TMF

More like the "publically pulling their pants down and giving them a spanking" list.

Bahahaha! But seriously, this hacker group represents the short sightedness of those that get caught up in the romance of a revolution, but not the reality of it. Anyone can destroy. Not everyone can build. I'm no fan of anyone who's solution is to "bring the system down" without posing what to do to create a better system so we can continue to enjoy our way of life. This group is just made up of pathetic autofellaters with the ability to cause damage. If they do this they are in the same category as Al Qaeda in my opinion.

Isn't it the same for pre-schools? I never carry into my son's pre-school because I thought they fell under the same law.... and I don't want to trigger a flip-out lock down from a bunch of old Bettys.

Well, no I never said that I blindly trust the government. I just know that usually things aren't one extreme or the other... it's usually somewhere in the middle. If this was someone who was a Tea Party leader or political opponent I would be raising an eyebrow, but I'm not going to deny what is self evident which is that Awlaki was a terrorist. If this panel somehow decides to compromise their careers and livelihoods/freedom in order to assassinate an innocent American Citizen abroad in a big conspiracy to abuse power, I have a feeling it will be pretty obvious, like porno; you'll know what it is when you're looking at it.

Sure it's possible, but not probable. Most of the people on that panel aren't political appointees, they are people that have been in the intelligence/military business for a long time. These aren't the types that are going to make decisions lightly or out of pressure from some sinister, behind-the-scenes boogyman.

Well considering this administration tends to reveal state secrets to the public as if there is no reason to classify them at all, I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the next few weeks or month we are given the run down on it. As far as it being a political stunt; maybe, who knows? I don't have the answer for that, but I know that no matter who would be sitting in the Oval Office at the time of the attack is inconsequential to me. I understand that the President has very little to do in matters of turning information into intelligence and determining what to do with said intelligence. For me it's not about blindly supporting actions of the President because I like the outcome. I really don't care who is in office unless they're screwing things up, which he is. Obama could show up on my doorstep tomorrow with a couple of gold bars and a line of Swedish bikini models to service me at my whim, but I would still think he's doing a crappy job as President. I just wouldn't say that in front of him 'cause I really like hot Swedish chicks.

Yes. If the circumstances were the same, as in the organization was using that country as a base of operations to lauch attacks against the US. Just like we kill people in Somalia, Pakistan, Iraq and Afghanistan. The only reason we aren't launching drone strikes on Al Qaeda in countries like Germany is because of the politics involved. It would greatly strain our relationship with Germany if we started dropping bombs on their soil. Luckily the Germans are pretty cooperative with us in regards to going after terrorists in their own country. Now Yemen and Pakistan, well we don't care what they think so we're going to do what we do.

By that logic should we have let Osama Bin Laden live because we didn't declare war on Pakistan?? Now we're getting into the realm of geopolitics and why we do or don't do certain things to certain countries because it is not in our interest... just a lot easier to kill a few people than declare war on a whole country.

As I said before, I believe the theory of him being killed because he was a combatant. I think where we're getting tripped up here is him being in two categories at the same time: 1. wanted criminal 2. enemy combatant. So, if he were in the US it is a law enforcement issue. If he were in a country that cooperated with our federal law enforcement then he could be detained. Since he was in a combat zone (Yemen is considered a combat zone) in an active paramilitary group he was a legit target of the armed forces. Let me throw another scenario your way to help you understand what I'm saying: John Walker Lindh; let's say that he was never captured on the battlefield. Let's say he was able to continue to fight our forces for a few years in Afghanistan. Then he returns to the US on "leave" from the Taliban. He should be arrested for treason if federal law enforcement choose to pursue charges. Otherwise, if he goes back to fight for the Taliban and our military kills him in an airstrike, well he was killed as a combatant, not a wanted criminal.

Yes it absolutely would.

I have a SAR I bought a long time ago. It goes bang everytime I pull the trigger. I've handled/shot hundreds of AKs over the years from just about every country that manufactures them and can tell you that some are made better than others. With that said, they all functioned equally well unless there was something wrong with the weapon itself (not related to manufacturer). The SARs aren't overly pretty, but they're cheap, great to shoot and you can lubricate them with sand and they'll still work.

I've always been lucky and managed to serve my time downrange without a scratch, but I have a buddy who's still in that just got shot for the THIRD time! All of them superficial luckily. Some people are bullet magnets.

