talkpolitics | (no subject)

Entry tags:

(no subject)

Using the constitution as toilet paper - again. The Obama administration authorized the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki who holds US citizenship. There is some nefarious precedent being created by allowing the President to order the killing of American citizens, regardless of their alleged crimes, without granting them their 5th Amendment rights. Bush with his renditions, and the implications of the Patriot Act was bad enough, but ordering a US citizen to be assassinated as Obama now did takes it to a whole new level. I bet Stalin would be proud of Barry Soetoro. Anyone want to wager which other parts of the constitution will be considered void by Obama until he gets kicked out of the white house?

(source)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Like the civilian court trials for all the people we're holding in Guantanamo without charges or due process?

kinda sad that foreign nationals get a trial (Khali Shaikh Muhammad) but an american citizen whose worst offense is to have been in contact with a terrorist (Hasan, also getting a trial as a he should and is entitled to) is intended to just be assassinated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

'worst offense is to have been in contact with a terrorist'

did I mention you are full of it today?

"Connections to terrorism [...] arrested in San Diego in August 1996 and in April 1997 for soliciting prostitutes"

terrorist prostitues?

"The FBI investigated al-Awlaki beginning in June 1999 through March 2000 for possible fundraising for Hamas, links to al-Qaeda,[...] But it was unable to unearth sufficient evidence for a criminal prosecution"

and it goes on and on like this. What it boils down to is that you are ok with assassinating americans if law enforcement can't pin enough onto someone to bring him to court over it.

Al-Awlaki's sermons were attended by three of the 9/11 hijackers. They were also attended by the accused Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan. In addition, U.S. intelligence intercepted at least 18 emails between Hasan and al-Awlaki from December 2008 to June 2009, including one in which Hasan wrote: "I can't wait to join you [in the afterlife]." After the Fort Hood shooting, al-Awlaki praised Hasan's actions.[11][12]

Reportedly, there were close contacts between al-Awlaki and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the suspect in the Northwest Airlines Flight 253 al-Qaeda terrorist attack on Christmas Day 2009.[13] According to the suspect, al-Awlaki was his recruiter, and one of his trainers.[14]

I think you need to save your faux outrange for someone who might actually not be a terrorist.

accused of, not proven to be. slight but remarkable distinction. accusations which were deemed by the FBI to not hold up in court as per your link.

Go be pissed about the people still rotting in Guantanamo or about the journalists who got gunned down in the street. Pretty sure they didn't have a fair trial.

nice of you to parade out the strawmen. Guantanamo inmates are neiter US citizens, nor being assassinated. The civilians shot in Iraq were a tragic mistake, not an assassination/premediated murder.

I think you're sorely understating the offenses of this man in an effort to smear the action, which, in my opinion, is already wrong in the first place.

Yes, it's wrong for Obama to make this order. But let's not pretend that al-Awaki is some kind of uninvolved innocent.

lets not pretend that accusing an american of and executing him for heinous acts is the same as having proven such accusations in a court of law which comes to a verdict which imposes the death penalty on him with the appeals process open to him.

who is making such pretense? I'm not.

as the old saying goes: two wrongs don't make a right.

and no one is suggesting that, either. I didn't say "well, this guy is a bad guy, so it's ok". I said "Obama is wrong for doing this, but don't pretend that this guy is some sort of delicate flower."

You're doing your own post a disservice by suggesting that there aren't valid reasons to go after him the PROPER way.

I was merely pointing towards the "not a delicate flower" part which could be taken as counterbalancing the previous point you made

We've held all of what? One civilian trial for a couple thousand people we've been holding for years without charges or due process.

Now am I a fan of government assassinations in general? Not so much, but there are times when I can argue that maybe a hit team to take out Saddam would have been better than slaughtering a couple hundred thousand Iraqi citizens.

Sometimes the death of one saves the lives of many.

how many of them were assassinated?

Does it matter to the dead?

oh, so none?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only