Bill.

NeverSubmit: Don't forget that the British deemed the American founding fathers to be terrorists.

OK, it's been logged in my notebook.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

yabits: "... the things that Bush did: launching an invasion of another nation under false pretenses"

Undeniable fact: if yabits had his way, Saddam Hussein and his sons and Chemical Ali would most likely STILL be running Iraq.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Undeniable fact: if yabits had his way, Saddam Hussein and his sons and Chemical Ali would most likely STILL be running Iraq.

Oh, you mean like Mubarak and his sons are still running Egypt, the way Ben Ali and his cronies are still running Tunisia, the way Khadafy and his sons are still running Libya, etc., etc.

Undeniable fact: If yabits had his way, thousands upon thousands of American service-people would be alive and getting ready to enjoy the autumn and upcoming holidays with their families. Many thousands more would not have horrible injuries that will need decades of care. Well over two trillion would have not been thrown down a rat-hole.

Undeniable fact: Serrano actually thinks Saddam Hussein and his sons, and Chemical Ali were actually worth all that sacrifice. The United States must have done some awfully bad things to deserve insanely self-destructive imbeciles like that in positions of leadership.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Bill,

I wasn't comparing hitler to this man. I simply asked the hypothetical question had we managed to kill him in '43, would you be up in arms about hitler's due process and would it have ended the war instantly?

Obviously it's rhetorical, but your refusal to accept that it's more than likely the war would have been over within weeks, possible even days by such a strike is telling. The war would have ended in weeks, if not days.

The comparison therefore, is that such a strike can save lives. The individual who is the star of this thread openly praised suicide bombers, had contact with them, encouraged them. He ran a modern media terror campaign from what he thought was the impunity of a lawless tribal region of the Yemen.

Those are crocodile tears ye shedeth. The world is better off without such scum and this was the only feasible way to assure a positive outcome.

Heh, and anyway me being a conservative redneck from Texas and all means that even if you don't agree with me, you be sidin' with the terrorists :)

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Oldest, Registered Lieberbud,

Another PR failure for the dems I concur, a defining moment that could have been perfect propoganda and Team Obama failed to take advantage.

If only McCain were president. We'd have had images of the old man in a flight suit in the compound with his foot on bin Laden's lifeless corpse. Heh, maybe even a banner proclaiming somehow the accomplishment, for extra effect...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Joking aside, for us moderates at least it's highly amusing to watch the reactions from each end of JT's radical spectrum, and the conundrum a story like this or Binny's raid poses to these people.

The far left are utterly disgusted that Obama sent a unicorn to slay a terrorist in foreign lands (the outrage!!) And the frothy right are totally flabergasted because they have to accept it was another good call in the fight against these crazies, heh, only most of them haven't!

4 ( +4 / -0 )

The comparison therefore, is that such a strike can save lives. The individual who is the star of this thread openly praised suicide bombers, had contact with them, encouraged them. He ran a modern media terror campaign from what he thought was the impunity of a lawless tribal region of the Yemen.

Those are crocodile tears ye shedeth. The world is better off without such scum and this was the only feasible way to assure a positive outcome.

Heh, and anyway me being a conservative redneck from Texas and all means that even if you don't agree with me, you be sidin' with the terrorists :)

Excellent point. Now try explaining that to yabits. He would argue that you are a cold and barbaric person without a shred of humanity and decency for thinking like that. Although Awalki was a monster and maniac terrorist, he deserved a fair trail.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

wasn't comparing hitler to this man. I simply asked the hypothetical question had we managed to kill him in '43, would you be up in arms about hitler's due process and would it have ended the war instantly?

Which would be even less intelligent to ask. War was declared, officially, not poeticaly, so no, no one on our side would have complained. And he was not a U.S. citizen. And no, the war most likely would have gone on longer as more competent people took control. Or maybe been a bit shorter. But ended instantly or in weeks in 43? What the heck gives you that idea? Hitler was just one man. He did not go around smacking people to make them fight. The majority were in the war without a bayonet at their backs.

But back to today, did you notice that killing bin Laden did not finish al-Quada? Neither will killing this guy. Neither will killing the next guy. Yet, al-Quaida has not managed to pull off a signifcant attack on Americans for years even before bin Laden was killed. I am not worried about al-Quaida much. Even though their ranks have grown, they are mostly chumps now. Most of the capable guys died on Sept. 11, 2001 and they are not coming back.

