ACLU: Killing US born al-Quieda

[tbubster]

The drone attack killed a yemen citizen.The american citizen that was killed at the same time was just in the wrong place at the right time.

 

[RLENT]

The drone attack killed a yemen citizen. The american citizen that was killed at the same time was just in the wrong place at the right time.

You're apparently confused - and incorrect:

There was one US citizen killed (Samir Khan) and an individual who held dual US-Yemeni citizenship, who was the actual target (Anwar al-Awlaki)

But great impression of a US government mouthpiece ....

 

[RLENT]

The Constitution is our way of life here .....

Yeah ....

You know the words .... but you can't actually sing the tune ....

You can play the individual notes on your instrument .... but ya can't play the music .....

There is a huge difference between just mouthing some words ... and actually doing what is required to support and defend ....

 

[RLENT]

Nice try ...... but .....

In spite of all the constitutional discussion regarding Al-Awlaki's killing, what's missing in all these posts are examples of what this guy was saying and doing

And you apparently are going to treat us to more of the "missingness" as far as: what he was actually doing .... the "saying" thing is largely in the public record, save for anything he said in private.

Speaking of what's missing as far as exactly what he did, specifically ..... that is also what is missing as far as the government's case goes ....

You do realize that this guy was not ever even indicted right ?

For a crime that is probably so utterly obvious ... that even a blind man in a dark room during a total lunar eclipse in the middle of the night could see it ....

Contrast that with this:

American Al Qaeda Member to Be Indicted for Treason

You guys who are all so anti-Obama ought to be on this Al-Awlaki thing like a dog on a bone - but you simply can't - due to your own lust for blood, desire for vengeance, and propensity for unnatural (and actually un-American) worship of anything in a uniform.

You all continually rant and rave about the threat that Obama poses to our nation (and he does ... but then so did Bush) ... and he (Obama) commits the most egregious of crimes against the Constitution, the rule of law, and the citizens of this country ... and you all stand idly by, supporting him ..... and giving him a pass ?

What a frickin' joke ..... even if it's only a cruel one ...

Have you all lost your flippin' minds ?

that made him dangerous to the point of being guilty of treason.

It's not a question of "being dangerous" (to the point of being guilty of treason) - he either committed acts that make him guilty of treason - or not.

If the government believes that he has, and has evidence of it, then it is incumbent upon them to make their case.

Treason is a crime - a violation of the law - and under our system, such crimes are dealt with by the State making it's case in a Court of Law - not in the media or the court of public opinion - via the presentation of evidence, with the defendant present, obtaining a conviction, and then after due process has run it's course, imposing the sentence.

FWIW, I have very little doubt that he is guilty of treason - even with my relatively limited knowledge of the matter. Nevertheless, the only legal (and moral) way he can be executed, is as I have outlined above.

Locate him, mount an operation to take him into custody, and if successful, try him in a court of law, in accordance with our law, and then carry out the sentence if he's convicted.

If he attempts to kill or harm any of those taking him into custody, then anyone attempting to apprehend him has a right to self-defense. If he dies in that manner, then ... oh well .... should have surrendered.

But that's got to be honest - no "oops ... my finger slipped on the trigger" (wink wink, nudge nudge ) ... or "I felt threatened" bullcrap .... killing him if he's actually honestly trying to surrender is just an extra-judicial execution .... and is actually cowardly .....

Ideally, capturing and trying him here in court, and convicting him yields the best possible result (see if you can discern why that is)

Everyone seems to have forgotten his support of and involvement with Maj. Nidal Hassan of the Ft. Hood massacre.

Nope.

"Awlaki told al-Jazeera after the November 2009 attack: 'Nidal Hasan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people.

The above is a political opinion - something that, under the Constitution, he is absolutely entitled to hold .... and not only that, but to express ....

It may be a highly unpopular one, but the Constitution has no requirement that political opinions be popular - only that people have a right to have and speak them - no matter how repugnant they might be to some.

It is also entirely irrelevant to the entire issue at hand, and at best you were foolish to quote it, and at worst it may be that your motivation for doing so was simply incitement - to further a lynch mob mentality.

There are other possibilities as well, but since the way I would be inclined to express them would probably constitute a personal attack, I will refrain.

My support to the operation was because the operation brother Nidal carried out was a courageous one."

Exactly what support did he provide ?

Exactly what did he do in that regard ?

There was also an interesting article in Time World that offers a different viewpoint to this whole situation. Remember about a year ago when it was revealed by WikiLeaks that the US was secretly collaborating with Yemeni leaders and conducting clandestine strikes against Al Qaeda but local forces were being given credit. Suppose this effort to eliminate Al-Awlaki was at the direct request of the Yemeni govt, who was obviously a willing accomplice in this whole venture?

