Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
and I'm SUUUUURRRREEEEEE that other American was totally innocent and blameless beyond reproach.Dude, he was killed with the enemy. He fucking deserved WORSE imho. We're talking someone who wasn't even as good as Benedict Arnold who was a true American HERO before he joined the British to betray us. He wasn't sneaky like Alger Hiss or the Rosenthals. He took up arms, plotted and planned to kill his fellow citizens for a foreign power for religion.Was he tried in a court of law? or was the information heresay?
Better still would have been wounded on the battlefield, captured and stuck in the gallows to shit himself a month hence as he starved to death at the busiest overpass of Washington DC for everyone to see with a sign beneath him that said "This is what happens to barbarous traitors to the United States." while school buses full of kids forced to look drove by.,
Maybe... just MAYBE that'd drive the point home that turning on your nation might not be a wise thing. You may be free to talk a big game about hating this nation, but don't you fucking DARE do it!
Dude, he was killed with another american.
United States Constitution, Amendment 5:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Except by military forces in time of war (or clear public danger), the strike was conducted by military aircraft, al Qaeda has declared war on the United States through its actions and presents a clear public danger and the leaders were targeted because they are leader(s) in that organization.
Sorry, no Constitutional requirement there to try them in court.
>>>>
The clause you are referring to says that it is our military who do not always get due process.
It does not give our military the right to target our citizens.
Our citizens who are not in the military still have due process.
Now why people think that our Constitution protects KSM who is not even a citizen ... that is a subject for another day.
But Awlaki was a citizen, and not in our armed forces, so he was entitled to due process before he was put on our death list.
Not when acting as an enemy combatant.
>>>>
Not when acting as an enemy combatant.
>>>>
according to the US Supreme Court enemy combatants have the right to trial.
That may apply if they are captured...
.................................................. But not if they are killed on the battlefield. No sense in holding a trial if they are dead.
>>>>
according to the US Supreme Court enemy combatants have the right to trial.
That may apply if they are captured...
.................................................. But not if they are killed on the battlefield. No sense in holding a trial if they are dead.
>>>>
But there was no battlefield. Yemen is not a battlefield.
That may apply if they are captured...
.................................................. But not if they are killed on the battlefield. No sense in holding a trial if they are dead.
>>>>
But there was no battlefield. Yemen is not a battlefield.
The rhetoric is the battlefield... His intent was clearly and openly expressed...
Why do you pretend he was just another American citizen...???
That may apply if they are captured...
.................................................. But not if they are killed on the battlefield. No sense in holding a trial if they are dead.
>>>>
But there was no battlefield. Yemen is not a battlefield.
The rhetoric is the battlefield... His intent was clearly and openly expressed...
Why do you pretend he was just another American citizen...???
But there was no battlefield. Yemen is not a battlefield.
The rhetoric is the battlefield... His intent was clearly and openly expressed...
Why do you pretend he was just another American citizen...???
He was an american citizen.
He had every right we all do, until he was convicted of treason in a court of law (due process).
Until then, he was presumed innocent until proven guilty, the same as you or I.
October 1, 2011 8:49 AM
Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki
Terrorism in the U.S.
Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki
Top al Qaeda bombmaker dead in drone strike
Al-Awlaki strike plan included jets, special ops
The killing of a U.S. jihadist
Al-Awlaki's former mosque in Va. reacts to death
Complete Coverage »
Anwar al-Awlaki
U.S.-born al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, inset and drone over a map of Yemen. (CBS/AP)
(CBS News)
Anwar al Awlaki's rise from American-born cleric to key terror plotter had put him atop the U.S. terror "hit list." Under the code name Objective Troy, intelligence tracked Awlaki for months near his hideout in Yemen.
Early Friday, a CIA drone found its target.
The Washington Post reports that a secret Justice Department memo sanctioned the killing of Awlaki, a U.S. citizen who became an al Qaeda propagandist and operational leader.
The document followed a review by senior administration lawyers of the legal issues raised by the lethal targeting of a U.S. citizen. Administration officials told the Post that there was no dissent about the legality of the killing.
The administration has faced criticism - and a legal challenge - over its targeting of Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. The memorandum may represent an attempt to resolve a legal debate over whether a U.S. president can order the killing of American citizens.
With regard to the killing as a counter-terrorism measure, the memo deems, in the words of one officials, "due process in war."
The killing of a U.S. jihadist
"The administration has tried to make very clear that this was an act of self-defense, that Awlaki was part of not only al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, but he was the external operations chief. He was ongoing in his plotting against American citizens - not only having done so in the past, but continuing to do so in an imminent way," said CBS News national security analyst Juan Zarate.
