terriorist denied due process ???

[Paladin132]

Perhaps, however again why all the confetti and no real defining beyond the "inspiring" of attacks?

By that standard no imam is safe in SWA and the mullahs in Iran are in for it...

Of course that last part might not be such a bad idea...

[Mike.357]

so lets compare this guy to our president.

Obama is a figure head, makes no plans, has never had an original idea. Is he not the leader and the one to blame for the state of things in this country? Or do his underlings deserve the blame and he should be untouchable?

Is this a bad parallel?

[Paladin132]

I think it is...

Inspiration can be as simple as a hollywood movie. It is bad yes, but what about figureheads that speak out against the government all the time in the media and such. Could that be used as grounds to take them out?

If we are going to go after folks for sedition or treason that still gets a decision in court. Gadon (I spelled it wrong I am pretty sure) was tried in absentina for treason. Why not do the same thing here? Hey are both mouth pieces and it's a little different than Lindh, who was actively taking up arms and was in the combat zone

This chucklehead is in a (supposedly) allied country and taken out through deliberate attack not in combat and as far as I know not an active combatant.

[Grunt67]

I doubt if anyone, except the ACLU ( Communist founded ), really gives a rats butt if he had due process

or not. He made his choices, lived & died by them. Keep those drones flying & firing.

[Mike.357]

Inspiration can be as simple as a hollywood movie. It is bad yes, but what about figureheads that speak out against the government all the time in the media and such. Could that be used as grounds to take them out?

there is a big difference between figureheads and others who espouse terrorism. A lot of us here speak out against the .gov, I am not worried about drones cruising over Corryton. Of course I am not encouraging bombings or other terroristic acts.

we have revolution in the country fairly often. it is called elections. AQ has revolution, it is called bloody death.

This guy got what was coming.

[TMF]

Who said anything about President Obama?

I am just saying the guy was a nobody from everything I have seen, and the government is claiming he "inspires" attacks. Does that not sound odd?

Why do we sweat due process for the thugs at Guantanamo, who are hardcore AQ and illegal immigrants, and pirates, but a guy that has been proven to be blowing his mouth and is still a citizen is not even shown evidence of more malicious acts.

Again, I refer all to my statement yeah I am glad he is gone, it just concerns me that we did not go to grab him instead.

Also, I just want to point out I've fought for out rights and I seem to remember the first being free speech, not his but mine, and I feel we are getting a tad to enthusiastic in here for folks with differing opinions.

Man I tell ya, I'll never tell someone they're wrong for having a different opinion, but I will tell someone they're wrong on basis of facts. It is a fact that he was a member of a terrorist organization at war with the US. Free speech has nothing to do with this in anyway at all ever, ever. People hate on the government all the time and don't get a hellfire shoved up their a**. C'mon, take the tin foil hats off folks.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Who said anything about President Obama?

I am just saying the guy was a nobody from everything I have seen, and the government is claiming he "inspires" attacks. Does that not sound odd?

Why do we sweat due process for the thugs at Guantanamo, who are hardcore AQ and illegal immigrants, and pirates, but a guy that has been proven to be blowing his mouth and is still a citizen is not even shown evidence of more malicious acts.

Again, I refer all to my statement yeah I am glad he is gone, it just concerns me that we did not go to grab him instead.

Also, I just want to point out I've fought for out rights and I seem to remember the first being free speech, not his but mine, and I feel we are getting a tad to enthusiastic in here for folks with differing opinions.[/QUOTE]

You have no right to free speech here.

It is a privately owned board and as such the owner can edit or censor what you say as he sees fit. That goes for any private place, not just on here. As a matter of fact the first ammendmend only applies to the government abridging your freedom of speech not another private entity.

Dolomite

[Paladin132]

Dolomite, I am well versed in Constitutional issues and was making a point to a fellow poster, not to the board administrators.

I find this atmosphere rather confusing as I have always thought this forum was very friendly to discussion on different sides, and the last batch I have found myself feeling defensive. If I have pushed someone into feeling defensive, as I have felt, know that I was simply voicing an opinion and questioning what has been said. That is all I am not judging what was done, just asking questions.

[TMF]

Dolomite, I am well versed in Constitutional issues and was making a point to a fellow poster, not to the board administrators.

I find this atmosphere rather confusing as I have always thought this forum was very friendly to discussion on different sides, and the last batch I have found myself feeling defensive. If I have pushed someone into feeling defensive, as I have felt, know that I was simply voicing an opinion and questioning what has been said. That is all I am not judging what was done, just asking questions.