I am more worried about having a car accident. Heck, I am more worried about getting hit by lightning!

You are just another fine example of paranoia. You willingly give up freedom to have security but you won't have either.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Now try explaining that to yabits. He would argue that you are a cold and barbaric person without a shred of humanity and decency for thinking like that. Although Awalki was a monster and maniac terrorist, he deserved a fair trail.

Awlaki tended to divide the world into the righteous and the "scum." He believed that the scum should be wiped off without a trace of humanity or due process.

That my values differ from those of Awlaki and bass4funk does not bother me in the least. On the contrary.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

This is a key reason why you football team/ cheerleading squad types can't understand the academics, because you keep making this about alliegience to people rather than principles.

Actually, conservatives are making the point that it is the media and the Democrat party that are making this about allegiance rather than principles. President Obama has continued most of former President Bush's terrorists policies and instead of the media continuing to blast the policies that Bush/Obama have pursued for the past 10 years, there is either little criticism or silence. Democrats and the media have clearly been biting their tongue's and bending on principles to support Obama regardless of his continuation of Bush Guantanamo detention policy and the stepped up drone offensive.

Remember when Guantanamo was such a big deal? Well, it's still around and no one talks about Obama's failure to close it down. There are rarely any stories about the treatment of prisoners and no more fake stories like the supposed desecration of the Koran. By approving the drone kills, Obama has officially endorsed Bush's anti-terror policy and has one upped him by killing two American citizens to boot. How can anyone criticize water-boarding and stay silent about an execution? Well for Democrats, it is apparently rather easy for to put aside their principles in order to 'stand by their man'. That is what they teach in the ivory towers of Berkley? It is Norm Chomskys' pursuit of political ends by any means necessary.

Make no mistake, conservatives approve of President Obama's killing of Bin Laden, Al-Awkaki, and Khan. They are sworn enemies of America and have facilitated the murder of thousands of Americans and countless Muslims. Just don't try pulling that moral superiority act anymore due to the desire for civilian trials and shutting down Gitmo, etc. No one is buying that line anymore.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

President Obama has continued most of former President Bush's terrorists policies

Some of them, yes. He hasn't resorted to torture or launching a total invasion of another country on false pretenses.

Make no mistake, conservatives approve of President Obama's killing of Bin Laden, Al-Awkaki, and Khan.

Mainly because the conservatives will use it as justification for setting the bar even lower the next time one of them is in power. Obama personally is a decent man who is doing some very bad things. What happens when a morally bankrupt individual gains the power?

Who does the president answer to for assassinations? As an American citizen, Khan at least was guaranteed by the constitution that his life could not be taken away without due process. I am supposing that the so-called conservatives want to ignore the constitution for matters of expediency when it suits their purposes.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Some of them, yes. He hasn't resorted to torture or launching a total invasion of another country on false pretenses.

Well, yes. The Obama admin. are against Gitmo and any form of enhanced interrogations. So they would just rather blow them up by using unmanned drones. Yes, it would be nice perhaps if Obama "could" arrest some of these guys, but that will never happen, so the other alternative is to shoot them, which is fine by mean. This is the second time, Obama tapped into his inner Bush and did the right thing by eliminating this scum.

Mainly because the conservatives will use it as justification for setting the bar even lower the next time one of them is in power. Obama personally is a decent man who is doing some very bad things. What happens when a morally bankrupt individual gains the power?

Obama is a decent man, I think so and I don't think anyone, even the conservatives dislike him as a person. But as for his policies...they are horrible, but on this one, thumbs up! Conservatives set the bar high for this President because on almost every other issue, he didn't do anything, but I don't want to go off topic. Let's just stay with the issue of Awalaki.

Khan at least was guaranteed by the constitution that his life could not be taken away without due process. I am supposing that the so-called conservatives want to ignore the constitution for matters of expediency when it suits their purposes.

They aren't ignoring anything. Awlaki was of an even greater threat and importance to kill him, since he issued a fatwa against ALL Americans and asked other radical muslims residing in the U.S. to rise up and support his crazy radical calls. You really think in a hostile situation, the police, FBI, etc. will really make the effort in apprehending a crazy psycho. They have every right to take lethal action if the individual wants to take that route. If the guy on American soil can give himself up without incident, sure, arrest him and file charges, but most of these guys will never do that, they would rather become a martyr, if so, then they should go out with a serious bang if they don't comply. Especially, when it's a homegrown terrorist, they no better, so NO sympathy here.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Alwaki was vaporised. The world is better off for it.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Bill,

Having a car accident ot being struck by lightening are freak occurences.