Well yes, it is difficult. Weaponized Islamofacism as a franchise is a new threat that is somewhat unprecedented and no one has a good answer to stop it. We've been at this for a while now and I don't believe we're any closer to a permanent solution. I don't believe there even is one. My opinion has always been limited ground troops in an advisory role to direct indigenous forces to do our dirty work, aggressive intelligence collection efforts in countries of interest and use of air strikes (drone/tomahawk/B1) to target HVTs and large concentrations of enemy. This is something that will go on for a very long time, and we can't stop going after them until they stop going after us.

It's not so much having blind trust in the Government. In fact, I making sure not to re-elect any incumbent until Washington pulls it's head out of it's a$$. I just don't automatically assume there are sinister forces at work. To suggest such thoughts of conspiracy implies that our government is somehow competent and effecient.

It's not as if I don't understand what many of you are saying; yes I'm a firm believer in the Constitution and believe that we need to keep the government in check to ensure it isn't violated no matter how much we would like to see certain people hanging from a tree. I am trying to explain why this isn't one of those times, and have brought up very good points that are ignored. Pretty much there are to possible scenarios here: 1. Awlaki was killed because he was a wanted terrorist. If this is the reason he was blown up then I completely agree that our government clearly violated our Constitution. 2. Awlaki was killed because he was a member of a paramilitary organization at war with us. In this scenario it was acceptable for our armed forces to kill him. There was already a precedent set for this in WWII and many, many times over in our Civil War. It is my opinion that scenario #2 is the reality; but that is my opinion. If it is the opinion of others that it is scenario #1 then that's fine. If it comes out in the wash that scenario #1 is what happened then I'll be the first to jump on y'all's bandwagon, but I always tend to lean towards what is self evident and obvious, which is why I believe in scenario #2.

Because we are in America.

Once again, you don't get how war works. My analogy of Hitler was stating that at any time we can drop a bomb on him. We don't have to try him in court unless he surrenders. Those are the rules of war. Awlaki could have been nothing more than the guy who changes tires on Al Qaeda trucks, but this makes him part of the enemy war machine. You don't have to be actively engaged by the enemy in order to kill him. The only time it is not okay to kill enemy is if they surrender.

So do we have to declare war in order for our military to kill enemies? If not, why would we delineate between militaries that belong to a central government and ones that don't? His membership in a paramilitary organization which has declared war on the US is no different than if an American Citizen had joined the German military during WWII. We wouldn't stop a bombing because one of the enemy on the ground happens to be an American Citizen. He would be just as legitimate of a target as Hitler himself. The only time that his citizenship would count would be if he was captured by US forces.

See, this is what I'm talking about, we can agree that the Constitution should be upheld. Here is a situation where it doesn't apply due to his status in a FOREIGN MILITARY. If we want to make exceptions for American Citizens then that is something that needs to be addressed by legislation. However, for now we don't have that. If we want that, call your congressman. And once again, this isn't about justice. This is about war. There isn't justice in war; just an exchange of killing. There was no justice served by killing him, just another dead enemy soldier. Justice comes when there is an attempt to detain and convict someone suspected of a crime. There was none of that here. It was simply identifying someone at war with the US and killing them because they met a certain criteria to justify spending the money on the resources used for killing them. May he rest in pieces.

I can understand how this looks in terms of rules of engagement for law enforcement; you can't just shoot somebody who isn't posing a current threat no matter what he does. He could kill 30 kids and just be walking down the street unarmed, but you can't kill him. That is denying him due process and violating his rights. As much as I would want to see him shot, this is the country we live in and the Constitution we live by. Now, rules of war are different. We kill people all the time that aren't actively doing anything. The only reason the ROE may be restrictive in certain places/times is because of the restrictions the chain of command put on their subordinates, but according to the rules of war there is a lot we can do. For example, let's say there is someone we know is a bad guy. There is multiple source reporting to that effect. You don't have to ask him to surrender. You can just sit across the street on top of a house and shoot him in the face as he goes out for his morning stroll, or drop a $100,000 hellfire on him. Depends on how much you want to spend on it. Souce reporting likely confirmed his status the paramilitary organization to which he was a member, and therefore he was killed. Doesn't matter if he was carrying an RPG or taking a crap. Don't get me wrong, I totally understand how this can be interpreted as a violation of the Constitution, but he went over to the other side which makes him the enemy, no longer having Constitutional Rights unless taken alive... glad he wasn't. Now you're gonna demand proof of his membership in a paramilitary organization at war with us. Understood, but that's not how it works in military matters. Based on what I said above, now the implication is that this is something that can be abused. I would agree, it could be. However, so long as no upstanding citizen finds themselves in very bad places with very bad people, the CIA/Military probably won't drop a hellfire on you.

