Are you comfortable with the President authorizing the killing of a U.S. citizen? AL AWLAKI "KILLED"

[rashi]

This is old news, but due to the corporate-state's media establishment irresponsibility to disperse complete and objectively determined information, most do not know. If you are not aware, Anwar Al-Alaki is a U.S. citizens and has been ordered to be killed by the CIA with the authorization coming from the President. He has been allegedly suspected of having ties to the "Christmas Day bomber" and the Ft. Hood shooting.

My question is, are you comfortable with the President of the United States having this authority? Are you comfortable with the fact that the President has ordered the killing of a citizen without any due process? There hasn't been any evidence nor has Al-Alaki been given the chance to refute the accusations by this government. Should the President have the authority to order the killing of a U.S. citizen without any trial or charges necessary?

 

[willy wonka]

so you support this guy?

 

[shaunhillftw49]

Citizenship doesn't matter. If the crime is bad enough, yes.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Willy Wonka

so you support this guy?

Absolutely not. He hasn't been charged with anything and it hasn't been proven that he is behind these attacks. So why is it ok to have him killed, if it isnt proven without trial?

 

[rawse]

Originally Posted by rashi

This is old news, but due to the corporate-state's media establishment irresponsibility to disperse complete and objectively determined information, most do not know. If you are not aware, Anwar Al-Alaki is a U.S. citizens and has been ordered to be killed by the CIA with the authorization coming from the President. He has been allegedly suspected of having ties to the "Christmas Day bomber" and the Ft. Hood shooting.

My question is, are you comfortable with the President of the United States having this authority? Are you comfortable with the fact that the President has ordered the killing of a citizen without any due process? There hasn't been any evidence nor has Al-Alaki been given the chance to refute the accusations by this government. Should the President have the authority to order the killing of a U.S. citizen without any trial or charges necessary?

Obviously not, but he's the pres he can do whatever he wants

 

[manglor]

Don't care. This president, any president can decided at any time to attack a country, drop bombs, go after anyone for anything pretty much. Remember when the Monica scandal hit Clinton and he started dropping bombs?

It almost sounds like you think this is more important since it's an american citizen being killed. People are people, lives are lives. I don't care where you live or what language you speak your life still matters as much as everyone elses.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Manglor

Don't care. This president, any president can decided at any time to attack a country, drop bombs, go after anyone for anything pretty much. Remember when the Monica scandal hit Clinton and he started dropping bombs?

It almost sounds like you think this is more important since it's an american citizen being killed. People are people, lives are lives. I don't care where you live or what language you speak your life still matters as much as everyone elses.

Well, considering a President has never authorized (publicly) a killing of an American citizen, I think it is important. What if the President felt that "Manglor" should be killed because he wrote something or posted something against the government and you weren't allowed to refute the accusations, would you then care?

 

[Johnny_Cakes]

Yes.

 

[manglor]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Manglor

Don't care. This president, any president can decided at any time to attack a country, drop bombs, go after anyone for anything pretty much. Remember when the Monica scandal hit Clinton and he started dropping bombs?

It almost sounds like you think this is more important since it's an american citizen being killed. People are people, lives are lives. I don't care where you live or what language you speak your life still matters as much as everyone elses.

Well, considering a President has never authorized (publicly) a killing of an American citizen, I think it is important. What if the President felt that "Manglor" should be killed because he wrote something or posted something against the government and you weren't allowed to refute the accusations, would you then care?

Nope Manglor is a jerk and probably deserves it.

I think the fact this is a public thing is a step up from what normally happens. You seem to know enough about this subject to realize when this stuff usually happens no one ever hears about it. People who a high up official want dead "go missing" or "attempt to escape from custody" or even "die of natural causes" all the damn time. At least this one time it's not hush hush. 

 

[f a y b a n]

You're leaving out a lot of context and history related to Aw-laki.  He is suspected of having ties to the 9-11 plot; he was their spiritual advisor while they lived in the United States.  He advocates violence against our country and has "ties" to a lot of recent attacks, so to classify him as a terrorist isn't much of a reach.
Plus he hasn't lived in the U.S. for many years, it's not the equivalent of snatching some flag burner up and killing him, he's accused of treason.

An article on the times brought up German Americans who served for Germany during WW2 and they weren't spared.  The comparison isn't exactly the same but the sentiment is.

But I don't still don't think the president should have that kind of power.

 

[thunderchunk69]

anyone with a flat screen tv is guaranteed not to care

we're not ignorant we're preoccupied!

 

[brownin187]

Hold up..They're killing a suspected terrorist without due process? That's the most un-American thing I've heard in a minute.

I don't care what he is or who he advised, there's a serious problem with this administration if this goes through.

With every passing day I realize no matter blue or red, the government cannot be trusted. They just don't give a damn and go through with things with no base of moral. It's only their agenda and them cramming it down the peoples throats.

