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

[Original Playa Records]

There is no court of law in the streets.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by 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 stepup from what normally happens. You seem toknow 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 thisone time it's nothush 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.

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.

You and I both.

And I'd imprison Natalie Portman

Amen to that.

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.

 

[pololax]

I don't agree with killing anyone, as murder is moral an unjust, however we have to look at situations on a case by case issue I believe. Every situation is different and in this case a known individual who has ties to terrorist organizations as has involvement in the Sept. 11th attacks and other plots to kill innocent Americans is continuing to plot against our nation.

The United States is still apart of a War on Terror and this man is a known terrorist or atleast has ties to terrorism. He is a citizen, but for some odd reasons decided that this nation is worth attacking. He is a backstabber, a liar, cheater, whatever you want to call it. He has committed treason and has plotted against us for years. If the United States decides to murder him, then so be it.

You people don't realize that he wouldn't hesitate to kill a member of our family, one of our friends or even us period. I know an eye for an eye makes the world go blind, but you have to realize that in this case capturing a known terrorist and prosecuting him can takes years and he can continue to operate or have others operate for him. If they are in a position that the only way to stop him from terrorizing the United States and our interests abroad is to kill, then in that case you kill.

If a serial killer was terrorizing a neighborhood you wouldn't hesitate to kill if need be, because waiting to detain him may cause one more person to fall victim.

And to be honest, I don't care if he's a U.S Citizen, in fact, I think he should be killed more so than a terrorist who has no ties to this country. We gave this man freedom and he turned on us and spit in our faces. You can not justify those actions, I'm sorry.

I'm a liberal by the way.

 

[mht214]

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?

Im sure there is more to it than the Gov. is saying...

  

 

[josebronx]

Originally Posted by 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

  

 

[bottom74bottom]

I sooooooo get the point of this thread and my answer is NO.

 

[hieu23]

kill him.

 

[ag 47]

What difference does citizenship make?

100s of Americans are put to death on death row a year for crimes they've committed.

I don't see a difference between a known terrorist and a death row inmate.

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by PoloLax


I don't agree with killing anyone, as murder is moral an unjust, however we have to look at situations on a case by case issue I believe. Every situation is different and in this case a known individual who has ties to terrorist organizations as has involvement in the Sept. 11th attacks and other plots to kill innocent Americans is continuing to plot against our nation.

The United States is still apart of a War on Terror and this man is a known terrorist or atleast has ties to terrorism. He is a citizen, but for some odd reasons decided that this nation is worth attacking. He is a backstabber, a liar, cheater, whatever you want to call it. He has committed treason and has plotted against us for years. If the United States decides to murder him, then so be it.

You people don't realize that he wouldn't hesitate to kill a member of our family, one of our friends or even us period. I know an eye for an eye makes the world go blind, but you have to realize that in this case capturing a known terrorist and prosecuting him can takes years and he can continue to operate or have others operate for him. If they are in a position that the only way to stop him from terrorizing the United States and our interests abroad is to kill, then in that case you kill.

If a serial killer was terrorizing a neighborhood you wouldn't hesitate to kill if need be, because waiting to detain him may cause one more person to fall victim.

And to be honest, I don't care if he's a U.S Citizen, in fact, I think he should be killed more so than a terrorist who has no ties to this country. We gave this man freedom and he turned on us and spit in our faces. You can not justify those actions, I'm sorry.

I'm a liberal by the way.

KSM and his cohorts are set for trial in NYC. Why are they given more rights than someone that was born here? Why dont we just kill KSM and save the billions of dollars? I mean, KSM even admitted to contributing to 9/11.

I wasn't trying to justify anyone's actions. My argument is that since Presidential powers are arbitrary and broad, the Attorney General and the President can point to anyone and say they are a "enemy combatant" and the President can choose to have you killed without proving you are a terrorist.

In 2004, there was a Supreme Court case Hamdi v. Rumsfeld. Hamdi was an U.S. citizen arrested in Afghanistan and was declared an "enemy combatant"and was held in prison indefinitely without access to an attorney. Justice O' Connor stated that "the state of war does not give the President a blank check when it comes to the rights of the nations citizens.", and the Court ruled that he had a right to an attorney.

