• Hey, guys! FreeOnes Tube is up and running - see for yourself!
  • FreeOnes Now Listing Male and Trans Performers! More info here!

Top al-Qaida boss Al-Awlaki DEAD!!!

This is very troubling. So apparently the president can go around the world assassinating American citizens. Awlaki was a terrorist no doubt about it, he wanted to kill Americans. But he was an American citizen and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution states that no American shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The U.S. government apparently knew where he was at so why didn't they make an attempt to arrest him? We are after all allies with Yemen. I don't know, I'm conflicted about this.

Ummm...so lets see. They guy joined a terrorist group that part of their purpose is to do harm on us. He's outside the country, and in a place that either can't or won't deal with him for whatever reason. He consorts with and is around terrorist. He plots to do further harm to the U.S. and it's people. He encourages others to do violent harm to us. Despite what you may think I doubt we could have just walked up to him that easily and cuffed him and brought him back, and even then it would have been a military operation in another country where we don‘t have jurisdiction, and it would have much more greatly risked the lives of American soldiers.

It would be the equivalent of me joining the other side if this country ever gets into a war, walking into the other sides base to help them inflict harm on my former country, and then feeling like my rights are being violated if the U.S. bombed the facility while I was in it to get to me because I technically might not have renounced my citizenship.

If some criminal holes himself in a house and doesn't want to come out when he knows the police are outside and then fights when they come after him, I'm not holding it against the police if that person ends up dead in the struggle. I don't see this as much different.
 

Mayhem

Banned
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ower/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html?hpid=z1

The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials.

The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.

The administration has faced a legal challenge and public criticism for targeting Aulaqi, who was born in New Mexico, because of constitutional protections afforded U.S. citizens. The memorandum may represent an attempt to resolve, at least internally, a legal debate over whether a president can order the killing of U.S. citizens overseas as a counterterrorism measure.

The operation to kill Aulaqi involved CIA and military assets under CIA control. A former senior intelligence official said that the CIA would not have killed an American without such a written opinion.

A second American killed in Friday’s attack was Samir Khan, a driving force behind Inspire, the English-language magazine produced by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. An administration official said the CIA did not know Khan was with Aulaqi, but they also considered Khan a belligerent whose presence near the target would not have stopped the attack.

The circumstances of Khan’s death were reminiscent of a 2002 U.S. drone strike in Yemen that targeted Abu Ali al-Harithi, a Yemeni al-Qaeda operative accused of planning the 2000 attack on the USS Cole. That strike also killed a U.S. citizen who the CIA knew was in Harithi’s vehicle but who was a target of the attack.

The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces beyond “hot,” or traditional, battlefields such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Officials said that certain belligerents aren’t shielded because of their citizenship.

“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” an administration official said in a statement Friday.

President Obama and various administration officials referred to Aulaqi publicly for the first time Friday as the “external operations” chief for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a label that may be intended to underscore his status as an operational leader who posed an imminent threat.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis it used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.
 
“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials,

I love it. So Bush effectively says, "What constitutes legal interrogation techniques in this case is legal interrogation techniques in war," and Dems accuse him of international war crimes, but Obama can use the exact same logic regarding due process, and everything's hunky-dory with the left. Pathetic.

You can't have it both ways. Either the rules change in time of war and the President can bend the law for the good of the country, or the law is the law and the President is never above it. Pick one.
 

Mayhem

Banned
Killing and torture are two very separate things. And it's not "the exact same thing." The debate here is over the killing of an American citizen (a domestic issue, even though it involves the military). International War Crimes are .......... international. Separate laws for separate situations.

I can't believe you guys are crying for this turd. Actually, I can. As God is my witness, I knew shit like this was going to happen as I sat there on 9/11/01. There was no doubt in my mind that we would lose our resolve and go back to what we already were. Lazy, frivolous, forgetful, intolerant of anything that requires an attention span of over 5 minutes.
 

Facetious

Moderated
I knew shit like this was going to happen as I sat there on 9/11/01. There was no doubt in my mind that we would lose our resolve and go back to what we already were. Lazy, frivolous, forgetful, intolerant of anything that requires an attention span of over 5 minutes.
Lost our resolve...what?
We're actually making decent progress against Al queda and terrorism in general (knock wood hard!), are we not? What tactical victories have the islamists logged in recent times?
 
Ummm...so lets see. They guy joined a terrorist group that part of their purpose is to do harm on us. He's outside the country, and in a place that either can't or won't deal with him for whatever reason. He consorts with and is around terrorist. He plots to do further harm to the U.S. and it's people. He encourages others to do violent harm to us. Despite what you may think I doubt we could have just walked up to him that easily and cuffed him and brought him back, and even then it would have been a military operation in another country where we don‘t have jurisdiction, and it would have much more greatly risked the lives of American soldiers.

