ACLU: Killing US born al-Quieda

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
I'm assuming you were replying to me; Tapatalk doesn't show that.

The one who was an immediate danger say Ft. Hood was Hassan, and he should have been gunned down like a dog immediately, and would have been, I'm sure, had Clinton not disarmed troops on military bases. I tell you, the US military is the only military in the world that's afraid of guns.

Anyway, aside from that, Hassan's accomplices, including those who goaded him into his act, should be brought to justice. If they're holding a weapon when you do, you cap them. If not, you arrest them.
 

layoutshooter

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
Maybe he would not be dead if he did not aid, protect, encourage and assist those who want to kill us. Like the dud that was killed along with him. You know, the one who built the bomb that the "underwear bomber" used. You know, the guy who waited to blow up himself AND the plane while it was over a densely populated are so it would KILL as many AMERICANS as he could? Only the fact that that bomb did not work as it should have saved hundreds or who knows how many lives.

Hang with scum, you are scum. Work with and encourage scum, you are scum. My mom taught me to be very careful of those that I hung around with. Your choice of friend often determine the outcome of your life. Worked out that way for this bunch of scum.
 

AMonger

Veteran Expediter
How about this: act like a tyrant, then you are a tyrant. In the West, we decided long ago, in response to centuries of abuse by those in power, that civilized people observe individual rights, among them, the right to a public trial by jury, the right to answer the charges and confront witnesses against us, the right against secret evidence, et. al. When we act like tyrants in denying the accused his due process, we become tyrants, no better than the people we're after.

You don't know the jackball Obama just murdered backed, trained, recruited, or incited Hassan; you only think it. It's something that should be established at trial.

It's kind of like witch burnings in Salem. "BURN THE WITCH! BURN THE WITCH!"

"Now, wait...how do we know she's a witch?"

"We'll drown her. If she survives, she's a witch."

gurgle...gurgle...gurgle...

"So much for that. She wasn't a witch. Who's going to bury the remains?"
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
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".

All they can do is cry about it.How are they going to do anything about it.They helped passed the law that allowed this to happen.If they were to really push it the ones scream about due procces would be sitting next to Obama.Take paul saying this could be a impeachable offense.Yet when it comes down to it he voted to pass this law.He knew what he was voteing for.He would not beable to use not knowing what the law really was.Stupid is not a legal defense to what some are calling a crime.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
You don't know the jackball Obama just murdered backed, trained, recruited, or incited Hassan; you only think it. It's something that should be established at trial.
Actually, al-Awlaki admitted as much on the internet as shown in an earler post of his quotes. I don't know if it has been mentioned in any earlier posts, but apparently the judicial system actually DID review his case shortly after his name was added to the "capture or kill" list.

"...when al-Awlaki was added to the CIA's "kill or capture list" last year - the first time an American name had been listed - his father, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights jointly sued the government on the grounds that his constitutional and international rights were being violated.
The court tossed the suit, saying this type of decision was "judicially unreviewable," noting if al-Awlaki wanted judicial due process, then he should surrender himself to American
authorities. He did not surrender himself, of course, and it isn't like the U.S. was able to simply arrest and charge him.
The U.S. chose not to avail itself of that option. Tracking al-Awlaki down and capturing him alive in Yemen would be near impossible, and it likely would have resulted in casualties for U.S. forces.
Letting him continue to plot against America wasn't a realistic alternative, either.
The majority of Congress seems to agree. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have come out in support of Obama and the way the situation was handled.
..."It's legal," said Maryland Rep. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. "It's legitimate, and we're taking out someone who has attempted to attack us on numerous occasions. And he was on that list."
Read the entire article:
Killing Anwar al-Awlaki was justified, legal - Camdenton, MO - Serving Missouri's Lake of the Ozarks region including Osage Beach, Camdenton, Lake Ozark, Eldon and Sunrise Beach

Granted, this al-Awlaki character probably didn't personally kill anyone but neither did Adolf Hitler personally kill any of his Jewish captives. It would appear that from now on any would-be terrorist of any nationality that openly preaches on the internet the killing of American civilians, and recruits jihadists for that cause to boot will be aware of the fate that awaits them. This is the type of process that people of this culture understand, and it should be used more often on those whose goal is to destroy our way of life.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
All they can do is cry about it. How are they going to do anything about it. They helped passed the law that allowed this to happen. If they were to really push it the ones scream about due procces would be sitting next to Obama.
As a required first step to decode the nearly indecipherable babble above, please tell us who "they" is ?