So your take is we ought to change it from:

America: Beacon of Hope ... and Light of World

to

America: Murder Inc. .... "Mercs R Us"

Essentially, you are suggesting we ourselves out .... to commit executions at the request of foreign nations ?

The Founding Fathers are rolling in their graves .... as you crap all over the priceless jewels they bequeathed to us .....

There are a lot things in play that the general public is not aware of for good reason, not the least of which is the culture in Yemen that very few of us in the US understand.

Well, I can tell ya few things about the culture in Yemen that I'm aware of:

1. Like many other places they don't seem to be too keen on having innocent civilians wind up as "collateral damage" of foreign powers which are conducting military operations via cruise missiles and drone strikes in their land - like the one on December 17, 2009 that killed 60 civilians, with 28 of them being children. People are sometimes kinda funny that way.

2. Although they are only a country of roughly 24 million people - 46% of which is under 15 years old (think about that for a minute) - and they have one of the highest birthrates in the world, with average Yemeni woman bearing 5 children.

Consider wisely what type of world you are creating for your children, and their children to inherit.

The governments of both countries of Al-Awlaki's dual citizenship obviously wanted this guy dead, and the US Govt had the means to do the job.

Welcome all .... to the Divine Temple of "Might Makes Right" and Church of "The Ends Justify The Means" ....

For those not familiar with Article 3, Section 3 of the US Constitution:
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Well, apparently you're not terribly familiar with it - because you are on here essentially justifying and trying to make the case that the guy ought to have been just hunted down and snuffed out: ..... he just needed killin' your Honor ......

Read the above again - and pay particular attention to the word "convicted" - if you are unfamiliar, that's something that occurs in a Court of Law ... it isn't something done by Proclamation of the Monarch .....

Should the Obama administration tried him in absentia? Maybe so, but that presents the problem of the ACLU and other allies of Al-Awlaki's using the proceedings as a stage to promote his anti-American rantings.

Good God man - have you just absolutely no understanding of the Constitution and due process whatsoever ?

That you would even suggest trial in absentia, certainly seems to suggest so.

Ever hear of Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ?

........ Hopt v. Utah ...... or Crosby v. United States ?

You list your concern (primary ? .... major ?) with trying him in absentia as being the possibility of the ACLU or some else "using the proceedings as 'a stage' to promote his 'anti-American' rantings" .... a very odd thing to consider as an importance in my opinion.

That's what you're worried about ?

You think the targeted murder of him - in violation of the most fundamental and basic law of this land isn't providing the ultimate fodder for radicals to say: "Look .... they are corrupt and truly degraded ... they don't even follow their own laws ..." ?

..... all the world is a stage ....
........particularly in this day and age .....

US courts have held that a defendant's right to appear in person at their trial is protected under the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments of the Constitution, as a matter of due process .... for more than 100 years .. and it was acknowledged even further back than that.

What is it exactly that you are trying to preserve ?

Cable TV, American Idol, the discount shopping experience at Walmart ..... and Monday Night Football ?

Personally I could give a flyin' @#*! if all those things - and many others - go away - if you are asking me to choose between those, and the integrity of the principles as enumerated the most basic document of law in this land, which defines who and what we are as a people and a nation.

A stage ..... seriously ?

Sheesh ....

Personally, I think it's a "due process of war", always has been, always will be - period.

.... "due process of war" huh ?

That's a phrase and a concept you will find absolutely nowhere in the Constitution .... though I highly doubt that little omission will cause you to lose any sleep ...

Maybe the Justice Dept should make public all their memos supporting the decision for the attack.

Yes they should - and that's the absolute minimum that should be disclosed.

Or, maybe some of our outraged members of Congress should demand or even sue for their publication.

It would be largely symbolic and would go nowhere - as Congress is largely populated by devotees of the State (as Tyranny) and haters of the Constitution ...

Pray that they do something ... but expect that they will do nothing ...

Better yet, some of our constitutional heroes like Ron Paul should bring articles of impeachment - as earlier suggested in this thread.

Actually, in light of my sentiments expressed above, I'd prefer that he just continue to focus on getting out his message and the upcoming election.

If he were eventually elected, I'd hope he would go after both Obama and Bush .... and all their flunkies ...... Treason and High Crimes .....

We need to stick a few politician heads up on the end of a long pole .... might be just the very thing that's needed to attract a better class of candidate ....

