"URGENT: Fox News confirms CIA directed attack on Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen, using two Predator drones and firing Hellfire missiles at his convoy."::clapping::
...All I can say is, welcome to Hell Awlaki...
...All I can say is, welcome to Hell Awlaki...
I just heard the reporter on Fox News radio say that Awlaki "met his maker", and the first thing that popped into my mind was the Church Lady saying "Satan?"
"President Obama will speak on the CIA strike that killed Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki. WATCH LIVE on Fox News and FoxNews.com at 11 a.m. ET
More headlines from FoxNews.com:
http://email.foxnews.com/t?ctl=14945:551F40EA9E802BA72077FA703313F446& (http://email.foxnews.com/t?ctl=14945:551F40EA9E802BA72077FA703313F446&)
Watch Fox News Channel for complete coverage of this story and all breaking news."
And now we have Ron Paul condeming this brutal attack on an "American citizen." http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/30/groan-ron-paul-condemns-killing-of-al-qaeda-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki/ (http://weaselzippers.us/2011/09/30/groan-ron-paul-condemns-killing-of-al-qaeda-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki/)
Just further confirmation that this senile old man will not do what's necessary to protect this country. Hey, Dr. Paul! What part of "declared war on the US," do you not understand?
Note: "This story is based on reporting with sources knowledgeable about the Awlaki operation, including three law enforcement and intelligence officials. Anwar Al Awlaki, killed Friday morning in an American strike in Yemen, has been on the U.S. radar for several years, ever since, as one U.S. official stated, he turned from "inspirational to operational." He was believed to be behind the Nigerian "underwear" bomber who tried to ignite his explosives planted on his body as his airplane was landing in Detroit. And he was believed responsible for the cargo bomb plot targeting the United States last fall.
U.S. intelligence officials, aware of other planned attacks, had arrested several Muslim American converts who returned here after "studying" in the Sudan. Most of their time was spent on terrorist training and learning from Awlaki and his advisors about the precepts of jihad and Islam. Intelligence officials believe that "hundreds" of American and European converts to Islam, along with other indigenous Muslims from Islamic countries, have trained with Awlaki, making many of them "ticking time bombs."
Awlaki lived in the southern Yemen province of Shabwa, an area beyond the reach of Yemen's military and central government. Much of Yemen is like the Wild West, with no central governing authority. The numerous tribes settle disputes among themselves. Awlaki came from the Awalik tribe.
Intelligence gathered last year from Yemeni authorities and from debriefings with several American converts who returned to the United States after training with Awlaki, helped narrow Awlaki's location to a 100 square mile area. He moved at night, often in convoys of armored SUVs in order to prevent U.S. drones and surveillance from determining which vehicle he was in. But the drones, which have advanced in the ability to recognize faces on the ground, hovered above the area where Awlaki was believed to be. Electronic intelligence – including telephone intercepts –also were used, although Awlaki was said to be careful in limiting his use of electronic communication, aware that he could be tracked that way."
It's not a precedent that we kill villains.
He was an agent for a force in violent opposition of the United States, killing him sets no new precedent....
I'm happy he's dead too. But what crimes result in an automatic forfeiting of citizenship and life before a trial and conviction? He didn't give up his citizenship. He abused it, and used it against us. But short of being tried and convicted of treason, I don't see how he's viewed as anything other than a US citizen, and that raises constitutional questions.
I know I'm being a stickler and devil's advocate. I'm not trying to ruffle any feathers. I'm just seeing some glaring problems from my point of view, and giving voice to them.
I really have come to believe that America is disintegrating to the degree that we stray from constitutional principles as our guideposts. I love the rule of law, and I loathe the rule of men. When a US citizen, no matter how vile, is going to lose his life or liberty at the hands of the federal government, I want it to happen by the rule of law.
If we'd just declare war on Islam, that wouldn't make killing him anymore moral or just.Actually, it would. If Islam was an officially declared enemy of the United States, then any American could kill any Muslim with impunity. That's where we're going, whether we realize it or not. The sooner we face up to it, the better off we'll be.