What difference does citizenship make?

100s of Americans are put to death on death row a year for crimes they've committed.

I don't see a difference between a known terrorist and a death row inmate.

There's a huge difference. The difference is that those people on Death Row had a trial, had access to an attorney, and were able to argue the accusations against them. Those people on Death Row got a trial with an impartial jury that convicted them and a Judge that sentenced them. In this case with Al-Alaki, the President overrides the rule of law process and orders his death without a trial or any charges filed against him.


I'm not trying to be a smartass or try to refute everyone, my point of the thread is to show that if it can happen to someone else it can happen to you. During WWII, FDR forcibly relocated hundreds of thousands of Japanese-Americans just because they were Japanese, and not only that took their of age children and shipped them overseas to fight for the country that put their parents behind barbed-wire fences. Now, can you imagine with J. Edgar Hoover calling the Black Panthers the "greatest threat to national security" if the Feds started rounding up Blacks just because they were Black or because they were wearing leather jackets with combat boots? It really does matter if he is a citizen because nowhere in the Constitution does it say just because a citizen commits a treasonous act that he is deprived of his rights. When I was in college I helped organize a "anti-war/end the fed/end the military industrial complex" protest on campus in 2003 and I had been called a "traitor", "unpatriotic", ect. all because I opposed illegal wars and the funneling of money to private government contractors. What if President Bush said anyone who was in anti-war protests or said the war was illegal was committing treason and should be killed? All I ask is that you know your rights and pay attention.

 

[mikykr20]

If you think this is bad research bill HR 8791

 

[Master Zik]

Yeah, sure, why not? It's not like any one person in any position is more qualified to authorize the death of another human being than any other person or persons in any position.

 

[itz rolli]

i hope they do kill him, whether they make it public or not.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

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.

QFT

 

[bilbo07]

clearly you have never killed a person. back in nine six i took out two low life who were asking for trouble. pulled the cold steel outta their chest and licked the blade clean of their blood. i became a man that day...

 

[teamjordan79]

to put it simply...no i do not feel comfortable

 

[earth0ne]

Originally Posted by bilbo07

clearly you have never killed a person. back in nine six i took out two low life who were asking for trouble. pulled the cold steel outta their chest and licked the blade clean of their blood. i became a man that day...

u need to check yo self fo aids  

 

[sundoobie]

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?

Due Process?  Are you this naive or blind with this post 9/11 world we're living in?  Have you not listened to his Anti-American rants on youtube?  You commit treason, aid/counsel the enemy, and terror plot against the United States and it's citizens, you will be killed period.   

You want due process, you come out of hiding in Yemen and confront these charges the US has against you.  But does he? No the cowards hides.  I hope they find this fool and torture him to extract the information about the other sleeper cells here in America. 

 

[rashi]

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

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?

Due Process?  Are you this naive or blind with this post 9/11 world we're living in?  Have you not listened to his Anti-American rants on youtube?  You commit treason, aid/counsel the enemy, and terror plot against the United States and it's citizens, you will be killed period.   

You want due process, you come out of hiding in Yemen and confront these charges the US has against you.  But does he? No the cowards hides.  I hope they find this fool and torture him to extract the information about the other sleeper cells here in America. 

I'm not naive nor am I blind. Still, my question hasnt been answered. Why is KSM recieving a trial? Why didnt we kill him after we recieved intelligence? Why is he being rewarded to put on a show with billions of dollars being spent and given the same rights as you and I when he clearly admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks. You can say what you want about Al-Alaki comitting a treasonous act, which he has, but like I said the Constitution doesnt deprive his rights even if he did. We could agree that Timothy McViegh comitted a treasonous act, but he got his Due Process and was convicted, why didnt we just kill him?

Where is the limit to Presidential powers? President's of this country have declared war overseas under the guise of spreading "democracy", have taken over private businesses in war time, and even waged war on his own country because concern of financial stability of the Union. Now, for the first time in history a President authorizes the killing of a citizen. Where is the line drawn, where should it be drawn?

 

[sundoobie]

Originally Posted by rashi

Originally Posted by SunDOOBIE

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?