The use of an indefinite pronoun where one has not identified who or what the indefinite pronoun actually refers to makes one's communication rather vague at best ....

Of course, if the idea is to flap the gums without any intent that others should be able to understand one, then it works fantastically.

Take paul saying this could be a impeachable offense. Yet when it comes down to it he voted to pass this law. He knew what he was voteing for. He would not be able to use not knowing what the law really was.
Paul did know exactly what he was voting for - that's why he said it could be an impeachable offense.

Stupid is not a legal defense to what some are calling a crime.
And stupid would not be a defense for being say, EO's resident idiot savant ..... just merely a necessary qualification ..... :rolleyes:
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
The amazing thing is we had the Church commission and legal limits set on the CIA for the purpose of controlling their actions with US citizens, or is that forgotten?

The U.S. chose not to avail itself of that option. Tracking al-Awlaki down and capturing him alive in Yemen would be near impossible, and it likely would have resulted in casualties for U.S. forces.


Actually this is a falsehood, we have not only the capabilities but also have Yemen who has provided us with help in capturing other people within their country at times. Someone like this with a high profile would not been as difficult to capture as say Bin Laden which we took how many years to find and still ended up kissing his proverbial a** by respecting him in death but still we decided to just blast the guy because we were too lazy to follow our own laws.

BUT to compare Hitler and the Jews to this guy is actually a stretch, so far as the eye can see type. Hitler worked under the guise of nationalism and ridding themselves internally of the Jews, where this guy espoused the destruction of the US as a power, a bit of a different. Hitler worked under the legal framework of the Reich, where Obama and others stepped outside any legal framework we have and made a decision that has not gone through the legal steps as it should.

Still better yet it seems that the only thing that many can agree on with Obama is how to **** the constitution.

Is this a conservative thing?
 

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
The amazing thing is we had the Church commission and legal limits set on the CIA for the purpose of controlling their actions with US citizens, or is that forgotten?

The U.S. chose not to avail itself of that option. Tracking al-Awlaki down and capturing him alive in Yemen would be near impossible, and it likely would have resulted in casualties for U.S. forces.


Actually this is a falsehood, we have not only the capabilities but also have Yemen who has provided us with help in capturing other people within their country at times. Someone like this with a high profile would not been as difficult to capture as say Bin Laden which we took how many years to find and still ended up kissing his proverbial a** by respecting him in death but still we decided to just blast the guy because we were too lazy to follow our own laws.

BUT to compare Hitler and the Jews to this guy is actually a stretch, so far as the eye can see type. Hitler worked under the guise of nationalism and ridding themselves internally of the Jews, where this guy espoused the destruction of the US as a power, a bit of a different. Hitler worked under the legal framework of the Reich, where Obama and others stepped outside any legal framework we have and made a decision that has not gone through the legal steps as it should.

Still better yet it seems that the only thing that many can agree on with Obama is how to **** the constitution.

Is this a conservative thing?

I think all concerned in here have expressed valid points.
So there will be beer and wings at a certain place In S.Dakota,near Bison to get over all this verbage. U all deserve it imho. PS, they dont know we are coming:eek: Sat. morining 0800 sharp.
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
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 .

You mean the way all of america felt at 8:00am on 9/11 we are in no danger from thesse assclowns!!

Actually this is a falsehood, we have not only the capabilities but also have Yemen who has provided us with help in capturing other people within their country at times. Someone like this with a high profile would not been as difficult to capture as say Bin Laden which we took how many years to find and still ended up kissing his proverbial a** by respecting him in death but still we decided to just blast the guy because we were too lazy to follow our own laws. ?

Pakistan wants US, UK help fighting terrorism - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

US, Pakistan, fighting Terrorism

Seems some want us to belive pakistan was helping us also.You see when a high profile terrorist like this sets up shop in a forgein country you gotta belive some higher ups in that country knew where they are at.

Here is a link from Time that quotes yemen citizens saying the yemen government when it comes to hunting down terrorist is just telling the U.S what they want to hear.As much as you may want to belive it the us could not have arrested this man.Well not with out putting American boots on the ground in yemen.

Why Yemen Hasn't Arrested Terrorist Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki - TIME
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
As is often the case, things may not be what they initially seemed to be:

Report: No evidence al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen

Sana'a(dpa) - Yemen's security agencies have no substantial evidence that al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a recent airstrike in the eastern province of Mareb, an official security source said Thursday.

'The latest information available to the security agencies is that al-Awlaki was driving in a motorcade of three cars when a US drone targeted them (on September 30),' the source told the Yemeni website Mareb Press on condition of anonymity.