They didn't give Clyde Barrow a trial.Barrow was a piece of sh*t just like al-Awlaki, and he deserved to die. But any civilian lynch mob could have done the same. That's not the rule of law. That's the government pronouncing a death sentence and carrying it out. As I said earlier, that's a very dangerous road to start down. Who knows who the government will target tomorrow? Do we really want to give them the power of life and death over anyone who attracts their attention, and who they perceive as a threat?
They ambushed him and killed him.
QuoteQuoteIf we'd just declare war on Islam, that wouldn't make killing him anymore moral or just.Actually, it would. If Islam was an officially declared enemy of the United States, then any American could kill any Muslim with impunity. That's where we're going, whether we realize it or not. The sooner we face up to it, the better off we'll be.
[/quote]QuoteThey didn't give Clyde Barrow a trial.Barrow was a piece of sh*t just like al-Awlaki, and he deserved to die. But any civilian lynch mob could have done the same. That's not the rule of law. That's the government pronouncing a death sentence and carrying it out. As I said earlier, that's a very dangerous road to start down. Who knows who the government will target tomorrow? Do we really want to give them the power of life and death over anyone who attracts their attention, and who they perceive as a threat?
They ambushed him and killed him.
The obvious question for discussion is whether this activity – summary execution of citizens without trial – is permissible or desirable under Constitutional Government as part of the discretionary war powers of the President, and if so, do they apply within the United States as well as in foreign nations? It is not a simple question. What acts must a citizen perform to earn a place on the proscription list? One of those killed was “Samir Khan, who edited an online magazine that spread the word on ways to carry out attacks inside the United States”, but is that the totality of his acts that made him an enemy of the people? (I say enemy of the people, but I don’t know what designation is given to people who may be killed on sight without trial.) What agents of the Republic are authorized to carry out the act of proscription?
Could a private citizen who somehow got wind of the fact that a given person was on the list plead that as a defense? I killed him because he is proscribed. You cannot prosecute me. (As we certainly cannot prosecute the members of Seal Team Six for the execution of Osama, although I suspect the government of Pakistan would do just that if they could get custody of the team. As for example, suppose that one of the operators of an armed drone, told to kill a certain American citizen on sight if found in Oman or Pakistan, sees that person coming out of a casino in Las Vegas and takes the opportunity to gun him down. Would that be a valid plea in Nevada?
The government should have stripped him of his citizenship when he declared war and/or took up arms against the U.S.
Don’t misunderstand me. I’m glad he’s dead. I’m not defending him in any way.
I’m very worried about a slippery slope, though. Haven’t we all heard the constant drumbeat of Tea Party members described in the media and by some elected officials as “violent”, “racist”, and “economic terrorists”?
I’ve said before that I believe there is a concerted effort to dehumanize Americans who oppose the government’s policies (opposition to Obama = racism). This could lead to a very ugly place.
The government chose to kill a citizen whose death would garner no sympathy, and whose killing would be almost universally lauded. His actual death is uncontroversial. But they killed a citizen. Their stated justification is that he was a threat to national security. They have described you and I in the same way.
I shed no tears over this scum bag.
I worry about when you and I are deemed to be enemies of the state.
It's not a big step to declare the Tea Party, your Church or many of us here on this board as enemies
Anwar al-Awlaki, right now, is nothing but a stinking rotting corpse. You know, just another enemy combant! ::devil:: bait!
I'm done with arguing with people I like. All I know is screw him and and the bitch that bore him and the country they came from...
I'm done with arguing with people I like. All I know is screw him and and the bitch that bore him and the country they came from.He's dead and that's that and the people he helped murder at least now their families have some closure.
...The slippery slope handwringing over this is ridiculous...
Anwar al-Awlaki, right now, is nothing but a stinking rotting corpse. You know, just another enemy combant! ::devil:: bait!
Wrong jpat, he was more than an enemy combatant. He was a recruiter, tactician and strategist, field commander, and hierarchical leader of our declared and mortal enemy. He received a merciful death which is more than he deserved. And "is nothing but a stinking rotting corpse".
Anwar al-Awlaki, right now, is nothing but a stinking rotting corpse. You know, just another enemy combant! ::devil:: bait!