Terrorist attacks are deliberately plotted acts of un-speakablness, usually directed towards killing as many innocent people as possible as it get's the bastards more ink. Scream, shout and insult my intelligence as you see fit, but what I just described above are the people you are defending.

Since you can't prove one single other civil instance of due process being ignored and execution carried out, nor can you even be honest enough to concur that my point about hitler, and that killing certain individuals in very precise circumstances can be justified to save lives, then your supporting a terrorist in my opinion.

Sing Kumbya all you like. He's dead, and he deserved it.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Oh, and Bill - if you think the death of Binny and the death of alawaki aren't a massive blow to the ideology of al-Qaida, of which I concur is nothing but an ideology, then you're on another plane of reality to the rest of us.

Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide baby. Heh, poetic justice that these calls have been Obama's I might add. It's really giving all the radicals a head-fart...

2 ( +3 / -1 )

They aren't ignoring anything. Awlaki was of an even greater threat and importance to kill him, since he issued a fatwa against ALL Americans and asked other radical muslims residing in the U.S. to rise up and support his crazy radical calls....This is the second time, Obama tapped into his inner Bush...

Bush was responsible for the deaths of many thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

I believe there is a far greater threat to the United States that comes in our government's reaction to the relatively petty "terrorism" of Americans like Awlaki and Khan. Ever heard the piece of wisdom that warns: The road to hell is paved with good intentions?

So, a US government can decide who is saying something that it doesn't like and then just wipe them out? An American president is answerable to whom for these targeted assassinations?

As for an alternative: the United States could work with the government forces of Yemen to attempt to apprehend those engaged in criminal behavior.

You really think in a hostile situation, the police, FBI, etc. will really make the effort in apprehending a crazy psycho.

It matters what the police forces consider to be a "hostile situation." Some ragtag individual in a cave somewhere is hardly a hostile situation. Terribly inconvenient, yes -- but hardly hostile. So, the government can just call it hostile and then start blowing people away? You really feel totally comfortable with a government taking on that kind of power for itself? So the constitution doesn't mean anything when the government that is supposed to be upholding it declares a situation to be hostile -- so long as the people they are assassinating are deemed (by them) to be "crazy," "psychos", or anything you want to put there.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Yabits: So, the government can just call it hostile and then start blowing people away? You really feel totally comfortable with a government taking on that kind of power for itself?

That's probably the point of all of the discussions here. Some people are obviously petrified of the government and their minds wander to absurd situations as if this is just the beginning to their worst nightmare. I'm sorry, but people just don't have the same level of fear that you do and as a result your fantasy scenarios just aren't touching any nerves, excepts the ones that tell us we're hearing something utterly silly. You're afraid. We get it.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Having a car accident ot being struck by lightening are freak occurences.

Does not make me any less worried about them. I am also more worried about getting shot by one of my fellow gun-toting citizens. And all of that makes running to a foreign country to execute a blabber mouth all the more ridiculous. More important things could be done without using the Constitution like toilet paper.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

" More important things could be done without using the Constitution like toilet paper."

That's just plain ridiculous.

Protecting Americans is the aim of the game here, not trampling on their rights. If anything, the snide position is your own, which are nothing but crocodile tears for an individual that was open in his calls for Jihad. Even had a smooth, modern way of getting his message accross in fluent English. You're defending the rights of the anus of humanity.

Give it up.

The scum of the earth that are terrorists gave up their rights as a human beings when they became of that mindset. Amend the constitution especially for them, cause this won't be the last surgical strike.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Some people are obviously petrified of the government and their minds wander to absurd situations as if this is just the beginning to their worst nightmare

Some people obviously don't accept history's constant replay that power corrupts. They seemingly believe they are so superior to everyone else that they (or their leaders) can handle it.

You're afraid. We get it.

I seriously doubt it. Some people far too craven to get much of anything.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

The scum of the earth that are terrorists gave up their rights as a human beings when they became of that mindset.

Terrorists as defined by who? It certainly can't be defined by actions, since we know of nations that had nothing to do with the speck of a terror network known as Al Qaeda whose civilian populations were subject to the "shock and awe" of massive casualties and the complete uprooting of their lives as refugees. Things that must have been genuine, direct terror to millions of people in that country -- as opposed to the vicarious experience of watching an isolated event on TV.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Yabits,

If the US government ever did abuse this kind activity, all the intelligent people here in agreement with a rare, surgical strike on a terrorist, comfortably holed-up in a failed state...