Due Process?  Are you this naive or blind with this post 9/11 world we're living in?  Have you not listened to his Anti-American rants on youtube?  You commit treason, aid/counsel the enemy, and terror plot against the United States and it's citizens, you will be killed period.   

You want due process, you come out of hiding in Yemen and confront these charges the US has against you.  But does he? No the cowards hides.  I hope they find this fool and torture him to extract the information about the other sleeper cells here in America. 

I'm not naive nor am I blind. Still, my question hasnt been answered. Why is KSM recieving a trial? Why didnt we kill him after we recieved intelligence? Why is he being rewarded to put on a show with billions of dollars being spent and given the same rights as you and I when he clearly admitted to planning the 9/11 attacks. You can say what you want about Al-Alaki comitting a treasonous act, which he has, but like I said the Constitution doesnt deprive his rights even if he did. We could agree that Timothy McViegh comitted a treasonous act, but he got his Due Process and was convicted, why didnt we just kill him?

Where is the limit to Presidential powers? President's of this country have declared war overseas under the guise of spreading "democracy", have taken over private businesses in war time, and even waged war on his own country because concern of financial stability of the Union. Now, for the first time in history a President authorizes the killing of a citizen. Where is the line drawn, where should it be drawn?

Come on man.  This isn't a DUI or a simple assault charge.  This is a charge of HIGH TREASON.  Timothy McVeigh was caught that's why he received due process.  If McVeigh left the country and continued to be a National Security threat and if his act of terrorism occurred after 9/11/2001, then yes he too would of been wanted Dead or Alive.

Same thing with KSM.  He was also captured.  KSM was wanted DEAD or ALIVE.  Obviously the US wants to capture these individuals for intel purposes however if they can't be captured, then the next best thing is to kill them.  Common sense.

President authorized the killing of Awlaki because the man is terror plotting against the United States of America.  Don't you think Osama is the same position?  Either Dead or Alive, we'll take either/or.

 

[rashi]

[h1][/h1]

[h1]Anwar al-Aulaqi, U.S.-born cleric linked to al-Qaeda, reported killed in Yemen[/h1]http://www.washingtonpost...30/gIQAsoWO9K_story.html



.....


[h1][/h1]

[h1]Qaeda-Linked Imam Dined at Pentagon after 9/11[/h1]
By CBSNews
(CBS)  This story was written by CBS News Justice and Homeland Security correspondent Bob Orr

---

Anwar al-Awlaki - the radical spiritual leader linked to several 9/11 attackers, the Fort Hood shooting, and the attempted Christmas Day bombing of an airliner - was a guest at the Pentagon in the months after 9/11, a Pentagon official confirmed to CBS News.

http://www.cbsnews.com/st...tional/main6978200.shtml



.....

[h1][/h1]

[h1]EXCLUSIVE: Al Qaeda Leader Dined at the Pentagon Just Months After 9/11[/h1]
By Catherine Herridge

Published October 20, 2010

| FoxNews.com

Anwar Al-Awlaki may be the first American on the CIA's kill or capture list, but he was also a lunch guest of military brass at the Pentagon within months of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, Fox News has learned. 
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/#ixzz1ZRaDfQMs



Precedent has been set. If the government thinks you are a terrorist, are no use to the CIA anymore, or if Poll numbers are down, you're dead. No charges need to be filed, 4th Amendment, 5th Amendment.

 

[ar guy]

He was a enemy combatant who helped plan attacks that killed Americans and was killed on the battlefield. He was a legitimate military target in a foreign country. If he was killed in the U.S. then I would have a huge problem with this.

 

[mr j 858]

This is like asking:

Are you happy George W. Bush approved the patriot act.

 

[b smooth 202]

the executive branched breached the checks and balances a long time ago...and people still believe in these guys/this system..even though they are against it....why can't you see yourself in their position?

i dont believe anything the media says....the media is just what it is...a mediator for reality and whats going on out here...their responsibility is to maintain order at all costs...no matter how much they warp the truth.

 

[mo matik]

Killing Awlaki is a foolish move in the long run.

His message is largely one of righteous self-sacrifice to defend one’s religion, so the proper way of countering it is not to assassinate the messenger so that he achieves “martyr

 

[lil rell]

but i thought our govermnent was responsible for 9/11.. how is he responsible when we did it?