"So based on the rules of self-defense, based on the principles that we're at war with al Qaeda and the fact that he was a part of the group, self-professed, all of that suggests that it's lawful and appropriate to go after him and to kill him," Zarate said.
When asked if the drone attack against a U.S. citizen - in effect, execution without trial - sets a precedent, Zarate said, "It's a good question - you run the risk of a slippery slope here. I think people are asking very appropriate questions about what the limits of the government's power can be in terms of going after Americans who are part of al Qaeda, and we've seen in the recent past that Americans have formed more and more part of the al Qaeda network - not just Anwar al-Awlaki, but others. There are important questions to ask about what the process is and what the procedures are to determine who is an imminent danger to the United States."
Over the past two years, Awlaki had been connected to three attacks against America. Officials say his emails inspired accused Fort Hood gunman Major Nidal Hasan. Awlaki helped plan the failed Underwear bomb attack, and was part of the plot to bring down cargo planes with explosives inside computer printers.
"Awlaki was the leader of external operations for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula," said President Obama. "In that role he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans."
But it was Awlaki's command of English, and his understanding of American culture, that made him al Qaeda's most effective recruiter of homegrown radicals inside the U.S.
Justice memo authorized killing of Al-Awlaki - CBS News
I have a question: Does anyone have information about the threat he posed to the USA that comes from any other source other than the Executive Branch? Does anyone have information that confirms (or rebuts) what the Executive Branch has said this man has done?
Think about that.
I have a question: Does anyone have information about the threat he posed to the USA that comes from any other source other than the Executive Branch? Does anyone have information that confirms (or rebuts) what the Executive Branch has said this man has done?
Think about that.
I understand what you're saying, but it's not like there's no evidence of his jihad rhetoric. He was well known for his influential messages of acceptable violence.
But, the source of that evidence, or the only source of that evidence that I have seen so far, comes from the Executive Branch.I have a question: Does anyone have information about the threat he posed to the USA that comes from any other source other than the Executive Branch? Does anyone have information that confirms (or rebuts) what the Executive Branch has said this man has done?
Think about that.
I understand what you're saying, but it's not like there's no evidence of his jihad rhetoric. He was well known for his influential messages of acceptable violence.
But, the source of that evidence, or the only source of that evidence that I have seen so far, comes from the Executive Branch.I have a question: Does anyone have information about the threat he posed to the USA that comes from any other source other than the Executive Branch? Does anyone have information that confirms (or rebuts) what the Executive Branch has said this man has done?
Think about that.
I understand what you're saying, but it's not like there's no evidence of his jihad rhetoric. He was well known for his influential messages of acceptable violence.
Do I think this guy is most likely a POS terrorist pig? Oh, yeah. But, he wasn't on any battlefield or in any war zone.
I would love for this to sit well with me - I cannot stand POS terrorist pigs - but it does not for fundamental reasons pertaining to our Bill of Rights. And, yes, because he is an American, he has those rights - they are inherent rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
Then I'd love to see them. Can you point me in that direction, please?But, the source of that evidence, or the only source of that evidence that I have seen so far, comes from the Executive Branch.I understand what you're saying, but it's not like there's no evidence of his jihad rhetoric. He was well known for his influential messages of acceptable violence.
Do I think this guy is most likely a POS terrorist pig? Oh, yeah. But, he wasn't on any battlefield or in any war zone.
I would love for this to sit well with me - I cannot stand POS terrorist pigs - but it does not for fundamental reasons pertaining to our Bill of Rights. And, yes, because he is an American, he has those rights - they are inherent rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
There are independently verifiable quotes and witnesses to lectures which are not related to the US executive branch... They have the authority to act on that actionable intelligence.
Then I'd love to see them. Can you point me in that direction, please?But, the source of that evidence, or the only source of that evidence that I have seen so far, comes from the Executive Branch.
Do I think this guy is most likely a POS terrorist pig? Oh, yeah. But, he wasn't on any battlefield or in any war zone.
I would love for this to sit well with me - I cannot stand POS terrorist pigs - but it does not for fundamental reasons pertaining to our Bill of Rights. And, yes, because he is an American, he has those rights - they are inherent rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
There are independently verifiable quotes and witnesses to lectures which are not related to the US executive branch... They have the authority to act on that actionable intelligence.
I guess when you make a claim, you expect others to support it for you.Then I'd love to see them. Can you point me in that direction, please?There are independently verifiable quotes and witnesses to lectures which are not related to the US executive branch... They have the authority to act on that actionable intelligence.
Google is your friend...