We'd be the first to protest.

As to your post directed to me, tell me you're not really going to try the argument that this man wasn't a terrorist?

Yabits?

Even bill and neversubmit backed away from that cliff-edge faster than a lemming with vertigo.

Heh, but since we're there now, what is it that defines a terrorist for you?

And what or why in regards to Alwaki makes you think he shouldn't be defined as terrorist?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Madverts,

If the US government ever did abuse this kind activity,

Who or what determines that abuse has occurred? The animals in Orwell's Animal Farm had to go take a look at the side of the barn where the principles were written down (and "modified" later). We have to look to our Constitution -- which says that a person's life can't be taken away by a government except through due process. That document was written during very dangerous times when the young country was surrounded by hostile enemies. We were warned by at least one of the founders that those who would sacrifice essential liberties of themselves and others in the cause of security deserved neither liberty nor security.

Please understand this in a context where "intelligent people" are witnessing crowds of people cheering for executions, the shouts of "Yeah! [let him die]" for a young person who gets a serious medical condition who doesn't have insurance. And on, and on....

tell me you're not really going to try the argument that this man wasn't a terrorist?

If I have to judge people by their words and actions, it looks an awful lot to me like terrorists going after other terrorists -- with the two sides feeding off of each other.

but since we're there now, what is it that defines a terrorist for you?

Any entity that resorts to violence that harms bystanders in order to accomplish an objective. A mere threat of violence may or may not meet that standard.

And what or why in regards to Alwaki makes you think he shouldn't be defined as terrorist?

Only an attempt at justice through due process can achieve that end. The act of violent preemption or retribution which is carried out absent of due process labels whoever commits it as, at a minimum, a criminal -- if not a terrorist in their own right. The only people who can rightfully name others as terrorists are those who have forsworn terrorism in all of its forms themselves.

Otherwise, it is extremely likely that the self-righteous who are doing the labeling are nothing more or less than essential contributors to a cycle that makes the fringe elements like Alwaki a direct consequence.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Mr. Bill: Of course I could bring up Waco Texas and Ruby Ridge, or even Sherrif Judd Grady and his corpse with 68 bullet holes, but that would just lead to a haggling over details. I suppose I could also bring up a slew of suspicious deaths, but of course you would just deny U.S. government involvement, citing the lack of a paper trail, even though we both know allegations would be enough for you if it were any body else, just as allegations are good enough for you to support extra-judicial murder by remote control in this instance.

I doubt madverts, or anyone for that matter, would doubt your obsession with the issue. It sounds like you've spent quite a bit of time researching and surrounding yourself with this point of view, probably to the point where you've lost all context.

Yabits: We have to look to our Constitution -- which says that a person's life can't be taken away by a government except through due process.

And the government also has a military and police powers that give it the authority to use what's called deadly force in certain circumstances. The problem isn't that we're refusing to accept the Constitution, the problem is that you're pretending it's the only thing that exists.

Yabits: ...a cycle that makes the fringe elements like Alwaki a direct consequence.

Fringe elements like Alwaki are a direct consequence of fringe elements like Alwaki. His job was to recruit men to engage in jihad. People are targeted and trained. They have such people because becoming a terrorist isn't just some kind of natural reaction to foreign policy, no matter how much you want it to be.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Bush was responsible for the deaths of many thousands of Americans, and tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And now, so is Obama, once he took office and is still the CIC and still people are dying.

I believe there is a far greater threat to the United States that comes in our government's reaction to the relatively petty "terrorism" of Americans like Awlaki and Khan. Ever heard the piece of wisdom that warns: The road to hell is paved with good intentions?

This is why Obama often in private consulted Bush about these matters and how to best liquidate these enemy combatants without looking like a so called "doing so discreetly without teeing off his liberal base too much. Because people like you see people like Awlaki as "relatively petty."

As for an alternative: the United States could work with the government forces of Yemen to attempt to apprehend those engaged in criminal behavior.

The Obama admin. has done so. This is probably one of the reasons why they were able to get so close and nuke those bastards because of the credible intel they got from the Yemen govt.