He added that one car had been hit, while the other two escaped.

'There is no irrefutable information that al-Awlaki was inside the hit car,' he said.

According to the source, it was hard to identify the remains left after the raid.

'There was no actual body. All that was left after the incident were mere remains mixed with wrecked pieces of the targeted car,' he said. 'These remains were collected and buried by residents in the area.'

On September 30, the Yemeni Defence Ministry said al-Awlaki, a US-born radical Islamist cleric seen as a spiritual leader of al-Qaeda, had been killed in an airstrike.

US President Barack Obama said the attack was a 'major blow' to the terrorist network's most active operational affiliate.

Report: No evidence al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
The amazing thing is we had the Church commission and legal limits set on the CIA for the purpose of controlling their actions with US citizens, or is that forgotten?
Hopefully not - we have the Church Commission to thank for hobbling the intelligence agencies so they couldn't communicate between themselves and share intel regarding terrorist activities. We all remember that being a prime factor in the FBI and CIA not being able to connect the dots leading up to 911. Granted the CIA needed some serious rehab back then, but the Church commission went overboard with the limits they imposed.

Hitler worked under the legal framework of the Reich, where Obama and others stepped outside any legal framework we have and made a decision that has not gone through the legal steps as it should.
So let me get this straight - the fact that Hitler put laws in place with the Third Reich making it OK to exterminate Jews puts him on a more substantial legal foundation than Obama :confused:. In fact, we're told the Justice Dept. reviewed the decision, and we know the "capture & kill" list was challenged in court by the ACLU and others - as previously mentioned - and it was rejected by the court.
Still better yet it seems that the only thing that many can agree on with Obama is how to **** the constitution.
Is this a conservative thing?
Not hardly - it's just that more legal experts and members of Congress happen to agree with the Obama administration on this issue.
 

Steady Eddie

Veteran Expediter
Owner/Operator
WELL, I READ THE 4TH, 8TH AND 14TH AMENDMENT

I see nothing that would apply here in this case.

Federal law requires everyone who enlists or re-enlists in the Armed Forces of the United States to take the enlistment oath. The oath of enlistment into the United States Armed Forces is administered by any commissioned officer to any person enlisting or re-enlisting for a term of service into any branch of the military. The officer asks the person, or persons, to raise their right hand and repeat the oath after him. The oath is traditionally performed in front of the United States Flag and other flags, such as the state flag, military branch flag, and unit guidon may be present.

You think the Pilot of the drone remembers his oath?


I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Hopefully not - we have the Church Commission to thank for hobbling the intelligence agencies ....... Granted the CIA needed some serious rehab back then, but the Church commission went overboard with the limits they imposed.
What is it with you - are you permanently residing .... in fantasy land ?

The Church Commission imposed no limits - they studied the problem and made recommendations .....

Here is the final report of the Commission - please do review it and tell us specifically, exactly which portions of you see a problem with, rather than flapping your gums with some vague "everybody knows" bullcrap regarding assertions of yours which are not supported by the facts (..... Church commission went overboard with the limits they imposed ....):

Final Report of the Church Commission
 

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
1964-Present

January 27, 1975
Church Committee Created

Frank Church (D-ID)

In 1973, CIA Director James Schlesinger told Senate Armed Services Chairman John Stennis that he wished to brief him on a major upcoming operation. “No, no my boy,” responded Senator Stennis. “Don’t tell me. Just go ahead and do it, but I don’t want to know.” Similarly, when Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman J.W. Fulbright was told of the CIA subversion of the Allende government in Chile, he responded, “I don’t approve of intervention in other people’s elections, but it has been a long-continued practice.”

Late in 1974, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh revealed that the CIA was not only destabilizing foreign governments, but was also conducting illegal intelligence operations against thousands of American citizens.

On January 27, 1975, an aroused Senate voted overwhelmingly to establish a special 11-member investigating body along the lines of the recently concluded Watergate Committee. Under the chairmanship of Idaho Senator Frank Church, with Texas Senator John Tower as vice-chairman, the select committee was given nine months and 150 staffers to complete its work.

The so-called Church Committee ran into immediate resistance from the Ford administration, concerned about exposing American intelligence operations and suspicious of Church’s budding presidential ambitions.

