http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879

9/30/2011 12:26:07 PM

good, he was annoying.

9/30/2011 12:27:11 PM

One day, you will be annoying.

"...Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt... From an authoritarian perspective, that's the genius of America's political culture. It not only finds way to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process). It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards. "

9/30/2011 12:29:36 PM

im a different kind of annoying.

he was dangerous annoying.

9/30/2011 12:30:31 PM

Our president is a murderer, killing his subjects at will. Is he dangerous?

Am I dangerous for saying this?

theDuke locked my thread when Obama issued the order to kill al-awlaki. Apparently he thinks this knowledge is dangerous.

[Edited on September 30, 2011 at 12:34 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2011 12:31:39 PM

So you doubt his role as a terrorist and committing treason against the U.S.? And it is wrong to kill one acting as a foreign combatant against the U.S.?

I thought all of this had been documented fairly well.

[Edited on September 30, 2011 at 12:33 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2011 12:33:22 PM

You thought incorrectly. The burden of proof is upon you. Please post evidence(other than from a government press release) of al-awlaki's participation in violence.

Please demonstrate that he has joined an organized army.

Please tell me, if someone joins a domestic militia here on U.S. soil, do they lose their right to trial?

9/30/2011 12:36:37 PM

Yes, a U.S. citizen ........ who renounced his citizenship, declared war on the U.S., published sermons online advocating violence against the U.S., coordinated, planned, and carried out attacks against U.S. citizens. Yep, sounds like a regular ole' Joe American to me. Poor guy.

9/30/2011 12:36:54 PM

Please post proof of all those statements.

9/30/2011 12:39:33 PM

^^^well, other than ^^....

and of course if you join a militia you don't automatically lose your right to a trial. However, when you join a militia and do ^^ and are an active part of a foreign force determined to wage war on the U.S., then yes, yes you do. Kind of like any other EKIA.

^where is your proof that he was a fine, upstanding citizen? it's been well documented what this guy did and it's all over any media source. and if you all of a sudden want to throw out any gov't document, then you'll never have much proof in nearly all cases.

[Edited on September 30, 2011 at 12:41 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2011 12:39:46 PM

^^

http://tinyurl.com/67tuxp6

9/30/2011 12:42:19 PM

I find no evidence other than government sources, which are not trustworthy.

It appears he was a just a preacher. America is not afraid of words, are they? Are words worth the death sentence without trial?

[Edited on September 30, 2011 at 12:46 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2011 12:45:39 PM

Isn't targeted assassination still considered an international crime?

9/30/2011 12:46:53 PM

lol

"PROVIDE SOURCES"

::disregards any sources provided::

9/30/2011 12:48:43 PM

Provide a source other than the executioner, or the media who's only source is what the executioner tells it. It's not that hard.

It does indeed violate international law, but the U.S. and Israel have ignored international law for years now.

9/30/2011 12:52:35 PM

Quote :

"theDuke locked my thread when Obama issued the order to kill al-awlaki. Apparently he thinks this knowledge is dangerous."

I'm sure there was something else obscenely stupid about it.

9/30/2011 12:54:48 PM

Quote :

"Apparently he thinks this knowledge is dangerous."

you arent important or smart enough to use this statement.

9/30/2011 12:56:58 PM

9/30/2011 1:00:46 PM

Quote :

"It does indeed violate international law, but the U.S. and Israel have ignored international law for years now."

hahaha, international law. fuck your world government.

9/30/2011 2:00:30 PM

Our government doesn't give a shit about U.S. law, much less international law.

9/30/2011 2:01:22 PM

providing aid and comfort to the enemy? yep
involved in attempts to take innocent American lives? yep
involved in taking hostile action against US forces? yep.

Seems to me that this mofo got what he asked for.

9/30/2011 2:25:21 PM

International law? We own the UN so tell me another one.


God what a troll

9/30/2011 2:33:42 PM

9/30/2011 2:42:09 PM

Reading some of his preachings, did he not get what he asked for, Martyrdom?