Wrong jpat, he was more than an enemy combatant. He was a recruiter, tactician and strategist, field commander, and hierarchical leader of our declared and mortal enemy. He received a merciful death which is more than he deserved. And "is nothing but a stinking rotting corpse".
All true but, as long as he is a stinking rotting corpse! ::thumbsup::
What do Americans think will be their fate now that the “war on terror” has destroyed the protection once afforded them by the US Constitution? If Awlaki really needed to be assassinated, why did not President Obama protect American citizens from the precedent that their deaths can be ordered without due process of law by first stripping Awlaki of his US citizenship? If the government can strip Awlaki of his life, it certainly can strip him of citizenship. The implication is hard to avoid that the executive branch desires the power to terminate citizens without due process of law.
Indeed, as the neoconservative “Project For A New American Century” makes clear, the war on terror is only an opening for the neoconservative imperial ambition to establish US hegemony over the world.
Obama’s assertion that Awlaki was some kind of high-level Al Qaeda operative is merely an assertion. Jason Ditz concluded that the reason Awlaki was murdered rather than brought to trial is that the US government had no real evidence that Awlaki was an Al Qaeda operative.
This is complete, utter BS, too.::thumbsup::QuoteObama’s assertion that Awlaki was some kind of high-level Al Qaeda operative is merely an assertion. Jason Ditz concluded that the reason Awlaki was murdered rather than brought to trial is that the US government had no real evidence that Awlaki was an Al Qaeda operative.
Awlaki, himself asserted that he was an enemy of the United States and he took credit for the deaths of innocents. Jason Ditz lacks the authority and the knowledge to make such a "conclusion." There is so much being ignored in order to paint Awlaki as a "citizen" whose "rights" were "violated," it's absolutely ridiculous.
This was not a civil matter. It was a military matter. The idea that the constitution was violated is ludicrous, and the slippery slope argument of enabling Obama to declare anyone he wants to a terrorist and execute them is just idiotic, and it belongs on InfoWars, and nowhere else.
Now, he is a world class scumbag who deserved to die but I would have preferred a snatch & grab and treason trial & hanging. Letting the government get used to snuffing citizens they decide are scumbags sets a really bad precedent IMO.
But I'm old fashioned that way. If they target you next...
"This is in response to da Tagliare article on “Ron Paul Denounces the Killing of a U.S. Terrorist.” I believe da Tagliare is wrong and Ron Paul is right. Assassinating U.S. citizens is murder and never legally acceptable. The Barack Obama administration apparently has some sort of legal ability to do this but has kept their legal reasoning classified due to its supposed sensitive nature. I’m not sure how sound a legal case can be when you refuse to tell the American people you represent what it is. How can a president be held accountable? Why not just classify everything? Who knows, that time may be coming.
I want to be clear. I am NOT defending Anwar al-Awlaki. Based on what we have been told about him being an al Qaeda leader and a terrorist intent on murdering American citizens he deserved the death penalty. What I am pointing out is the danger of acting like liberals in eroding the limits the Constitution places on our Federal government. Conservatives are praising the actions of a corrupt government because we are ok with taking this scumbag out, yet when liberals do the same in the name of their causes we scream foul.
Back to this issue I have with America murdering its citizens. Da Tagliare wrote:
What I don’t understand is that the US had a number of terrorist charges against al-Awlaki, which is why he was one of the most widely hunted al-Qaeda leaders. Besides, al-Qaeda has declared war on the US and all Americans, which would make any and all of their leadership enemies of the state, which constitute sufficient charges. And in the case of al-Awlaki, since he is a US citizen, he is also guilty of treason against the country of his citizenship for waging war against it and in giving support and aid to the enemies of the nation.
First of all, I believe Ron Paul is right on. An American citizen has the right to a trial by jury and due process of law no matter how bad or destructive he is. We don’t assassinate murderers (heck, we usually let them go free and cross our fingers into hoping they don’t murder again) and if we did, we would go after the one who did the assassinating."
If you're a wanted man, I would suggest you don't go overseas and take up arms with the avowed enemy.