Hey I'm a big fan of always asking questions and hearing different opinions. In this matter it doesn't come down to opinion at all though. I'm offering hard facts and it seems that you and a few others would rather subscribe to the theory that the government "assassinated" one of it's citizens for speaking out against them. This is not the case; not even close. Speaking out against the government in the way he did (talking about over a decade ago) will certainly get you on the radar of the FBI. Being on the radar of federal law enforcement isn't violating any rights to free speech. Once some really big planes were hijacked and 3,000 Americans lost their lives to a coordinated act of war from a paramilitary organization his category changed since he was linked to several of the militants who carried out the attacks. At this point the FBI would be incompetent to assume he is merely exercising his right to free speech; we pay them to look into people like this... in the business they call those people "suspects". Once he moved to Yemen and became an overt member of Al Qaeda, this went from a law enforcement realm to CIA/Military action. Now his citizenship means nothing unless he is captured. He is now an enemy combatant and can be killed at whim. We don't have to ask enemy to surrender; we can just kill them. The only time our Military is obligated to capture is if the enemy is clearly surrendering. These are the facts. The CIA doesn't have to provide burden of proof (such as full disclosure of intelligence) when they kill the enemy. This would undermine the efforts of an organization we really, really need to be doing their job. But, if you really need to sleep at night how about this scenario: he was killed with a known bombmaker being targeted by the CIA. There is a good chance that Awlaki wasn't even the target here. He may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time; or the right place at the right time depending on how you want to look at it. Either way, his sudden trip to Allah would have been justified. If it's your opinion that the government is out to get it citizens then that's your opinion, but these here are facts. The moment he stepped foot in Yemen to get his Jihad on he went from being a suspect in a law enforcement investigation to being a military target. It doesn't matter if he was a leader or if he was the Chai Boy. If this had taken place in Afghanistan where we have ground troops he probably would have been shot in the face by now and no one would be conjuring ACLU bullsh*t.

[mav]

Hey I'm a big fan of always asking questions and hearing different opinions. In this matter it doesn't come down to opinion at all though. I'm offering hard facts and it seems that you and a few others would rather subscribe to the theory that the government "assassinated" one of it's citizens for speaking out against them. This is not the case; not even close. Speaking out against the government in the way he did (talking about over a decade ago) will certainly get you on the radar of the FBI. Being on the radar of federal law enforcement isn't violating any rights to free speech. Once some really big planes were hijacked and 3,000 Americans lost their lives to a coordinated act of war from a paramilitary organization his category changed since he was linked to several of the militants who carried out the attacks. At this point the FBI would be incompetent to assume he is merely exercising his right to free speech; we pay them to look into people like this... in the business they call those people "suspects". Once he moved to Yemen and became an overt member of Al Qaeda, this went from a law enforcement realm to CIA/Military action. Now his citizenship means nothing unless he is captured. He is now an enemy combatant and can be killed at whim. We don't have to ask enemy to surrender; we can just kill them. The only time our Military is obligated to capture is if the enemy is clearly surrendering. These are the facts. The CIA doesn't have to provide burden of proof (such as full disclosure of intelligence) when they kill the enemy. This would undermine the efforts of an organization we really, really need to be doing their job. But, if you really need to sleep at night how about this scenario: he was killed with a known bombmaker being targeted by the CIA. There is a good chance that Awlaki wasn't even the target here. He may have just been in the wrong place at the wrong time; or the right place at the right time depending on how you want to look at it. Either way, his sudden trip to Allah would have been justified. If it's your opinion that the government is out to get it citizens then that's your opinion, but these here are facts. The moment he stepped foot in Yemen to get his Jihad on he went from being a suspect in a law enforcement investigation to being a military target. It doesn't matter if he was a leader or if he was the Chai Boy. If this had taken place in Afghanistan where we have ground troops he probably would have been shot in the face by now and no one would be conjuring ACLU bullsh*t.

The "enter" key is your friend. It gets hard to read a bunch of text without any breaks.

In some of your earlier posts, you mentioned tin foil hattery. Maybe my reading comprehension isn't all that good because I haven't read anything that comes even close to conspiracy theory lunacy. Therefore, please refrain from lumping us into the Alex Jones conspiracy club; it is not applicable.

Let me see if I can make my position a little more coherent. My primary concern regarding the administration's decision in taking out Awlaki (who was the primary target - he was added to the target list in 2010) is the blasé attitude of the american public (celebratory from some), and the media's silence. If this would have happened during Bush's tenure, there would have been a national outcry from the left and the media. Hell, I am almost certain there would have been calls for impeachment hearings. Under Obama's term, what do we have? Celebration and/or indiference from the populace and total silence from the media. In my mind, that is very disconcerting.