9/30/2011 3:27:11 PM

smc seems pretty annoying imo

9/30/2011 3:40:43 PM

Quote :

"Yes, a U.S. citizen ........ who renounced his citizenship, declared war on the U.S., published sermons online advocating violence against the U.S., coordinated, planned, and carried out attacks against U.S. citizens. Yep, sounds like a regular ole' Joe American to me. Poor guy."

bitch still deserves a trial. when the government can completely remove that basic right and kill you at will, its a bad day. it's a bad fucking day.

9/30/2011 3:41:18 PM

Ron Paul agrees...Obama committed murder:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLERIC_KILLED_RON_PAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-30-10-34-45

9/30/2011 3:46:22 PM

^^no and no.

9/30/2011 3:55:00 PM

Ok, let's make this simple. Let's say I, a Canadian born US citizen with Egyptian parents, moved back to Egypt. I decide to start posting Youtube videos were I renounce my claim to US citizenship and encourage violence against other US citizens. I plan attacks on US citizens. I actually help coordinate and execute attacks which kill US citizens. I throw my hat in with known terrorist organizations. I hang out in the desert with other known foreign terrorists. I don't deny any of this. Guess what? I'll expect that one of these days, a bomb or missile with "Made in the USA" is going to turn my camp site into a crater.

It's called personal responsibility. Actually, we made it pretty common knowledge that we were after this guys head, and actually tried to kill him once before. If he actually wanted a fair trial or felt he was innocent (lol), he should have shown up to the nearest US embassy with his hands over his head. Instead, he continued on with all the aforementioned activities. This guy knew what he was doing and most likely even knew it was coming. It's like complaining about a bank robber getting gunned down by the police, after the robber shoots up a bank, kills a couple officers, and then goes running down the street rifle in hand.

9/30/2011 4:05:39 PM

Quote :

"Am I dangerous for saying this?"

Yes and I am on the horn to the President right now to have a nuclear warhead delivered to your location in an explosive form. Your stupid is contagious and needs to be eliminated withing a 40 mile radius.

9/30/2011 4:16:57 PM

^^ It's not logical to turn yourself in to authorities that will torture you.

^Awwww, I love you too baby.

9/30/2011 4:37:38 PM

Quote :

"Please post evidence(other than from a government press release)"

This standard for evidence is absurd. If we'd captured him and given him a trial, who do you think would have prosecuted him? That's right, the same entity that always prosecutes -- the government.

Quote :

"Please demonstrate that he has joined an organized army."

This is an interesting route to take. Certainly if he were part of an organized army, we could blow him up. But if he's not part of such a group as defined in the Geneva Conventions, then the rules put forward in that agreement do not apply to him. Unless something's changed, summary execution of spies and francs-tireurs is technically permitted by international agreement. If you're part of an organized group with a defined hierarchy that openly carries arms and wears a symbol recognizable at a distance, then you are a lawful combatant. If you carry out combat/terrorist/violent actions without meeting those qualifications, you are unlawful.

Quote :

"Isn't targeted assassination still considered an international crime?"

I don't believe so, but I could be wrong. If such a rule does exist, nobody pays it much mind. In this country it was prohibited (and then later put back on the table) by executive order of the President.

There's also a dispute about the difference between "assassination" and "targeted killing." The former is considered illegal because it denotes killing someone because you don't like their politics; the latter is considered legal as a mode of self-defense.

9/30/2011 4:39:00 PM

so when is obama getting impeached?

9/30/2011 4:50:03 PM

It's a double murder of U.S. citizens now.

9/30/2011 6:39:53 PM

Quote :

"Ok, let's make this simple. Let's say I, a Canadian born US citizen with Egyptian parents, moved back to Egypt. I decide to start posting Youtube videos were I renounce my claim to US citizenship and encourage violence against other US citizens. I plan attacks on US citizens. I actually help coordinate and execute attacks which kill US citizens. I throw my hat in with known terrorist organizations. I hang out in the desert with other known foreign terrorists. I don't deny any of this. Guess what? I'll expect that one of these days, a bomb or missile with "Made in the USA" is going to turn my camp site into a crater. It's called personal responsibility. Actually, we made it pretty common knowledge that we were after this guys head, and actually tried to kill him once before. If he actually wanted a fair trial or felt he was innocent (lol), he should have shown up to the nearest US embassy with his hands over his head. Instead, he continued on with all the aforementioned activities. This guy knew what he was doing and most likely even knew it was coming. It's like complaining about a bank robber getting gunned down by the police, after the robber shoots up a bank, kills a couple officers, and then goes running down the street rifle in hand."