But of course there's not nearly enough support from the public or anywhere else for something like that ...

Expect support for such things - if any - to materialize long after the time necessary to avoid where we're headed - a full-blown police state.

People that are sleeping tend to be relatively unaware ...

it's better for the liberals and anti-war activists to have the issue to bleat about during an election year.

That's the only lens you are capable of seeing this matter thru ?

Everything is just fine and dandy in Mayberry eh ? ... except for them terrible liberal folks ..... and those utterly horrid folks that believe that constant, perpetual, never-ending war ought not to be de rigueur, as normal social convention and principal way that we, as a nation, interact with remainder of humanity ?

It's probably a good thing you're living today and not 2000 years ago ... I can think of one seemingly liberal fellow that seemed like he might have been kinda anti-war ... and an advocate for peace and brotherly love .... one can only imagine what you might have had to say about him .... and his "bleating" ....

Attention all Walmart Shoppers !

We are now having a Blue Light Three for One Special .... buy one "Due Process of War", and we'll give you the following items at no charge: a 24 roll pack of "Constitution" toilet paper, and a lovely stuffed Three "Wise" Monkeys" trio plush toy ("Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil") to keep you warm on those cold, lonely nights .... while your immortal soul is in pawn to the Devil .....

.... free personal shackle fittings for the next 30 minutes *

(* with purchase of ankle or wrist shackle only)

 

[RLENT]

YouTube audio clip:

Michael Savage:
Ron Paul is 100% Right On Al-Awlaki Assassination

Impeachment anyone ?

 

[RLENT]

Ask and ye shall receive:

Politico: Obama impeachment a possibility, says Ron Paul

 

[RLENT]

"While the death of Awlaki was a “tactical victory for the U.S. counterterrorism efforts,” the report by the U.S. Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Center says it is “unlikely to impact AQAP’s [Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula’s] operations in Yemen or its desire to attack the interests of the United States.”

Instead, the real key to eliminating Al Qaeda’s viability in Yemen and crushing its ability to attack the U.S. lies in removing its Yemeni leaders, including Nasir al-Wahayshi, who are responsible for the group’s operational coherence .....

The study warned that by ignoring the local dynamics in Yemen when calculating AQAP’s capabilities, the U.S. risks miscalculating the effectiveness of military action and inflaming anti-American sentiment ...."

Well ..... okey-dokey ....

US Military Study:
Killing of al-Awlaki won't stop Al Qaeda

 

[EASYTRADER]

I think you guys are not aware, that since 9 11 persuing terrorists outside the country has been turned over to the military and cia, while inside the country it is done by FBI. This has been done by congressional authority, there a declaration of war against al queda, its affialites and the countries who harbor them.

Ron Paul is full of **** on this one. In wworld war 2 we carpet bombed dresdan germany, killing 50k civilians in 3 days. There was no military significance to Desdan admited by Roosevelt and Churchil. It was bombed because we were at war. Yes American citicenz were in Dresdan at the time.

Point being, it is better to kill the enemy with a single bomb than to destroy a whole city.

Ron Paul does NOT actually want to be President that's why he sais these stupid things about national security. He is in the race to raise issues about the dollar not to win. Sometimes you folks are pretty gullible.

Incidently I'm a fan of Ron Paul, he is sabataging himself on purpose.

 

[AMonger]

I think you guys are not aware, that since 9 11 persuing terrorists outside the country has been turned over to the military and cia, while inside the country it is done by FBI. This has been done by congressional authority,

Let them pursue. Let them capture. Then let the trial begin.

there a declaration of war against al queda, its affialites and the countries who harbor them.

No, there isn't. No such vote was ever taken. Ron Paul wanted such a vote, and tried to have one taken. I forget who he approached toward that end, either the SotH or the party whip, but someone like that, and the guy laughed and said things aren't done like that anymore. So no vote on a war declaration was ever taken. Whatever you call Iraq and Afghanistan, even if they resemble war so much that it's the best term for it, we are not at war, at least not in a legal sense.

Ron Paul is full of **** on this one. In wworld war 2 we carpet bombed dresdan germany, killing 50k civilians in 3 days. There was no military significance to Desdan admited by Roosevelt and Churchil. It was bombed because we were at war. Yes American citicenz were in Dresdan at the time.

Let them answer for their own war crimes in the afterlife. Let's not commit our own atrocities.

Spellcheck: pursue/pursued/pursuing; Dresden

 

[Pilgrim]

Easytrader Quote:
there a declaration of war against al queda, its affialites and the countries who harbor them.