It matters what the police forces consider to be a "hostile situation." Some ragtag individual in a cave somewhere is hardly a hostile situation. Terribly inconvenient, yes -- but hardly hostile. So, the government can just call it hostile and then start blowing people away?

In a nutshell, YES!

You really feel totally comfortable with a government taking on that kind of power for itself? So the constitution doesn't mean anything when the government that is supposed to be upholding it declares a situation to be hostile -- so long as the people they are assassinating are deemed (by them) to be "crazy," "psychos", or anything you want to put there.

Has NOTHING to do with the constitution when it comes to the safety of the U.S. if the founding fathers were alive today knowing how crazy the our world has become, I am sure they would have quickly modified the constitution to fit with the chaotic times that we are living in now.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

And now, so is Obama, once he took office and is still the CIC and still people are dying.

Obama does bear responsibility for continuing many of the criminal policies instituted by his predecessor. No disagreement there.

Has NOTHING to do with the constitution when it comes to the safety of the U.S. if the founding fathers were alive today knowing how crazy the our world has become, I am sure they would have quickly modified the constitution to fit with the chaotic times that we are living in now.

LOL! That you seem so sure of yourself that the founders would have "quickly" rewrote the constitution to fit with the times sounds very psychotic to me. England was the world power at the time and they could do a lot more damage to the United States than Al Qaeda could ever dream of doing. After all, England could have waged the kind of war where the U.S. might have been forced to surrender. Al Qaeda could never muster the force to do that.

And still the founders didn't change it in light of the genuine peril that dwarfed what we face today. So what you are essentially saying is that today's U.S. political leaders should behave as if there was no constitution -- or at least not one worth respecting since we all can pretend it can be quickly changed to fit any circumstance. In that sense, an enemy like Al Qaeda was very effective in getting the United States to defeat itself from within by betraying its own beliefs and values.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

The problem isn't that we're refusing to accept the Constitution, the problem is that you're pretending it's the only thing that exists.

Quite a leap of faith there, based on the examples I cited. I don't mind the use of deadly force. I mind stacking the deck so you have to use deadly force, then declaring the authorities had no choice. But this is even worse.

In this case, there is not even a pretext of an attempt at apprehension, as we had with bin Laden. Nope. This is just outright execution. And not even saying that has not happened before. The difference is that this time its official and in writing. That means, done with impunity.

And as Yabits point out, it seems you and others think that power corrupts, but only non-Americans. You think our government can handle rolling back the Constitution and violating the separation of powers. Well, that is no different than the Russians who decided to forgo so many precautions at Chernobyl on the belief that their superior engineers were on the ball enough to prevent a meltdown. Hey, it worked for a time. And in that time you would be yelling "See!". Well give it time. Rome was neither built nor destroyed in a day.

It sounds like you've spent quite a bit of time researching and surrounding yourself with this point of view, probably to the point where you've lost all context.

Sounds like you are saying I know too much to have an opinion now. I am just going to call attention to the fact that this murder has sparked several articles here because of its illegal nature. The writers try to straddle the fence and act like its just controversial, but some of us know better. Its illegal, clearly. And the excuses for it are hubris and overwrought paranoia. To cite Yabits again, we have indeed faced worse than al-Quaida. So are we buckling and caving in on our principles now? Weakness is why, and that weakness is certainly not my property.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Even bill and neversubmit backed away from that

Not me. I completely agree with Yabits. I cannot say if these two were or they weren't. Its undetermined. Its the role of the judicial system to make the determination by process of trial. Seriously, on this and some other points, your reading comprehension seems to be too low to be having this discussion. (there is your ad-hominem, but is bore out by evidence.).

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

The difference is that this time its official and in writing. That means, done with impunity.

Back in the 1970s, in the post-Vietnam period for weeping, wailing and recrimination, the government convened the Church Commission (after Idaho Democratic senator Frank Church), to look into the "misdeeds" of the CIA and special forces, especially w/regards to assassinations in both hemispheres.

The act of assassinating people, including fellow Americans, without due process, has a rather long history in the United States. There is an interesting policy statement from 1954, during the McCarthy-Cold War days, that was only made public in the 1990s. To wit: "It is now clear that we are facing an implacable enemy whose avowed objective is world domination.... There are no rules in such a game. Hitherto accepted norms of human conduct do not apply.... If the United States is to survive, long-standing American concepts of fair play must be reconsidered.... We must learn to subvert, sabotage and destroy our enemies by more clever, sophisticated, more effective methods than those used against us." (Doolittle Report)

In other words, we (Americans) must become more like the enemies we claim to despise and pretend we are so superior to. Therefore, much like the communist governments we professed to be so different from, the American system of government became based upon a Big Lie. Every time a government official takes an oath to uphold the Constitution, it's a lie. In the new "game," there are "no rules" and certainly no Constitution.