that's all fine and dandy. but at the moment you give any President or Congress the power to declare any given man a terrorist and order his execution, you also give any President or Congress the power to declare YOU a terrorist. And they can do it without a trial, without any ability on your part to defend yourself. If you like shit like that, then by all means, move to China, move to North Korea. Move to a place where the leader of the country has the unmitigated power to murder his country's citizens at will. Move the fuck there.

This guy was a scumbag, there's no doubt about that. But he was an American citizen, and no one can argue that an American citizen is not subject to American law and doesn't have the rights associated with that citizenship. Drop a SEAL team in and capture that bastard. if you can drop a missile, you can drop in a SEAL team.

Quote :

"If you carry out combat/terrorist/violent actions without meeting those qualifications, you are unlawful."

and that requires a god damned court of law to determine, not a fucking president's whim. there is literally ZERO check on a president deciding that. we saw the same kind of decisions made in the 50s and 60s with the Communist witch hunts, so you'll forgive me if I am extremely hesitant to give such power to elected officials.

9/30/2011 6:42:40 PM

Let's just say I'm in no hurry to take a vacation abroad any time soon. Besides the usual hassle(they will seize laptops and interrogate you at border crossings or just plain deny you reentry), they now have the power to shoot you in the back of the head as soon as you leave U.S. soil.

9/30/2011 7:02:21 PM

what I can't fucking believe right now is that networks that pissed and moaned about pouring water over a guy's face are cheering the murder of an American citizen without a trial. i mean, holy shit, could they be any more nakedly partisan?

9/30/2011 7:17:40 PM

Quote :

"bitch still deserves a trial. when the government can completely remove that basic right and kill you at will, its a bad day. it's a bad fucking day."

This R serious post?

Quote :

" You can't treat terrorists or suspected terrorists as common criminals because they are NOT common. They are a different breed of criminal, one that the Constitution simply wasn't written to handle. I'm not saying that we should treat these people like dogs. Rather, I'm saying that we need to understand that this situation is legitimately and fundamentally different than bleeding hearts want to make it out to be. This isn't little Timmy stole some bread. This is these people want to KILL US IN ANY WAY POSSIBLE. It's fundamentally different, and we can't treat it the same way that we treat little Timmy. Like it or not, we have to come up with new rules for this situation, and I don't think that the liberal pansy bleeding heart methodolody is smart, nor do I think it will keep us safe, nor do I think it will help solve the problem. All it will do is the same thing it has done in the US: release terrible criminals back onto the streets who will simply go out and commit more heinous crimes. You might free one innocent, but you will pay with the lives of a hundred more as you release two or three guilty at the same time"

What’s different now burro? When it came to Bush and Gitmo, you were all about making “difficult choices” when dealing with terrorist, but now with it comes to Obama and this guy, the rule of law is above all else.

LOL

And you’re condemning the media for partisan hackery.

EL OH EL

9/30/2011 7:22:44 PM

we don't have rights or democracy. its all a hoax that will work as long as people continue to believe it. Believing this is the land of the free ran by a government for the people by the people with the right to life liberty and the persuit of happiness are all akin to believing in santa clause.

Anyone who still believes in these fairy tales are silly. Santa clause is actually more realistic.

9/30/2011 7:28:18 PM

^^Haha, busted.

Also, I'll note that I am, generally speaking, anti-torture, but fine with us smoking this motherfucker.

[Edited on September 30, 2011 at 7:29 PM. Reason : .]

9/30/2011 7:28:36 PM

There's nothing wrong with modifying your views over time for the purpose of improving the world.