The number I dialed on Halloween was one from the phonebook. I didn't see a non-emergency line then, but I wasn't looking for one. I was just looking for a number to the department. When I called the second time it was during that first snow about a month later, so I still had the number in the phone. Good information to know in the future though, thanks guys.

Let me preface this by saying that there is no opinion I have that I'm not prepared to immediately abandon in the face of a logical argument. First, no we're not at war with Yemen, but we're not at war with Afghanistan either, but we kill enemies of the state there like its cool. The only difference is how far Yemen allows us to operate. Right now drone strikes are pretty much it, so detaining this guy was never a possibility in the first place. We are fighting a military with no country or governing body. There are many countries we weren't at war with that we conduct/have conducted combat operations, including, but not limited to: China, France, Switzerland, Greece, Iran, South Korea, Laos, Cuba (action against piracy), Peru, Lebanon, Somalia, Guatemala... it goes on for a while. I've given several examples of cases where this wasn't an issue, but none have been addressed; instead ignored, so here's another one. It is not as this is unprecedented. There were plenty of German-American and Italian-Americans citizens who fought against the US and it's allies in WWII; their citizenship wasn't taken into account unless they were captured alive which is not necessary in combat. Why is this different? I could agree that if Awlaki was killed because he was wanted by the FBI for September 11 attacks or supporting terror then his Constitutional Rights would have been violated. However, he was killed because he was an active member in a paramilitary organization continuing to conduct attacks against the United States. That makes him an enemy combatant, same as if it was WWII. If he had been captured then his rights would apply for anything he was wanted for as well as charges of treason. I have a great deal of confidence that Obama had very little to do with this if anything at all. The decision to kill a high value individual is usually a "bottom-up" driven thing, not a "top-down", meaning that the task force tracking Awlaki and his boys probably said "hey, we know right where he's at, can we target him?" The approval is usually not too far above that level; a field commander or maybe even someone sitting in Washington. The only thing that suggests this may have made it to the Executive level is the fact Awlaki is so high profile, but if he was "Joe Schmuck" terrorist from Oregon who decided to go to Yemen and get his Jihad on, chances are the approval would have been made at the lower levels.

Once again, his citizenship doesn't matter. He wasn't killed because he was wanted by US Law Enforcement (FBI), he was killed because he was a combatant. I know that doesn't sit well with some of you here, but it is what it is. If I go to Afghanistan and start hanging around Al Qaeda bombmakers the CIA or Military will probably kill me and whether or not I'm a US citizen doesn't matter. I brought up the point of the American fighting on the side of that Taliban who was shot by Afghan forces that were under the advisement of US troops. Based on what I'm reading here everyone should be outraged by that incident but no one has even addressed it. So here's another scenario, remember Jane Fonda sitting on that AA gun in North Vietnam? Let's say that one of our B-52s had dropped a payload on that position and killed her. Would that be denying her due process? No it wouldn't. That's what happens in war. When you put yourself in a position to be a legitimate target of the US Military you can be killed. The equipment she was sitting on and the NVA Soldiers she was with were all targets. Her citizenship would have nothing to do with her becoming a stain on the Vietnamese landscape. With Awlaki, he was with a bombmaker being targeted by CIA/US Military at the time of his death. It wouldn't matter if he was a wanted terrorist or a reporter with CNN. Constitutional Rights would have nothing to do with it. Now, if the debate here is whether or not there should be some sort of legislation that addresses known US Citizens on the battlefield then I could understand dialouge on both sides. However, as of right now, the CIA/US Military/Executive Branch is justified in their actions. I'm all about playing devil's advocate, but his citizenship doesn't apply here in this situation. If we had dropped a hellfire on him while he was sitting in an apartment in Frankfurt then I would agree with everything some of you are saying.

Sorry to take off topic, but the last two times I called CPD for non-emergencies (one was traffic light out and the other was vandalism to my property... last halloween) I called their office number since they didn't have a non-emergency number. Both times they told me I had to hang up and dial 911. I hate the feeling of tying up a 911 operator with something that isn't immediately an emergency, but in the sprawling metropolis of Clarksville we still don't have a non-emergency line.

^ This.