In the new American approach to principles, some people are absolutely sure the founding fathers would be here approving the making up of rules as we go along. Torture, preemptive war, eavesdropping, assassinations -- ALL would be A-OK with the founders. America is kind of like the alcoholic -- although our addiction is to violence -- who hasn't hit bottom yet.

Like Mr. Bill aptly puts it: We are now able to carry out invasions of other nations on false pretenses and indiscriminate assassinations with impunity.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Obama lets missions like this go thru because, as one can see,it allows for all kinds of gratuitous indictments of America. Clever.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Make sure you're not late filing your taxes, otherwise you might find a global hawk hovering above your house

Please be careful here,comrade.Wingers will turn the argument against you: "One more reason to abolish income tax."

You probably know the type...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

T o counter the call to completely abrogate "long-held standards" of morality, justice and fair play, a great American had this to say:

"We still have a choice today: nonviolent coexistence, or violent co-annihilation. We must move past indecision to action. If we do not act, we shall surely be dragged down the long, dark, and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight."

Martin Luther King Jr. delivered 4 April 1967, Riverside Church, New York City

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Like Mr. Bill aptly puts it: We are now able to carry out invasions of other nations on false pretenses and indiscriminate assassinations with impunity.

Actually I think you just build that sentence on the foundation I laid, and did a very good job of it too.

In the new American approach to principles, some people are absolutely sure the founding fathers would be here approving the making up of rules as we go along.

I doubt some of these people know anything of the AFF beyond what is printed on our currency. Unfortunately, I think some of them might have approved, but certainly not the best of them. Hamilton might have gone for it, heck, even Washington maybe. But not Franklin, Jefferson, John Adams, John Jay or John Marshall.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Bill,

"It is undertermined"?

This individual openly threw his fundie love spuds on the WOT barbecue. Your attempts at claiming there is any reasonable doubt in terms of his sermons, or his actions in inciting terrorism woulld be laughable, if not pathetic.

Heh, and despite you quote, you still aren't far gone enough to man up to your sly suppsositions that there should be an allowance for presumption of innocence.

Hug the terrorists all you want, the point is moot. And the message is sent.

Nowhere to run baby. Nowhere to hide.

Boom

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Hug the terrorists all you want, the point is moot. And the message is sent. Nowhere to run baby. Nowhere to hide.

And when the violence is taken anywhere the U.S. wants to take it, and innocent people are killed as a result, it is the U.S. that becomes the terrorists, thereby justifying retaliatory measures under the very terms it has laid out.

This is the game that has been being played out for many decades now. 9/11 was just a part of that cycle.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Dramatic Yabits. I could almost hear the drum roll.

Only were there scores of innocents killed here? one even? Oh. And when they shot bin Laden? Hum?

No one was more vocal against the stupidity in Iraq than I. This affirmative action is taking the violence directly to within spitting distance of those that think they can conduct their terror fantasies from the safety of laweless states. Or thought.

This kind of strategy, well quite frankly, Bring It On.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yabits: This is the game that has been being played out for many decades now. 9/11 was just a part of that cycle.

Given your extensive work with the military and the CIA for decades, perhaps you can share with us some of your feelings on being part of the machine that created Islamic terrorism?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Dramatic Yabits. I could almost hear the drum roll.

Actually, Madverts, I thought the "boom" after your "Nowhere to hide" provided that.

Only were there scores of innocents killed here? one even?

In the Yemen operation? Who can say if there wasn't any collateral damage? Have such operations killed innocent people already? Definitely. The military personnel involved have discretion as when the number of potential "civilians" is too great to make a strike. That just means that if there's not enough of them around, some of them are surely going down.

No one was more vocal against the stupidity in Iraq than I.

It goes beyond stupid to being a criminal act. The U.S. and its allies executed a number of Germans after WWII for having acted in the same manner. The worst crime, according to the prosecutors, was launching a wholesale invasion of another country under pretenses that were not justifiable.