9/30/2011 7:30:23 PM

actually, there's not a disconnect between those two. Nowhere in the second quote was I saying that terrorists shouldn't be given a trial. Nowhere. I still stand by much of what was said in that post, because I still find it applicable. But this guy was an American citizen, which removes all the shades of gray from the situation. He's an American citizen, there is no doubt that he has a right to a trial. People can make the case, effectively or not, that Osama didn't deserve a trial because he wasn't a US citizen, but Awlaki was a citizen, so that changes things. And, I'd even say that Osama deserved a trial, but I don't know that I would have made it purely a civilian trial. I don't know how that forum should have been for Osama or what it should be for those non-citizens that are still at large, but I don't think it's a civilian trial, as I do see something different for them.

Quote :

"When it came to Bush and Gitmo, you were all about making “difficult choices” when dealing with terrorist"

do you have a quote to back that up? my views have certainly changed some over time, but I don't think I ever gave dubya a blank check to do whatever he wanted to do. if I did, then I'd say it was wrong.



but, what is your stance moron? you've tried to play a "consistency card" and failed miserably with it, because you can't show where I said they don't deserve a trial. now, put your view out there. is it a good thing that a president can order the murder of any american citizen without a trial? do you like that?

[Edited on September 30, 2011 at 7:34 PM. Reason : ]

9/30/2011 7:31:52 PM

Quote :

"and that requires a god damned court of law to determine, not a fucking president's whim."

Some impressive legal minds disagree that it's that simple. The fact that he was operating abroad, having renounced his citizenship, makes things particularly muddy, but ultimately this is not all that different from when we took out Osama bin Laden. Both were expressly ordered targeted killings of an unlawful combatant.

Quote :

"But this guy was an American citizen, which removes all the shades of gray from the situation. He's an American citizen, there is no doubt that he has a right to a trial."

Excellent. Whenever we arrest a non-citizen we can treat him as though he has no right to trial. Let's lock him up and waterboard him until his feet leak! It doesn't matter, he's just foreign.

I'm a bit too lazy at this weird hour to try to figure out aaronburro's position on whether or not people born in the US should automatically receive citizenship. I wonder if he think that type of citizenship is crucial here, but ludicrous when it comes to Mexicans.

10/1/2011 5:35:16 AM

WH's response: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/tapper-carneywas-awlaki-death-constitutional-14642685

10/1/2011 8:33:28 AM

Quote :

"but at the moment you give any President or Congress the power to declare any given man a terrorist and order his execution, you also give any President or Congress the power to declare YOU a terrorist."

Who else would we give that power to? This seems like an appropriate role for either entity.

10/1/2011 10:14:01 AM

obama is looking for and more like bush everyday

10/1/2011 10:17:30 AM

Quote :

"Some impressive legal minds disagree that it's that simple."

great. now explain that in light of the 5th Amendment. If they can't understand something that simple, then I am not "impressed" by them at all.

Quote :

"The fact that he was operating abroad, having renounced his citizenship"

Did he actually fill out the renunciation paperwork? or is it just claimed that he renounced his citizenship? you know, the kind of thing that would be ascertained by a court of law?

Quote :

"but ultimately this is not all that different from when we took out Osama bin Laden. "

and Osama should have been captured, if possible. It doesn't look like, at this point, we tried to do that.

Quote :

"Excellent. Whenever we arrest a non-citizen we can treat him as though he has no right to trial."

non-sequitur. Nowhere did I say that. I said, instead, that it may be murky and debatable when the guy is not a US citizen, but when he is, there is no doubt. way to be unable to comprehend simple words.

Quote :

"Who else would we give that power to?"

FUCKING NO ONE. that's the god damned point. I wouldn't give the power to order the execution of someone without trial to ANYONE, especially not anyone in our government. You actually think that unreviewable execution orders are a good fucking idea?

10/1/2011 2:22:38 PM

Quote :

"if you can drop a missile, you can drop in a SEAL team."

not entirely true.

10/1/2011 2:31:12 PM

pretty much is



btw, moron, I'm still waiting for you to provide your opinion. are you for or against executing US citizens without a trial?

[Edited on October 1, 2011 at 2:34 PM. Reason : ]

10/1/2011 2:31:30 PM

as much as the title is partisan I think it may be fair enough...

where is this fucking CHANGE we were promised?

10/1/2011 3:18:18 PM