 

[f a y b a n]

Originally Posted by rashi

This is old news, but due to the corporate-state's media establishment irresponsibility to disperse complete and objectively determined information, most do not know. If you are not aware, Anwar Al-Alaki is a U.S. citizens and has been ordered to be killed by the CIA with the authorization coming from the President. He has been allegedly suspected of having ties to the "Christmas Day bomber" and the Ft. Hood shooting.

My question is, are you comfortable with the President of the United States having this authority? Are you comfortable with the fact that the President has ordered the killing of a citizen without any due process? There hasn't been any evidence nor has Al-Alaki been given the chance to refute the accusations by this government. Should the President have the authority to order the killing of a U.S. citizen without any trial or charges necessary?

http://www.nytimes.com/20...2-0XunTfPdd4pjFZ7wOzlHqw

 Had to quote that, it was on the front page of NY Times a couple days ago.  This isn't some buried news for people that follow current events.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by Manglor

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Manglor

Don't care. This president, any president can decided at any time to attack a country, drop bombs, go after anyone for anything pretty much. Remember when the Monica scandal hit Clinton and he started dropping bombs?

It almost sounds like you think this is more important since it's an american citizen being killed. People are people, lives are lives. I don't care where you live or what language you speak your life still matters as much as everyone elses.

Well, considering a President has never authorized (publicly) a killing of an American citizen, I think it is important. What if the President felt that "Manglor" should be killed because he wrote something or posted something against the government and you weren't allowed to refute the accusations, would you then care?

I think the fact this is a public thing is a step up from what normally happens. You seem to know enough about this subject to realize when this stuff usually happens no one ever hears about it. People who a high up official want dead "go missing" or "attempt to escape from custody" or even "die of natural causes" all the damn time. At least this one time it's not hush hush. 

Very true. My whole deal is that Al-Alaki has been accused of a crime without charges, due process, filed evidence against him, and hasn't been given the opportunity to refute the accusations. Regardless how you feel about the Constitution, it's the law of the land and the guy has rights and they are being denied by the President. Personally, I feel if the President was George Bush (who also killed an American citizen in drone attacks in 2002) there would be more attention to this situation.

If there is any law students or political science students that have taken Constitutional Law I'de like to see some input.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by F A Y B A N

Originally Posted by rashi

This is old news, but due to the corporate-state's media establishment irresponsibility to disperse complete and objectively determined information, most do not know. If you are not aware, Anwar Al-Alaki is a U.S. citizens and has been ordered to be killed by the CIA with the authorization coming from the President. He has been allegedly suspected of having ties to the "Christmas Day bomber" and the Ft. Hood shooting.

My question is, are you comfortable with the President of the United States having this authority? Are you comfortable with the fact that the President has ordered the killing of a citizen without any due process? There hasn't been any evidence nor has Al-Alaki been given the chance to refute the accusations by this government. Should the President have the authority to order the killing of a U.S. citizen without any trial or charges necessary?

http://www.nytimes.com/20...2-0XunTfPdd4pjFZ7wOzlHqw

 Had to quote that, it was on the front page of NY Times a couple days ago.  This isn't some buried news for people that follow current events.

This authorization was done in January...

 

[f a y b a n]

Is the government responsible for dispersing information on every action they consider the moment they think of it? It'd be impossible, and it'd be just as ridiculous to expect it.  He has been in the news for a very long time but with that hyped up statement you made you'd think otherwise.  

 

[essential1]

Yay and nay on this..

Like stated before though, you are leaving out that this guy is not an ordinary citizen. These lists are almost like a Dead or Alive list which we haven't been too against in the past couple 100 years.

He is pretty much one of the most important players in this "War on Terror".. I am all for capturing him, but if not kill him, which is pretty much the point of the list.. He has been "ordered to be assassinated" if you find him.

But at least he is using the CIA, could be much worse. Could be using private military contractors. That would be 100x worse.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by F A Y B A N

Is the government responsible for dispersing information on every action they consider the moment they think of it? It'd be impossible, and it'd be just as ridiculous to expect it.  He has been in the news for a very long time but with that hyped up statement you made you'd think otherwise.  

I think the government has control on what establishment media outlets put out and that isn't a secret regardless if is NBC, CBS, ABC, or FNC. That has been done for a very long time, but it gets more disturbing when the President gives a commencement speech and says "information becomes a distraction, a diversion...", so what is he saying? Is he saying with that statement he wants to control what information we get so it doesn't become a "distraction".


Your right, he has been in the news for awhile. He may very well be responsible for the attack, no denying that. But, to order his killing without the rule of law is bad precedent. Why aren't we just killing KSM and the others? I mean, the Attorney General and Press Secretary have already stated that they "are guilty and will be killed", so what the point of the trial if the President's cabinet have already declared their fate?