I understand that, from a military basis, the United States feels it can conduct its own form of terror operations around the world with relative impunity -- the events of 9/11 being an inconvenient exception and example of blowback -- but I do not see any moral basis for it as it regards the various options available for responding to a criminal organization.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

In the Yemen operation? Who can say if there wasn't any collateral damage? Have such operations killed innocent people already? Definitely. The military personnel involved have discretion as when the number of potential "civilians" is too great to make a strike. That just means that if there's not enough of them around, some of them are surely going down.

Of course, the military tries to take great care to minimize collateral damage, but in war, people will get killed, bad and good, that is just part of it and the harsh reality and since as I said earlier, the Obama admin. wants to show the world that they are NOT Bush, instead of re-opening up Gitmo and keeping terrorists there (provided they can catch them) and schlepping them back to the U.S. to stand trail, it's much easier to send a drone and nuke them. And from the way it looks, your President is not going to change that policy any time soon. Again, if they can apprehend these monsters and bring them back that's one thing, but for Obama, I guess your President finds it much easier to stay the course and instead of putting boots on the ground, they will jut keep using those drones, which I personally, have no problem with.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Of course, the military tries to take great care to minimize collateral damage

A good percentage of the time perhaps. But the record has not been all that clean as far as the United States is concerned. And it certainly comes nowhere near to as clean as many Americans like to believe.

but in war, people will get killed,

There are a lot of people living in villages in Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and other countries -- and whose families have lived there for many generations -- who don't have any comprehension of this "war," and have never done anything to deserve it having rained down on them from the skies.

And from the way it looks, your President ... but for Obama, I guess your President

You must not be a real American. The American people, working through our constitutional processes, elected Barack Obama. A genuine American would have said our president. Just as Bush was our president, and Clinton before him.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Its all good. Declare war on a country, this is what you get. We have trials once war is over to convict war criminals. This cleric is a soldier in the war that al quida declared on us. If they want a trial, sue for piece and be tried.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

A good percentage of the time perhaps. But the record has not been all that clean as far as the United States is concerned. And it certainly comes nowhere near to as clean as many Americans like to believe.

No one is stating that. They know that, but it's war, not going to change, even if you whine about it.

There are a lot of people living in villages in Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and other countries -- and whose families have lived there for many generations -- who don't have any comprehension of this "war," and have never done anything to deserve it having rained down on them from the skies.

Of course, they don't deserve that. Again, no one is dismissing your point, they know these people and how they live and how their lives have been disrupted by war, but again, don't blame the U.S. blame the terrorists that are often hiding in these villages and often extorting these people in many ways to achieve their whacky Jihad agenda. Where is your outrage about that? Why are you NOT condemning the Taliban or al Quida?

You must not be a real American. The American people, working through our constitutional processes, elected Barack Obama. A genuine American would have said our president. Just as Bush was our president, and Clinton before him.

Born and raised in L.A. can't get more American than that. This President is the worst IMHO and yes, he is the President of the U.S. but not mine (in my heart). I never voted for him and I don't like his polices, they are ruining the country and it's a real shame. As a man, I am sure he is nice and I wouldn't object to meeting him, but Americans the vast majority are NOT HAPPY, bottom line and no matter how many Awlaki's he kills, (which was a great thing) it won't change the fact that the country is headed in the wrong direction.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

they know these people and how they live and how their lives have been disrupted by war, but again, don't blame the U.S. blame the terrorists that are often hiding in these villages and often extorting these people in many ways to achieve their whacky Jihad agenda. Where is your outrage about that? Why are you NOT condemning the Taliban or al Quida?

The jihadists often integrate themselves -- to various degrees -- into the tribes through the giving of gifts and through marriage. They share a common religion and at least one language in common. It makes no sense to get outraged about that.

Since it is a value of Islam, and a custom of many of the tribes, to protect those "brother" Muslims who come seeking refuge, I think it would be fairly difficult to get the villagers to hate the jihadists under attack, and more likely that they will see the jihadists' point about the evil of the attackers.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Way too many comments here, wish the moderator has some kind of control, and just too long many of these comments, sorry guys, rant, rant, rant, this punk terrorist is dead. YEAH!! Good job Mr.President Obama!!! Not like that idiot ex prez from hillbilly Texas that just got us into 2 wars with no ends in sight.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

President Obama has continued most of former President Bush's terrorists policies

Some of them, yes. He hasn't resorted to torture or launching a total invasion of another country on false pretenses.

@yabits: You are right, Obama doesn't torture terrorists - he just kills them. It's the Chicago way.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites