U.S. approves killing of American (citizen) cleric

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Link


The headlines in the news as of late have had a particular flavor to them. By design, I think, to keep the focus off of the economy. As for this story, no finger pointing from me. In fact, I will add, good for Obama.



~~~NEXT~~~



`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
updated 2:38 a.m. CT, Wed., April 7, 2010


WASHINGTON - The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen,

the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

American counterterrorism officials say Mr. Awlaki is an operative of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the affiliate of the terror network in Yemen and Saudi Arabia. They say they believe that he has become a recruiter for the terrorist network, feeding prospects into plots aimed at the United States and at Americans abroad, the officials said.

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president.

'Direct actions'
But the director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, told a House hearing in February that such a step was possible. “We take direct actions against terrorists in the intelligence community,” he said. “If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that.” He did not name Mr. Awlaki as a target.

The step taken against Mr. Awlaki, which occurred earlier this year, is a vivid illustration of his rise to prominence in the constellation of terrorist leaders. But his popularity as a cleric, whose lectures on Islamic scripture have a large following among English-speaking Muslims, means any action against him could rebound against the United States in the larger ideological campaign against Al Qaeda.

The possibility that Mr. Awlaki might be added to the target list was reported by The Los Angeles Times in January, and Reuters reported on Tuesday that he was approved for capture or killing.

“The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words,” said an American official, who like other current and former officials interviewed for this article spoke of the classified counterterrorism measures on the condition of anonymity. “He’s gotten involved in plots.”

The official added: “The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one. Awlaki knows what he’s done, and he knows he won’t be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone.”


As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

At a panel discussion in Washington on Tuesday, Representative Jane Harman, Democrat of California and chairwoman of a House subcommittee on homeland security, called Mr. Awlaki “probably the person, the terrorist, who would be terrorist No. 1 in terms of threat against us.”
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
Woah woah woah woah!!!!!!!!!!! Where's his trial in NYC?! His free team of lawyers?! Obama and his cowboy attitude are only going to make them hate us more! We need to show the world that our justice system can handle this guy.. we're not a bunch of barbarians who kill people in the streets with no judge or jury.

Seriously - How can anyone on the left defend this?
 

cliftonite

Diamond Member
Jul 15, 2001
6,899
63
91
Woah woah woah woah!!!!!!!!!!! Where's his trial in NYC?! His free team of lawyers?! Obama and his cowboy attitude are only going to make them hate us more! We need to show the world that our justice system can handle this guy.. we're not a bunch of barbarians who kill people in the streets with no judge or jury.

Seriously - How can anyone on the left defend this?

And if he had done any of that you would be whining about how he was making us weak, is a pussy, a terrorist sympathizer, etc. Keep trolling though.
 

rudder

Lifer
Nov 9, 2000
19,441
86
91
Just popped in to let everyone know that the Federal Government prefers you no longer use the terms Islamic Extremism or Jihad

That is all.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Woah woah woah woah!!!!!!!!!!! Where's his trial in NYC?! His free team of lawyers?! Obama and his cowboy attitude are only going to make them hate us more! We need to show the world that our justice system can handle this guy.. we're not a bunch of barbarians who kill people in the streets with no judge or jury.

Seriously - How can anyone on the left defend this?

He's in another country right now plotting to kill fellow Americans. He's not within the bounders of our country. As such, he can be put into the crosshairs of a sniper scope and blasted away. Now if he brought on American soil, then he is bound by all the laws of our land. There is a line and a difference.
 

PeshakJang

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2010
2,276
0
0
He's in another country right now plotting to kill fellow Americans. He's not within the bounders of our country. As such, he can be put into the crosshairs of a sniper scope and blasted away. Now if he brought on American soil, then he is bound by all the laws of our land. There is a line and a difference.

So what you are saying is that our rights as US citizens only apply when we are on US soil?

Yeah, that is exactly what you said.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Woah woah woah woah!!!!!!!!!!! Where's his trial in NYC?! His free team of lawyers?! Obama and his cowboy attitude are only going to make them hate us more! We need to show the world that our justice system can handle this guy.. we're not a bunch of barbarians who kill people in the streets with no judge or jury.

Seriously - How can anyone on the left defend this?

Yes, there is no difference between Hamid the goat herder turned in just for the bounty and an active avowed terrorist mastermind out on what can be called the battlefield.
We-ell at least in your mind. ;P
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
So what you are saying is that our rights as US citizens only apply when we are on US soil?

Yeah, that is exactly what you said.

No, our rights are only granted to us when we are not found guilty. The only rights that guilty have are the 8th. Once you are found guilty of a crime all rights are gone. Since he is not on American soil to be granted access to the 5th and 6th amendment rights, he was found guilty and stripped of all of them. There in lies the heart of the matter.

The Constitution applies to all within the borders of the United States. It grants rights to everyone until found guilty. Once found guilty, then rights can be stripped. However, once you are elsewhere, yes the Constitution does not apply to you. You are bound by the laws of the country you are in. Your rights in another country are only those rights given to you by that country. Or are you stating otherwise? That attitude of entitlement is part of the reason many other countries find Americans rude and arrogant. We expect our laws and our rights to apply to us no matter where we go. This is NOT true. When in Rome do as Romans. So no, the US government has no authority to give and govern your rights when you are outside it's borders.

The government does and should try to protect it's citizens while in another country, so long as those citizens are acting within the best interest of our country. The moment they are not, they can go to hell. Take for instance you hate the thought of the French so much you want to go blow up the Eiffel Tower. You go to France and blow it up. Do you expect a fair and speedy trial back in the states for your actions? The US government may or may not ask for the French government to let the USA give you a trial, but it has no authority to force it. You really don't travel much if you think it does.


Again, this prick is not on American soil anymore. He is not given the same rights as us. He commits a crime and he can deal with the consequences as they are done elsewhere, either by another country or by whatever influence the USA has in that country. In this case, the only influence we have is to blow his brains out. Capiche?
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,566
126
No, our rights are only granted to us when we are not found guilty. The only rights that guilty have are the 8th. Once you are found guilty of a crime all rights are gone. Since he is not on American soil to be granted access to the 5th and 6th amendment rights, he was found guilty and stripped of all of them. There in lies the heart of the matter.

The Constitution applies to all within the borders of the United States. It grants rights to everyone until found guilty. Once found guilty, then rights can be stripped. However, once you are elsewhere, yes the Constitution does not apply to you. You are bound by the laws of the country you are in. Your rights in another country are only those rights given to you by that country. Or are you stating otherwise? That attitude of entitlement is part of the reason many other countries find Americans rude and arrogant. We expect our laws and our rights to apply to us no matter where we go. This is NOT true. When in Rome do as Romans. So no, the US government has no authority to give and govern your rights when you are outside it's borders.

The government does and should try to protect it's citizens while in another country, so long as those citizens are acting within the best interest of our country. The moment they are not, they can go to hell. Take for instance you hate the thought of the French so much you want to go blow up the Eiffel Tower. You go to France and blow it up. Do you expect a fair and speedy trial back in the states for your actions? The US government may or may not ask for the French government to let the USA give you a trial, but it has no authority to force it. You really don't travel much if you think it does.


Again, this prick is not on American soil anymore. He is not given the same rights as us. He commits a crime and he can deal with the consequences as they are done elsewhere, either by another country or by whatever influence the USA has in that country. In this case, the only influence we have is to blow his brains out. Capiche?

so if i'm living and working in malaysia i can just not pay federal income taxes? sweet. i'll be sure to tell the IRS that you said so.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
No, our rights are only granted to us when we are not found guilty. The only rights that guilty have are the 8th. Once you are found guilty of a crime all rights are gone. Since he is not on American soil to be granted access to the 5th and 6th amendment rights, he was found guilty and stripped of all of them. There in lies the heart of the matter.

The Constitution applies to all within the borders of the United States. It grants rights to everyone until found guilty. Once found guilty, then rights can be stripped. However, once you are elsewhere, yes the Constitution does not apply to you. You are bound by the laws of the country you are in. Your rights in another country are only those rights given to you by that country. Or are you stating otherwise? That attitude of entitlement is part of the reason many other countries find Americans rude and arrogant. We expect our laws and our rights to apply to us no matter where we go. This is NOT true. When in Rome do as Romans. So no, the US government has no authority to give and govern your rights when you are outside it's borders.

The government does and should try to protect it's citizens while in another country, so long as those citizens are acting within the best interest of our country. The moment they are not, they can go to hell. Take for instance you hate the thought of the French so much you want to go blow up the Eiffel Tower. You go to France and blow it up. Do you expect a fair and speedy trial back in the states for your actions? The US government may or may not ask for the French government to let the USA give you a trial, but it has no authority to force it. You really don't travel much if you think it does.


Again, this prick is not on American soil anymore. He is not given the same rights as us. He commits a crime and he can deal with the consequences as they are done elsewhere, either by another country or by whatever influence the USA has in that country. In this case, the only influence we have is to blow his brains out. Capiche?

I am fairly certain that Anwar al-Awlaki has not been convicted in a court. But hey, if Obama believes this citizen to be a threat based upon credible intelligence, then I say kill him...
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
so if i'm living and working in malaysia i can just not pay federal income taxes? sweet. i'll be sure to tell the IRS that you said so.

Uhh, there is a difference between rights and obligations. Also, if you are working abroad you get a foreign income exclusion unless part of your income still comes from money in the US.

http://www.360financialliteracy.org...have+to+pay+U.S.+taxes+when+I+work+abroad.htm

This is to keep your status as an American citizen. So that if you are ever back on American soil, because you kept your obligations up, you are entitled to everything that every other American enjoys and can apply for as a citizen.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
I am fairly certain that Anwar al-Awlaki has not been convicted in a court. But hey, if Obama believes this citizen to be a threat based upon credible intelligence, then I say kill him...

He doesn't need to be present to be convicted in a court either if circumstances prevent his presence. Such as this. He can't defend himself, so the prosecution presents it case against him, and viola! He's now guilty. Doesn't need or take much as this is showing. The Intelligence Agency is saying here's his case of why he's committing crimes and with no one to defend him when the evidence is presented, chances are he's defacto to be found guilty.

Now, if he makes his way back to American soil, or contacts us to be brought back for a fair trial, then he should have one where he can now defend himself.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
He doesn't need to be present to be convicted in a court either if circumstances prevent his presence. Such as this. He can't defend himself, so the prosecution presents it case against him, and viola! He's now guilty. Doesn't need or take much as this is showing. The Intelligence Agency is saying here's his case of why he's committing crimes and with no one to defend him when the evidence is presented, chances are he's defacto to be found guilty.

Now, if he makes his way back to American soil, or contacts us to be brought back for a fair trial, then he should have one where he can now defend himself.

He hasn't been convicted because no case has been brought against him, right?

Meh...Don't forget, my position is that this is just the flavor of the week. The assholes in charge of the romper room decided what game you will be allowed to play this week, as they do ever week.



Some thoughts

Obama OK's Targeted Assassination of Awlaki, a U.S. Citizen [Andy McCarthy]


Reuters has the short story (via the Washington Post) here.

This is obviously the right call. We are at war against al Qaeda under an authorization from Congress. Anwar al-Awlaki, a purportedly American-born Islamic cleric, who is now operating in Yemen, ministered to the 9/11 hijackers, inspired the Ft. Hood assassin, probably directed the would-be Christmas bomber, and is believed to be orchestrating and recruiting for violent jihad operations against the United States. The president is the commander-in-chief with primacy on questions regarding the conduct of war. Even if we were to accept for argument's sake that at issue is a legal rather than a political judgment, Supreme Court precedent (the World War II era Quirin case and the 2004 Hamdi decision) hold that American citizens who fight for the enemy in wartime may be treated as enemy combatants, just like aliens.

The only reason for calling attention to Obama's targeting of Awlaki is its demonstration of the illogic of the Left's position on treatment of the enemy. According to the report, a U.S. official told Reuters that "Awlaki is a proven threat," and therefore someone who could properly be targeted for killing. But by leftist standards — including those urged by Attorney General Holder when he was in private practice filing briefs in support of American-born "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla — Awlaki is most certainly not a proven threat. He has not been convicted in a court of law.

So here is the Obama Left's position. If an alien enemy combatant, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, mass-murders 3000 Americans and is then captured outside the U.S. in wartime, we need to bring him to the United States and give him a civilian trial with all attendant due process rights. If an alien enemy combatant is sending emails from outside the U.S. to an al Qaeda cell inside the U.S., the commander-in-chief needs a judge's permission (on a showing of probable cause) to intercept those communications. If an American citizen terrorist outside the United States — say, Awlaki in Yemen — is calling or emailing the United States (or anyplace else), the commander-in-chief needs a judge's permission to intercept those communications. If we capture an alien enemy combatant conducting war operations against the U.S. overseas, we should give him Miranda warnings, a judicial right to challenge his detention as a war prisoner, and (quite likely) a civilian trial. But, if the commander-in-chief decides to short-circuit the whole menu of civil rights by killing an American citizen, that's fine — no due process, no interference by a judge, no Miranda, no nothing. He is a proven threat because ... the president says so.