He is pretty much one of the most important players in this "War on Terror".. I am all for capturing him, but if not kill him, which is pretty much the point of the list.. He has been "ordered to be assassinated" if you find him.

But at least he is using the CIA, could be much worse. Could be using private military contractors. That would be 100x worse.

True, he is. This is an interesting subject because of the arbitrary language of Article II. and depending who is President and who is on the Supreme Court.

 

[f a y b a n]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by F A Y B A N

Is the government responsible for dispersing information on every action they consider the moment they think of it? It'd be impossible, and it'd be just as ridiculous to expect it.  He has been in the news for a very long time but with that hyped up statement you made you'd think otherwise.  

I think the government has control on what establishment media outlets put out and that isn't a secret regardless if is NBC, CBS, ABC, or FNC. That has been done for a very long time, but it gets more disturbing when the President gives a commencement speech and says "information becomes a distraction, a diversion...", so what is he saying? Is he saying with that statement he wants to control what information we get so it doesn't become a "distraction".


Your right, he has been in the news for awhile. He may very well be responsible for the attack, no denying that. But, to order his killing without the rule of law is bad precedent. Why aren't we just killing KSM and the others? I mean, the Attorney General and Press Secretary have already stated that they "are guilty and will be killed", so what the point of the trial if the President's cabinet have already declared their fate?

Because reality doesn't work in absolutes.  He is supposedly hiding in Yemen which isn't a declared war zone, that being why this particular decision is more troubling.  Authorities in Yemen barely have the resources to police their country and provide basics for it's people. It makes a lawful arrest and due process a bit more difficult.  And suppose another attack happens and he is responsible?  That mixture of real and perceived threat gives the government a lot of leeway to do some questionable things, which I don't think is good.
I think the point the president was making was that when you are inundated with information and you have faith in none of it, it can be frustrating and lead many to withdraw from the process.  Maybe that's intentional, but it remains a personal responsibility to know what is going on, don't blame it on corporations.

 

[manglor]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Manglor

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by Manglor

Don't care. This president, any president can decided at any time to attack a country, drop bombs, go after anyone for anything pretty much. Remember when the Monica scandal hit Clinton and he started dropping bombs?

It almost sounds like you think this is more important since it's an american citizen being killed. People are people, lives are lives. I don't care where you live or what language you speak your life still matters as much as everyone elses.

Well, considering a President has never authorized (publicly) a killing of an American citizen, I think it is important. What if the President felt that "Manglor" should be killed because he wrote something or posted something against the government and you weren't allowed to refute the accusations, would you then care?

I think the fact this is a public thing is a step up from what normally happens. You seem to know enough about this subject to realize when this stuff usually happens no one ever hears about it. People who a high up official want dead "go missing" or "attempt to escape from custody" or even "die of natural causes" all the damn time. At least this one time it's not hush hush. 

Very true. My whole deal is that Al-Alaki has been accused of a crime without charges, due process, filed evidence against him, and hasn't been given the opportunity to refute the accusations. Regardless how you feel about the Constitution, it's the law of the land and the guy has rights and they are being denied by the President. Personally, I feel if the President was George Bush (who also killed an American citizen in drone attacks in 2002) there would be more attention to this situation.

If there is any law students or political science students that have taken Constitutional Law I'de like to see some input.

I can see why that is disturbing but the circumstances are odd. If he was in our governments custody and was to be excecuted it would bother me greatly because he COULD face trial and in my opinion should but we don't have him in custody and probably never will. Killing him seems to be the only way to stop him.

Again, you know as well as I that this stuff happens all the time "off the record" so I can't be outraged by it happening out in the open. Every government including ours does horrible unthinkable things for what they believe to be good reasons. We can't change that, all we can do is hope we put our faith(and votes)in people who will do good as often as they can.

BTW love you avatar and if i thought we had reached THAT point i would be one of the first ones with a can of red spray paint tagging the sides of a building and getting shot at by the cops.

 

[shaunhillftw49]

Originally Posted by Manglor



BTW love you avatar and if i thought we had reached THAT point i would be one of the first ones with a can of red spray paint tagging the sides of a building and getting shot at by the cops.

And I'd  imprison Natalie Portman

  

 

[b smooth 202]

I don't support the policy itself but the fact that it's been made public eased me up a bit. Especially since the CIA is usually unchecked and cloaked by secrecy. By making this decision public Obama opens a forum for either support or scrutiny. With that being said, if enough people have a problem with the policy than maybe Obama is willing to alter it?

 

[b smooth 202]

I don't agree with the policy itself but the fact that it's been made public actually eased me up a bit. Obama has tried to portray his policies as being publicized and open to public scrutiny. Usually the CIA is unchecked by the public, and cloaked in their intentions, I like being able to know what these guys are up to.

 

[dimsum9]

Originally Posted by ShaunHillFTW49

Citizenship doesn't matter. If the crime is bad enough, yes.

 

[georgehimself]