Reposted : I disapprove of the manner which Anwar al-Awlaki was killed.

[Xchel]

I never really got wrapped up in the nuance of "we should declare war" when it comes to Al Qaeda. The authorization of the use of force is sufficient for me. It's pretty clear in it's scope and intent.

And there you have it, unconstitutinal. Now our Government can kill anyone at any time and they don't even have to shot proof (even if they have it) as to why.

Grats guys!

Don't be a dullard. The naming and targeting of an enemy combatent doesn't turn into a magical slippery slope where the government can simply start killing people.

You guys are starting to sound as idiotic as those Randy Weaver/Branch Davidian wingnuts.

some of us are starting to wonder if those wingnuts were right...if he can order the killing of one American by simply calling him a terrorist with no conviction, indictment whatever..what stops him from naming me or you a terrorist? or anyone else for that matter?

 

[California Girl]

Who needs a trial he is a terrorist!
Remember the partiot act that the TP re-upped.

So you want Obama Impeached over this now? Make up your mind.

Yep as much as I wanted Bush impeached over his lies that led us to war.
Obama has continued the Bush doctrine in full.

Does that not tell you something?

It really should.

 

[saveliberty]

Continued? Try expanded.

 

[Ravi]

What's really amusing is that the people that are upset about a terrorist being killed are the same people that would have happily put a bullet in Jane Fonda's head during the Vietnam war.

 

[saveliberty]

What's really amusing is that the people that are upset about a terrorist being killed are the same people that would have happily put a bullet in Jane Fonda's head during the Vietnam war.

Link please.

I was about eight at the time. My political views might be found in researching Gier Elementary.

 

[Colin]

And there you have it, unconstitutinal. Now our Government can kill anyone at any time and they don't even have to shot proof (even if they have it) as to why.

Grats guys!

Don't be a dullard. The naming and targeting of an enemy combatent doesn't turn into a magical slippery slope where the government can simply start killing people.

You guys are starting to sound as idiotic as those Randy Weaver/Branch Davidian wingnuts.

some of us are starting to wonder if those wingnuts were right...if he can order the killing of one American by simply calling him a terrorist with no conviction, indictment whatever..what stops him from naming me or you a terrorist? or anyone else for that matter?

I think some pig shit just landed on my head!

 

[georgephillip]

Would you prefer a Hellfire missile?

 

[Xchel]

No George, I would have preferred at the very least and indictment against this guy and a trial in absentia before we did anything else. We had two years...there was no immenent danger.

 

[The Rabbi]

No George, I would have preferred at the very least and indictment against this guy and a trial in absentia before we did anything else. We had two years...there was no immenent danger.

There were plenty of German soldiers in WW2 who were American citizens. I don't think it mattered to us, no indictment needed.
Some people want to treat the WOT as a criminal matter. It isn't. It is a war. In war you kill your enemies. That they have american citizenship as an accident of birth is incidental.

 

[Xchel]

Rabbi, this isn't WWII and if you put a bullet in a US citizens head in the military then you need to be in jail. The proper way would have been a court martial and trial for treason. Also, we aren't at war with Yemen.

 

[Colin]

Rabbi, this isn't WWII and if you put a bullet in a US citizens head in the military then you need to be in jail. The proper way would have been a court martial and trial for treason. Also, we aren't at war with Yemen.

So what! Not at war with Afghanistan either.

 

[elvis]

Rabbi, this isn't WWII and if you put a bullet in a US citizens head in the military then you need to be in jail. The proper way would have been a court martial and trial for treason. Also, we aren't at war with Yemen.

again, if you don't like the killing, go talk to George W. Bush.

 

[Full-Auto]

Rabbi, this isn't WWII and if you put a bullet in a US citizens head in the military then you need to be in jail. The proper way would have been a court martial and trial for treason. Also, we aren't at war with Yemen.

So what! Not at war with Afghanistan either.

No, its a war on terror.............. Now if that alone is justification, keep in mind we have a war on drugs and poverty.

 

[Xchel]

Rabbi, this isn't WWII and if you put a bullet in a US citizens head in the military then you need to be in jail. The proper way would have been a court martial and trial for treason. Also, we aren't at war with Yemen.

So what! Not at war with Afghanistan either.

there is an actual battlefield in Afghanistan so yeah we are at war with Afghanistan, we invaded the country...but we never invaded Yemen.

 

[Xchel]

Rabbi, this isn't WWII and if you put a bullet in a US citizens head in the military then you need to be in jail. The proper way would have been a court martial and trial for treason. Also, we aren't at war with Yemen.

again, if you don't like the killing, go talk to George W. Bush.

GWB did not order his assasination did he? So why would I want to talk to him about it? I honestly want my government regardless of who is president to stick to the constitution and to stop inventing chit.

 

[elvis]

Rabbi, this isn't WWII and if you put a bullet in a US citizens head in the military then you need to be in jail. The proper way would have been a court martial and trial for treason. Also, we aren't at war with Yemen.

again, if you don't like the killing, go talk to George W. Bush.

GWB did not order his assasination did he? So why would I want to talk to him about it? I honestly want my government regardless of who is president to stick to the constitution and to stop inventing chit.

because he changed the laws regarding enemy combatants. this was a legal killing... made legal by him.

 

[The Rabbi]

Rabbi, this isn't WWII and if you put a bullet in a US citizens head in the military then you need to be in jail. The proper way would have been a court martial and trial for treason. Also, we aren't at war with Yemen.

This is a war, just like WW2, only better.
Al Awalaki wasn't in the military so not subject to court martial. Whether we are war with Yemen or not is irrelevant. He was an enemy combatant and so fair game. We aren't at war with Pakistan either but didnt have a problem killing OBL there.

 

[Xchel]

No this is not a war..there is no declaration of war against Yemen. The rules on dealing with enemy combatants are clear...you can't kill them just because...

 

[Intense]

No this is not a war..there is no declaration of war against Yemen. The rules on dealing with enemy combatants is clear...you can't kill them just because...

So you are saying it didn't happen?

 

[The Rabbi]

No this is not a war..there is no declaration of war against Yemen. The rules on dealing with enemy combatants are clear...you can't kill them just because...

You seem to be at a disadvantage here because your knowledge base is flawed.
Ex parte Quirin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merely repeating yourself is babbling, not arguing.