S**t might happen. ::rockets::
...Awlaki stripped himself of his citizenship, when he took up arms against his country....
QuoteNow, he is a world class scumbag who deserved to die but I would have preferred a snatch & grab and treason trial & hanging. Letting the government get used to snuffing citizens they decide are scumbags sets a really bad precedent IMO.
But I'm old fashioned that way. If they target you next...
We have to be careful that we don't pick and choose which freedoms we want to support.
Those of us here have already been named as enemies of the state.
We may see stuff like this here sooner rather than later
...Awlaki stripped himself of his citizenship, when he took up arms against his country....
I've seen this claim made by some here, and others elsewhere.
Could you or someone else please point me to the law or constitutional precept that automatically triggers a loss of citizenship? I'm not being snide. I am willing to be educated. But I have never heard of such an automatic trigger.
To my way of reading the constitution, Awlaki's actions would be defined as "treason". From what I can see, there is a constitutional remedy for traitors, and even under that circumstance, I don't see anywhere that says that even the convicted traitor is stripped of his citizenship prior to execution.
Where does it say that "taking up arms" against the country results in an automatic loss of citizenship? (I'm using the "taking up arms" language for the sake of discussion, even though the evidence seems to suggest that Awlaki was a spiritual and rhetorical leader, not a material or operational one.)
IDK it's a slippery slope when the government Assassinates an American citizen.
Where does it stop?............The Tea Party? ::foilhathelicopter::
Charles, Janny , Pat, Hawk, and myself...by my unofficial poll the prick needed capping!! ::rockets::..Besides he was sand N****r anyway....If it was someone we all liked like Ronnie having him capped there wouldn't be hardly any outrage except from the left....personally I want Obama to announce publicly in all the media he will take all the muzzie scum out..then hopefully they might,Well you get the idea ::laserkill::IDK it's a slippery slope when the government Assassinates an American citizen.
Where does it stop?............The Tea Party? ::foilhathelicopter::
I guess I have been talking to myself all this time. Either that, or this is sarcasm. Alwaki was no more an "American citizen" than bin Laden was.
::bashing:: ::gaah::
I'm done here on this thread.
...I guess I have been talking to myself all this time. Either that, or this is sarcasm. Alwaki was no more an "American citizen" than bin Laden was.
::bashing:: ::gaah::
I'm done here on this thread.
Thanks, IDP.
Sorry for letting my frustration get the better of me. This isn't the only forum I have been arguing about this on, and I just see people repeating the same silly arguments!
Thanks, IDP.
Sorry for letting my frustration get the better of me. This isn't the only forum I have been arguing about this on, and I just see people repeating the same silly arguments!
I gave up yesterday.
The case has been made to my satisfaction that Awlaki had indeed expatriated himself and was no longer a US citizen and therefore was a legitimate target. But the fact remains that our government has labeled us and people like us as a threat.
People who revere the constitution, believe strongly in 2A, states rights, have libertarian leanings, etc, are now suspect based only on those criteria. I'm not paranoid, but I also know I am not comfortable with a federal government placing people with my beliefs on some list. I now have to ask myself if I think this rogue government will stay its hand against people like me indefinitely, and I don't know the answer.
The case has been made to my satisfaction that Awlaki had indeed expatriated himself and was no longer a US citizen and therefore was a legitimate target. But the fact remains that our government has labeled us and people like us as a threat.
People who revere the constitution, believe strongly in 2A, states rights, have libertarian leanings, etc, are now suspect based only on those criteria. I'm not paranoid, but I also know I am not comfortable with a federal government placing people with my beliefs on some list. I now have to ask myself if I think this rogue government will stay its hand against people like me indefinitely, and I don't know the answer.
Smart people can argue with this. As I've previously said, I have more of a problem with everything Sheriff Joe has done ON AMERICAN SOIL than I would ever had with what happened to this dirtbag, ON ENEMY SOIL.
That's the difference, I see.
Bulldozing a guy's house for raising roosters, while literally riding in in a tank, for benefit of looking "good" on TV and in front of Steven Segal will always be the ultimate Sheriff Joeism to me. Prisoner beatings. Graft. Using the weight of a law enforcement office on political opponents.