The committee interviewed 800 individuals, and conducted 250 executive and 21 public hearings. At the first televised hearing, staged in the Senate Caucus Room, Chairman Church dramatically displayed a CIA poison dart gun to highlight the committee’s discovery that the CIA directly violated a presidential order by maintaining stocks of shellfish toxin sufficient to kill thousands.
************************************************
Lacking focus and necessarily conducting much of its work behind closed doors, the panel soon lost any hope of becoming a second Watergate Committee. Critics, from Bing Crosby to Paul Harvey, accused it of treasonous activity. The December 1975 assassination of a CIA station chief in Greece intensified the public backlash against its mission.
**********************************************
The panel issued its two-foot-thick final report in May 1976 without the support of influential Republican members John Tower and Barry Goldwater. Despite its shortcomings, the inquiry demonstrated the need for perpetual surveillance of the intelligence community and resulted in the creation of the permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
***********************************************
Historian Henry Steele Commager assessed the Committee’s legacy. Referring to executive branch officials who seemed to consider themselves above the law, he said, “It is this indifference to constitutional restraints that is perhaps the most threatening of all the evidence that emerges from the findings of the Church Committee.”


Reference Items:


Johnson, Loch K. A Season of Inquiry: The Senate Intelligence Investigation. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1985.


Ashby, LeRoy and Rod Gramer. Fighting the Odds: The Life of Senator Frank Church. Pullman: Washington State University Press, 1994.
 

greg334

Veteran Expediter
Hopefully not - we have the Church Commission to thank for hobbling the intelligence agencies so they couldn't communicate between themselves and share intel regarding terrorist activities. We all remember that being a prime factor in the FBI and CIA not being able to connect the dots leading up to 911. Granted the CIA needed some serious rehab back then, but the Church commission went overboard with the limits they imposed.


Well you can blame the commission for their report, they reported back to congress and congress acted for a number of issues. BUT if you want to put the blame on anyone for 9/11, it isn't with the things that came out of the church commission but the building of the intel wall by Gerelick, Reno and Clinton. If you read the 9/11 report, there was enough information and flags that popped up during the time leading up to the event that was not derived form any intel work here or abroad.

Most of the issues we have had and continue to have in the middle east has to do with our inability to recruit and maintain assets in those countries who afford the terrorists places to live and work. Unlike Masad, we crap on more people when things happen than we help. Pakistan is one such country that relations are strained and may break but we have more to lose with them as an enemy than we ever had in Afghanistan - a LOT MORE.

So let me get this straight - the fact that Hitler put laws in place with the Third Reich making it OK to exterminate Jews puts him on a more substantial legal foundation than Obama :confused:.

Well nope not at all. There is no OK to kill anyone under either the guise of religious and political reasoning or under the guise of alleged safety. I beleive that this was not a killing to thwart any possible attack but a political one made to show Obama is in control and not to be questioned.

But I digress...

The problem is you using the comparison when there is no way to compare the two. We have a very specific legal framework here that has worked, where the Germans going into the twilight of the Wiemar Republic were given latitudes to take over the country and set up a different framework with ways of justifying many things within the country.

On the other hand, the use of force against citizens because they may pose a threat to the country or the population is justified through many things, as Hitler and others did and I contend that is if we want to go down that path, it opens the door for that style of government no matter how one thinks it can be controlled.

In fact, we're told the Justice Dept. reviewed the decision, and we know the "capture & kill" list was challenged in court by the ACLU and others - as previously mentioned - and it was rejected by the court.

Well first do you actually trust Eric Holder and the DoJ?

If you do, I know that there isn't a chance you would understand any of this.

ALSO you have to read the court case and see what was the government's argument. I don't agree with it at all because it goes back to prior rulings of the SC on the rights of the individual.

Not hardly - it's just that more legal experts and members of Congress happen to agree with the Obama administration on this issue.

Nope can't agree with it not on the premise he was bad and deserved it but because I view it as anyone who agrees with this, are the same who want to **** the constitution - nothing less.
 

Pilgrim

Veteran Expediter
Retired Expediter
What is it with you - are you permanently residing .... in fantasy land ?
The Church Commission imposed no limits - they studied the problem and made recommendations .....
Oops - my mistake in wording. Indeed, they only made recommendations which the Democrat controlled congress fell all over themselves in an effort to turn those recommendations into legislation. The result was a gutted CIA and FBI, and our intelligence suffered for years as a result of their overreaction. Officials from those two agencies lived in fear of losing their jobs or being prosecuted for gathering the wrong type of intel and sharing it with the wrong people. And yes, the Clinton administration with the infamous Jamie Gorelick acting as lead dog piled onto the problem with implimentation of the actual firewall. At any rate, the preceding post by Skyrader offers an excellent summary of the Church commission's activities.
 
Top