It would be the equivalent of me joining the other side if this country ever gets into a war, walking into the other sides base to help them inflict harm on my former country, and then feeling like my rights are being violated if the U.S. bombed the facility while I was in it to get to me because I technically might not have renounced my citizenship.

If some criminal holes himself in a house and doesn't want to come out when he knows the police are outside and then fights when they come after him, I'm not holding it against the police if that person ends up dead in the struggle. I don't see this as much different.

This is a gray area. Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. Outside of a war zone, as Awlaki was, lethal force can only be employed in the narrowest and most extraordinary circumstances: when there is a concrete, specific and imminent threat of an attack; and even then, deadly force must be a last resort
 
He committed treason. That is punishable by death.

This guy was video'd by the Wash' Post cruising around America, a supposed "moderate," claiming Islam is a "religion of peace." More of that rhetoric is just so fitting for a sub-human Islamofascist like this creep.
 
C

cindy CD/TV

Guest
He committed treason. That is punishable by death.

EXACTLY right. There is NO DOUBT that Al-Awlaki was coordinating and inspiring terrorist activity all over the world, effectively taking the operational reins after bin Laden went to ground 10 years ago.

In short, there is a term to describe when someone takes their ass overseas and begins plotting with foreigners to attack and kill U.S. citizens. It's called high treason.

Now perhaps the "proper" and "legal" thing to do would be to capture him and bring him back here for trial. But do we really want to uphold the rights of a man who so clearly renounced any claim to them? If someone renounces their U.S. citizenship to go live in India, for example, those rights of a U.S. citizen are gone bye-bye. But even if this weren't true, we must remember that Al-Awlaki had dual citizenship: U.S. and Yemeni. Which one supercedes the other? That is a whole other legal can of worms.

Plugging an air-to-ground missile up his ass was far more convenient and cheaper than the taxpayers funding his defense lawyers at some freak-show trial -- a trial that would give Al-Awlaki the ideal opportunity to use our own legal and cultural system against us. He would take the witness stand before an international TV audience and spew his hateful messages to rally his followers and rant on about all the bullshit reasons for why his actions were justified, thus making himself a martyr and making a mockery of the U.S. justice system.
 

emceeemcee

Banned
EXACTLY right. There is NO DOUBT that Al-Awlaki was coordinating and inspiring terrorist activity all over the world, effectively taking the operational reins after bin Laden went to ground 10 years ago.

Some of you guys are saying this really isn't a big deal, that he'll be replaced soon enough. There's some truth to that, but don't underestimate the value and power this guy represented to al-Qaida and worldwide Islamic terrorism. Essentially, he was Osama bin Laden 2.0. In some ways, he's been even more dangerous because he's part of THIS generation. He was media savvy, skilled with using the Internet and social networking to organize, set the tone and give out the marching orders to his followers. Bin Laden never had this ability. Some examples of Al-Awlaki's work: the failed Times Square bomber, the failed Christmas Day "underwear" bomber (we got lucky in BOTH of these instances), the Ft. Hood shooter ... all of these guys had been in contact with Al-Awlaki and two of them were radicalized within the United States -- which is our biggest area of concern regarding terrorism in 2011 and beyond. And don't forget too: Al-Awlaki had aided and abetted several of the 9/11 hijackers. We should've killed this guy 10 years ago when we had the chance.

All-Awlaki wasn't just another "head on the hydra." Killing Osama was the equivalent of losing the owner of a football team, but knocking off Al-Awlaki was the same as losing the head coach AND star quarterback in one shot. It will take awhile for al-Qaida to recover from this one, if they ever do. :2 cents:

No doubt? Really?


You must have missed the bit about the Yemen experts disputing he even had much of a role in AQ.


You don't even know he was in AQ. All you know is that your government said he was a Criminal Mastermind and Terrorist Boss Man so he must have been one. Orwellian much?


who needs facts when you can chug Kool Aid....
 

emceeemcee

Banned
You miss a relevant point emcee. If this guy was harmless, why would they kill him? Shits and grins?


Because it's easier than having to get a conviction, which they knew they'd probably never get.


And more importantly it's political dynamite for a president to go around wacking Terrorist Masterminds Who Threaten Our Way Of Life. Especially during campaign season.

He was the enemy. Now he's just a pile of rotting pieces thanks to a missile strike.:nanner:


You don't have a clue who he was. You just know that Big Brother made the bad man go away. :)
 
Top