No, there isn't. No such vote was ever taken. Ron Paul wanted such a vote, and tried to have one taken. I forget who he approached toward that end, either the SotH or the party whip, but someone like that, and the guy laughed and said things aren't done like that anymore. So no vote on a war declaration was ever taken. Whatever you call Iraq and Afghanistan, even if they resemble war so much that it's the best term for it, we are not at war, at least not in a legal sense.

The Senate Joint Resolution 23 in 2001 authorized the military engagement in Afghanistan to wipe out Al Quaeda and the Taliban. The vote in the House was 420-1 (Paul was NOT the 1) in favor and the Senate voted 98-0 in favor.

The House Joint Resolution 114 in 2003 authorized the use of force against Iraq by votes of 296-133 in the House and 77-23 in the Senate to approve. Ron Paul voted no in this case. Also note that 29 Democrat senators voted in favor of the use of military force in Iraq.

Declaration of war by the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whatever they are - wars or otherwise - they're apparently legal enough.

 

[aristotle]

The D13, nee the D12, is now the D14. Welcome to the club, such as it is.

AMonger... maybe you weren't here in earlier times. As an original inductee of the D-12, I assume I have continued to be a D-12 member in good standing. Maybe I missed a few secret meetings here and there, but that's no reason give anyone the boot.

 

[RLENT]

You might want to actually read the acts - specifically the part where it says the following:

"Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons."

While the act says what it says, it does not set aside the Constitution and the rights a citizen obtains thereunder (ie. due process)

Whatever they are - wars or otherwise - they're apparently legal enough.

Well, I can tell you what they ARE NOT: an unqualified and unrestricted authorization to do whatever the President wants.

The problem with your "logic" (if that's what you want to call it ) is it seems to presuppose that anything the Executive wants or decides to do, under the rubric of "the war on terror", is permitted and authorized by the AUMF. That ain't the case.

This has already been adjudicated by no less than the Supreme Court in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, with regard to military tribunals, where the Executive maintained that the AUMF overrode Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

The Supreme Court held that that was NOT the case, with [Justice Stevens] "writing that he found nothing in that law 'even hinting' that Congress intended to expand the use of military tribunals or changing the Uniform Code of Military Justice. He said Congress has authorized tribunals only for limited purposes, as when cases need to be resolved on the battlefield.

'Exigency lent the commission its legitimacy, but did not further justify the wholesale jettisoning of procedural protections', Stevens wrote.

'Trial by military commission raises separation-of-powers concerns of the highest order,' Kennedy wrote in his opinion. He said the tribunals 'carry the risk that offenses will be defined, prosecuted and adjudicated by executive officials without independent review.''

See the concern ?: independent review

Further, consider what Justice Scalia wrote in Hamdi v Rumsfeld with whom Justice Stevens joined, dissenting:

"Petitioner, a presumed American citizen, has been imprisoned without charge or hearing in the Norfolk and Charleston Naval Brigs for more than two years, on the allegation that he is an enemy combatant who bore arms against his country for the Taliban. His father claims to the contrary, that he is an inexperienced aid worker caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. This case brings into conflict the competing demands of national security and our citizens’ constitutional right to personal liberty. Although I share the Court’s evident unease as it seeks to reconcile the two, I do not agree with its resolution.

Where the Government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court for treason or some other crime…

Accordingly, I would reverse the decision below.

The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive. Blackstone stated this principle clearly:

“Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper … there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. …"

Scalia’s next statement, quoting Blackstone, carries special significance considering recent events:

“To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom…”

 

[AMonger]

AMonger... maybe you weren't here in earlier times. As an original inductee of the D-12, I assume I have continued to be a D-12 member in good standing. Maybe I missed a few secret meetings here and there, but that's no reason give anyone the boot.

Perhaps we should have a roll call of the D-? to verify how many there are.

 

[Pilgrim]

Nice try ...... but .....
yak yak yak...ad infinitum

Here's the bottom line: if Ron Paul or any other member of Congress had any shred of substance with which to base all these so-called constitutional transgressions involved with the Al-Awlaki killing, they owe it to the American public to file articles of impeachment against Obama and his administration. Now is the perfect time since it's the beginning of an election year and it could be a major campaign issue - if it had merit. Fact is, there is no merit regardless of what amateur constitutional experts may claim. If some expatriate dual citizen wants to go on the internet before millions of viewers and promote, coordinate and control terrorism against the innocent civilians of his native country, he shouldn't be surprised when the Grim Reaper comes at an unexpected time to deliver him to his 72 virgins - who might to his surprise be old, ugly, hairy, smelly, infested with STDs and be demanding of his services nonstop into the hereafter.
The fact is that very few, if any US citizens have to worry about being deprived of their constitutional rights. If anything, we as taxpaying US citizens should be concerned about constitutional rights being allowed for those who are not US citizens.