Your argument of Awlaki being an enemy combatant on a foreign battlefield etc... is understood, and I am not necessarily in disagreement. However, Awlaki's citizenship status is still a sticking point. Do the people want to give the executive unquestionable authority to target and execute american citizens abroad who have either directly or indirectly sided with the enemy? I am not entirely against this notion, but this is a question that must be asked and answered. We must have a national dialogue on the matter. Simply giving the president or members of his administration carte blanche to target and eliminate ctizens falling in the above scenario is nonsensical. The administration is going to have to do better than say that they have all this evidence that such a citizen is a direct threat to national security. However, we can't show you the evidence because it is classified; just trust us. I believe Reagan said it best with, "Trust, but verify."

Ultimately, this is a slipperly slope argument. Allowing the administration's (not just Obama's) powers to go unchecked sets a dangerous precedent. The term "mission creep" wasn't created out of thin air. Just to reiterate, I am not totally against giving the administration this authority. However, there are buch of questions that I would like answered.

[mikegideon]

Geez. He was a member of Al Queda. That will get you killed, plain and simple. We kill those guys every chance we get. It's ALWAYS good when we do.

[enfield]

Two words -- enemy combatant.

Good riddance.

[mikegideon]

Two words -- enemy combatant.

Good riddance.

Yep. It's pretty clear to me.

[TMF]

The "enter" key is your friend. It gets hard to read a bunch of text without any breaks.

In some of your earlier posts, you mentioned tin foil hattery. ........ However, there are buch of questions that I would like answered.

Roger on the "enter" thing... sometimes I get to typing and don't realize how much it is until I post.

As to the tin foil hattery, yes, there are a few posts here which suggest that the government killed him because he was exercising his second amendment right. That's entering tin foil hat country. I don't think it's a huge leap in logic that someone who has so publically supported and encouraged terror attacks against the US may be a member of a terrorist organization, do you?

In regards to the press I agree with you whole-heartedly. The disparity in reporting on Bush versus Obama is staggering. Unfortunately most Americans don't form opinions on their own and need Joy Bayhar to give them their opinions. This, however, has nothing to do with whether or not it's authorized to kill an American citizen involved in terror abroad.

To the issue itself, if Awlaki had blown up an abortion clinic and then went abroad to avoid detention, then no, it would not be authorized to kill him. We would have to rely on the efforts of the FBI and State Department to encourage the host nation to detain and extridite him back to the US. The reason the CIA/Military was authorized to kill him is because we are at war with the organization to which he is a part of.

Was this even an Executive decision? I don't know for sure; Obama is a leader so he ultimately is responsible for everything his subordinates do or fail to do, so he can take credit for this but did he "push the red button?" I would say that it's irrelevant one way or the other. From my understanding, CENTCOM was authorizing kinetic targeting of bad guys in Yemen at their level. They drop hellfires all the time on bad guys in Yemen; the President isn't personally approving those.

I understand about keeping the government in check, but in this case no rights were violated in regards to free speech or due process. This was an act of war, not one of law enforcement.

[mikegideon]

I believe Obama pushed the red button on Bin Laden, just because the mission was so risky that it fell in his lap. When it comes to all the drone attacks, I get the feeling that he's encouraging them. At the very least, he's not doing anything to discourage them.

Is part of his motivation political? Absolutely. Does he like killing terrorists? I'm getting the feeling that he does.

[gregintenn]

there are a few posts here which suggest that the government killed him because he was exercising his second amendment right.

Could you point these posts out please?

[mikegideon]

Could you point these posts out please?

I'm thinkin' he meant first, not second.

[Paladin132]

The executive is in charge of the military, and if POTUS is not signing death warrants but delegating that then it is a bigger problem than we think.

The problem folks, and one I have said multiple times and been ignored and then insulted after, is that we have no proof of him being involved past blowing his mouth (first amendment, not second). If he had detonated bombs at abortion clinics he would be an operational terrorist, an less involved than what we know about his activities so far... So I am confused about how it would be a LEO issue then and not now.

If he was a member of the KKK that went past their hateful rhetoric and launched attacks then he would be a terrorist and still not be assassinated, he would be hunted as a fugitive.

The argument of he was AQ does not wash with me. What then keeps us from saying so and so is part of AQ to place them on a kill or detain list? Nothing. This is why we use separated powers, and do not deny citizens due process in any situation without two branches if government looking at the situation and saying "yup, kill that cheese-whiz fool twice."

It is the same problem with us having a search warrant written by the same agency that executes it as a possible civil rights problem.

Another thing that folks are not answering is where is the evidence that we knew he was a real bad guy, not just a half baked moron (which I believe he was anyway). Inspiring is odd language to describe someone who is a walking talking command and control facility.