There's a whole lot beyond the pretty pink jumpsuits, tents, and lunch meat sandwiches.
Which reminds me about the guy's habit of maybe running for Senate every 6 years, in which he raises money, then never runs for Senate. Is he still "mulling" that run, while still collecting money?
Joe's a great guy...He's been doing what needs to be done...Period..end of story.. ::whoohoo::Bulldozing a guy's house for raising roosters, while literally riding in in a tank, for benefit of looking "good" on TV and in front of Steven Segal will always be the ultimate Sheriff Joeism to me. Prisoner beatings. Graft. Using the weight of a law enforcement office on political opponents.
There's a whole lot beyond the pretty pink jumpsuits, tents, and lunch meat sandwiches.
Which reminds me about the guy's habit of maybe running for Senate every 6 years, in which he raises money, then never runs for Senate. Is he still "mulling" that run, while still collecting money?
Sounds to me like you've bought some of the anti-Arpaio propaganda that oozes around the Internet sewer sites.
I'd be interested to see a legitimate source about that "running for senate" claim you made, because I've been in Phoenix for ten years now, and I haven't heard that one before.
Still mulling... (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1920&bih=1085&q=joe+arpaio+senate&oq=joe+arpaio+senate&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=0l0l0l5054l0l0l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0)
Think he's done mulling that race for governor (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&biw=1920&bih=1085&q=joe+arpaio+governor&oq=joe+arpaio+g&aq=0v&aqi=g-v10&aql=&gs_sm=c&gs_upl=2535l3333l0l5248l4l4l0l0l0l1l396l1045l0.1.2.1l4l0)
A new Rasmussen poll of Arizona finds that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who is known nationally for his hard-line stance against illegal immigration, would be the strongest possible Republican candidate for governor in next year's election.
Democratic state Attorney General Terry Goddard, the likely Dem nominee for governor, was tested against three Republicans. Goddard leads incumbent Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who succeeded to the office after Dem Gov. Janet Napolitano was appointed Secretary of Homeland Security, by 44%-35%. Goddard edges state Treasurer Dean Martin by 40%-38%, within the ±3% margin of error.
Arpaio, however, leads Goddard by a convincing margin of 51%-39%. He is not currently a candidate, but that could change with numbers like these.
The targets of Arpaio's alleged abuse of power have included or currently include: Phil Gordon, Phoenix Mayor;[59] Dan Saban, Arpaio's 2004 and 2008 opponent for the office of Sheriff of Maricopa County;[59] Terry Goddard, Arizona Attorney General;[59] David Smith, Maricopa County Manager;[59] The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors;[59] Barbara Mundell, Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge;[59] Anna Baca, former Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Judge;[61] Gary Donahoe, Maricopa Superior Court Criminal Presiding Judge[59] Daniel Pochoda, ACLU attorney;[59] Sandra Dowling, former Maricopa County School Superintendent;[60] Mike Lacy, Editor, Phoenix New Times.[60]
In fact, just read the whole entry. That's not left/right stuff. 90% of this guy's legal problems arise from his fragile little ego.
According to the left-libertarian Phoenix New Times, taxpayers have paid out $43 million and counting, to cover Arpaio's fragile little self. That's not propaganda. That's real tax money, just to cover for an ego.
Americans are stupid cowards and deserve everything coming to them.
QuoteAmericans are stupid cowards and deserve everything coming to them.
Go preach that bilge somewhere else, pal.
Yes, the latest incarnation called itself "free5". I waited a bit to see which way the wind was blowing with it, and then blew it out of here.
This one (and its former aliases) likes to start a bunch of new threads with a short comment and a link, but engagement with other posters -- that'd be us -- is limited ....... and then it gets around to insulting.
Feh.
::snarl::
Yes, the latest incarnation called itself "free5". I waited a bit to see which way the wind was blowing with it, and then blew it out of here.
This one (and its former aliases) likes to start a bunch of new threads with a short comment and a link, but engagement with other posters -- that'd be us -- is limited ....... and then it gets around to insulting.
Feh.