That's OK with me — I think the flaws in the equation are the various lawfare devices by which we now tie the commander-in-chief's hands with legal processes. War is not supposed to be litigation. It's not about rights for the enemy but rather victory for the American people. But why do I think the Left will suddenly be OK with (or, at least, muted in its criticism of) targeted assassination because the president's name is now Obama rather than Bush
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,398
8,566
126
Uhh, there is a difference between rights and obligations. Also, if you are working abroad you get a foreign income exclusion unless part of your income still comes from money in the US.

http://www.360financialliteracy.org...have+to+pay+U.S.+taxes+when+I+work+abroad.htm

This is to keep your status as an American citizen. So that if you are ever back on American soil, because you kept your obligations up, you are entitled to everything that every other American enjoys and can apply for as a citizen.

so if the .gov said that if i move overseas i lose my right to vote, that's ok?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Ozoned, I would be okay with it so long as the guy is not on American soil and is threatening our country. The law stipulates that the case is given to the commander and chief. This was upheld by the Supreme Court. He was given evidence, a "case", by the intelligence community. He made a judicial decision and found the guy guilty and an enemy combatant.


Now, if the guy makes his way to American soil, it's a whole different can of worms.
 

GarfieldtheCat

Diamond Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,708
1
0
He doesn't need to be present to be convicted in a court either if circumstances prevent his presence. Such as this. He can't defend himself, so the prosecution presents it case against him, and viola! He's now guilty. Doesn't need or take much as this is showing. The Intelligence Agency is saying here's his case of why he's committing crimes and with no one to defend him when the evidence is presented, chances are he's defacto to be found guilty.

Now, if he makes his way back to American soil, or contacts us to be brought back for a fair trial, then he should have one where he can now defend himself.

So let me get this straight, just so you know what you are saying. You are claiming that the President has unlimited power to order the execution of any US citizen as long as he is outside the US? Do you even know what that means?

And he hasn't had a trial, the CIA haven't proved anything. I mean, we were told Saddam was behind 9/11, that Iraq had WMD, and lots of other things that the government "knew" was true, but of course turned out to be outright lies. Hell, most of the so-called terrorists that we capture aren't really terrorists at all.

You do know, even with our criminal justice system, and all the checks and balances, that there is a real number of innocent people that have been wrongly executed. And even more people that were scheduled to be executed, but with DNA testing, were found to be innocent. So how do you think that having a secret CIA person just "claim" this is accurate? Or do you not care that we end up killing innocent Americans?

Does anyone really want to say the President can execute anyone without evidence or trial? Really?
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
so if the .gov said that if i move overseas i lose my right to vote, that's ok?

Will you stop with the straw man and being ignorant? You have ZERO right to vote in another country that they country you are in doesn't grant you access to. Meaning, if I am in France and the French don't want me voting as an American citizen about how they run their country, so be it.

However, you still have the right to vote for America, so long as the French grant you the right to communicate back with us. So if you get stuck in North Korea, I doubt you'll be granted the right to vote for changes to either the N Korean government or the American government any time soon.

Stop being an idiot.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
So let me get this straight, just so you know what you are saying. You are claiming that the President has unlimited power to order the execution of any US citizen as long as he is outside the US? Do you even know what that means?

And he hasn't had a trial, the CIA haven't proved anything. I mean, we were told Saddam was behind 9/11, that Iraq had WMD, and lots of other things that the government "knew" was true, but of course turned out to be outright lies. Hell, most of the so-called terrorists that we capture aren't really terrorists at all.

You do know, even with our criminal justice system, and all the checks and balances, that there is a real number of innocent people that have been wrongly executed. And even more people that were scheduled to be executed, but with DNA testing, were found to be innocent. So how do you think that having a secret CIA person just "claim" this is accurate? Or do you not care that we end up killing innocent Americans?

Does anyone really want to say the President can execute anyone without evidence or trial? Really?

Yes, and this was signed into law by Bush.