One last thing, I am fine that some folks disagree with me on it. That makes us a great nation where we can debate and come to a consensus, but disparaging remarks do nothing but chill speech and insult all of us.

[sigmtnman]

It doesn't really matter. The wheels are in motion and will they will not stop.

Wonder when they will go after all the terrorist gun owners? Remember, if you see something, say something. The boogyman is after us and wont rest until the last shred of semblance of our once great nation is gone.

[gregintenn]

I'm thinkin' he meant first, not second.

My bad.

[Paladin132]

I figured so, but it is a firearm forum we can definitely forgive that!

[TMF]

I'm thinkin' he meant first, not second.

Ha! Yes, being on a pro-2A site I get used to refering to the 2nd... I meant the first; sorry for the confusion.

[TMF]

The executive is in charge of the military, and if POTUS is not signing death warrants but delegating that then it is a bigger problem than we think.

The problem folks, and one I have said multiple times and been ignored and then insulted after, is that we have no proof of him being involved past blowing his mouth (first amendment, not second). If he had detonated bombs at abortion clinics he would be an operational terrorist, an less involved than what we know about his activities so far... So I am confused about how it would be a LEO issue then and not now.

If he was a member of the KKK that went past their hateful rhetoric and launched attacks then he would be a terrorist and still not be assassinated, he would be hunted as a fugitive.

The argument of he was AQ does not wash with me. What then keeps us from saying so and so is part of AQ to place them on a kill or detain list? Nothing. This is why we use separated powers, and do not deny citizens due process in any situation without two branches if government looking at the situation and saying "yup, kill that cheese-whiz fool twice."

It is the same problem with us having a search warrant written by the same agency that executes it as a possible civil rights problem.

Another thing that folks are not answering is where is the evidence that we knew he was a real bad guy, not just a half baked moron (which I believe he was anyway). Inspiring is odd language to describe someone who is a walking talking command and control facility.

One last thing, I am fine that some folks disagree with me on it. That makes us a great nation where we can debate and come to a consensus, but disparaging remarks do nothing but chill speech and insult all of us.

Look, as I keep saying and trying to get you to understand, there was no violation of his rights here. There was no one signing a death warrant or anything of the like. The CIA and our Military forces kill bad guys all the time. This time it happened to be a citizen. Yemen is a combat zone where the US has been killing enemies for a while now. If this had taken place in Anywhere, USA I would share your opinion, but it didn't. If any of us decide to head to a combat zone where our forces are engaged with enemy, you must understand that you could very likely killed by our forces if you align yourself with the enemy. If I'm going after bad guys and find out that one of them happens to be an American citizen, it's not going to make me fight any less.

I'm trying to get you to understand that this didn't go down the way you think it did. There are different rules in combat. Like the example I used before of John Walker, an American citizen fighting for the Taliban against ally and US forces, who was shot by Northern Alliance Afghanis under the advisement of US forces. What if one of those US ground troops had shot and killed him? Would that be denying him due process? Would they need a warrant or proof of his involvement before engaging? The answer is no. This situation is exactly the same. The only difference here is that our forces don't have freedom of movement within Yemen to engage the enemy on the ground, so we use our high-speed expensive technology to make freedom hating bad guys into part of the landscape. Different category, different rules.

His citizenship only would have mattered if he had been detained by US forces, which is IMPOSSIBLE to do in Yemen.

And I don't believe there was any name calling or lack of decorum here. Yes I made comments about wearing tin foil hats, but look a few posts up and you'll see what I'm talking about... suggesting somehow gun owners are next? Boogeymen? We're talking about terrorists in Yemen, not Joe American sitting on his couch. This is the kind of stuff I'm talking about, and it's all over this thread.

[wjh2657]

We are at war. This scumbag was a Traitor and an enemy. In war you kill your enemies, you don't ask their political affiliation ot club membership, you just kill them. Quit trying to moralize over the most immoral act of all, WAR!

MGySgt USMC (Ret)

[Guest bkelm18]

Was Bin Laden ever directly involved in any terrorist attacks? I mean like, was he there planting the bombs or hijacking planes? No? Where are the people asking for due process on OBL? He was as much a citizen of the US as this guy. Which is to say not at all. Trust me, when I see a violation of rights I'll be right there with you, more so than most on this board as I've seen in my time here, but this was clearly not a case of that. This guy was no longer a citizen by his actions. I'll stand up for the rights of the most heinous murderer around as long as he is still protected by those rights. This guy does not get the same right to due process as a US citizen. He was a terrorist.

Edited October 2, 2011 by bkelm18