 

[chefdennis]

SHHHHH..Its Secret....

this cuts both ways, they admit there are no laws or rules even for its existance:

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

Then they justify it and using it with because they have "lawyers involved" and Congress said it was ok..and they do in in concurrance with "international law" because we are defending ourselves...

Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list'

By Mark Hosenball
WASHINGTON | Wed Oct 5, 2011 7:59pm EDT
Secret panel can put Americans on kill list' | Reuters

(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

LAWYERS CONSULTED

Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list.

Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals' decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.

A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to "protect" the president.

Officials confirmed that a second American, Samir Khan, was killed in the drone attack that killed Awlaki. Khan had served as editor of Inspire, a glossy English-language magazine used by AQAP as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle.

But rather than being specifically targeted by drone operators, Khan was in the wrong place at the wrong time, officials said. Ruppersberger appeared to confirm that, saying Khan's death was "collateral," meaning he was not an intentional target of the drone strike.

When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials.

'FROM INSPIRATIONAL TO OPERATIONAL'

Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone "from inspirational to operational." That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets.

"Let me underscore, Awlaki is no mere messenger but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities," Daniel Benjamin, top counterterrorism official at the State Department, warned last spring.

The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki's hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, "Anwar is alive."

But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee's computer showed what an investigator described as " operational contact" between Britain and Yemen.

Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother's side when the messages were dispatched. British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, "Our highest priority is the US ... With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?"

U.S. officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki's involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden.

While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by U.S. forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks.

There isn't much Rlent or greg agree on in these type of situations, but on this I agree with them in that we are on a very "slippery slope"...

and besides it works with the "Agenda" of smearing barry with more fecal matter and he certainly is doing a good job of providing that....

 

[Pilgrim]

There isn't much Rlent or greg agree on in these type of situations, but on this I agree with them in that we are on a very "slippery slope"...

Considering the uproar that was caused by the Patriot Act with its wiretapping and other intrusions on our civil rights, why aren't we seeing similar outrage and judicial actions from the public and their members of Congress over the murder of one of their fellow citizens? I still think that if we're on the "slippery slope" to any serious degree, our elected representatives would be doing something more substantial than making vague campaign statements that this "might be an impeachable offense".

 

[layoutshooter]

Seems like I heard this some where before.

CNN’s Roland Martin: ‘If you threaten my family, I’m doing all I can to kill you’
​

"Look, I don't want to kill someone. But if you threaten my family [and] one of our lives is in danger, I'm doing all I can to kill you. No apologies."

-- CNN contributor Roland S. Martin, commenting via Facebook on the U.S.-led attack that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical Islamic preacher turned propaganda chief for al-Qaida, in Yemen on Friday. Some had questioned whether the killing of an American citizen without due process was unconstitutional. Martin was apparently not one of them.







CNN

 

[chefdennis]

Pilgram wrote:

Considering the uproar that was caused by the Patriot Act with its wiretapping and other intrusions on our civil rights, why aren't we seeing similar outrage and judicial actions from the public and their members of Congress over the murder of one of their fellow citizens? I still think that if we're on the "slippery slope" to any serious degree, our elected representatives would be doing something more substantial than making vague campaign statements that this "might be an impeachable offense".

1st you put too much faith in our elected reps to do anything that would be for the betterment of our day to day lives that is Constitutional...

2nd while I have no issue with them killing him, the "slippery slope" FOR ME is that this is just one more item to add to the many that this admin has done and continues to do to relieve the citizens of our God Give AND Constitutional Rights....taken by itself, nope, not even a "blip" on my radar screen," good riddance to bad rubbish"...but when taken in the total of the sume...it ain't good and it ain't gettin better....

And again as i said, it fits for the "agenda"....

 

[AMonger]

All well and good, and I don't disagree with Roland, but we have to properly define what is meant by someone coming to kill you or your family.

Legally, ethically, and morally, the standard of when you're in enough danger to use deadly force is higher than "he belonged to an organization that advocated acts of violence against Americans." He has to have the intent, capability, and opportunity to harm you. This guy may have had the intent, but that's it. Your family sitting in your living room in Peoria, Cedar Rapids, Pasadena, Youngstown, or wherever, was in no immediate danger from this assclown.

The tyrants in our own country pose a greater danger to you and your family.

 

[layoutshooter]

Tell that to those who were at Ft. Hood.