Anwar al-Awlaki

[mikegideon]

Personally, I mourn for this poor young terrorist. I don't mourn because our evil government kilt him in the prime of his life. I mourn because he was probably way to banged up to enjoy his virgins. He should have just gone to Vegas.

[sigmtnman]

F*** him. We have the right to try people in the Court of Public Opinion. What's with all these folks who want to try him based on evidence. We needed to get him just like we got Iraq for attacking NY and DC on 9/11.

Ya bunch of white middle aged, gun owning, terrorist sympathizers. Nappyheaditano has a million eyes on you. Same folks will probably decry our governments support of the UN small arms treaty too.

[Guest Gunbunnie]

Enemy combatant. Does not matter if it was a drone or any troops that got him.

[daddyo]

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution isn't really that difficult to understand.

The Plain Truth about Executive Assassination - Fox Business Video - Fox Business

[sigmtnman]

Cognitive dissonance. Hardly any of us trust Obama or his admin with anything else, but we are ok with secret evidence against this citizen?

Have I missed the evidence to support Treason as defined in the Constitution? I'm not talking about "alleged ties" or "said ties".

[Guest BungieCord]

I think it shows the stupidity of the anchor baby law. In 1824 it made sense to confer citizenship on anyone born here. In 2011, not so much.

Repeal the law and revoke al-Awlaki's citizenship posthumously.

No more dilemma.

[analog_kidd]

First, where are you getting your information he had declared war on the US? From some unnamed government source in a news report?

Second, people killed in the civil war (with the exceptions of spies) were killed on the battlefield normally engaged in acts of war, not 1,000's of miles away from the battlefield driving in a car/wagon.

And I wouldn't hold the despot Lincoln's actions up as a standard to live by, he did more harm to the constitution and liberty than any other President in the history of our country.

I get my information right from him. He routinely called for Jihad against America. Watch some of his videos, you'll see it for yourself. Also, he aligned himself with Al Qeida, who has declared war against us, and us against them. If someone joins and participates in a group that we are at war with, that makes them an enemy combatant in that war, and therefore fair game in wartime operations.

The battlefield has changed since the 1800's. They used to line up, stand up and shoot each other back then, now we kill each other from miles away. Do you really think that during the Civil War, that if a group of soldiers travelling down the road met another opposing group, that they would make plans to meet back at the battlefield? No, they would fight it out right there. You take the battlefield to the battle, not the battle to the battlefield. Did the 9/11 attacks happen on a battlefield?

I'm not sure what you mean by Lincoln, but I never mentioned him. My point was there were two sides of opposing US citizens at war against each other and neither side tried all the people they killed during the war. Besides, Lincoln wasn't the President of the South during the Civil War.

[sigmtnman]

I get my information right from him. He routinely called for Jihad against America. Watch some of his videos, you'll see it for yourself. Also, he aligned himself with Al Qeida, who has declared war against us, and us against them. If someone joins and participates in a group that we are at war with, that makes them an enemy combatant in that war, and therefore fair game in wartime operations.

The battlefield has changed since the 1800's. They used to line up, stand up and shoot each other back then, now we kill each other from miles away. Do you really think that during the Civil War, that if a group of soldiers travelling down the road met another opposing group, that they would make plans to meet back at the battlefield? No, they would fight it out right there. You take the battlefield to the battle, not the battle to the battlefield. Did the 9/11 attacks happen on a battlefield?

I'm not sure what you mean by Lincoln, but I never mentioned him. My point was there were two sides of opposing US citizens at war against each other and neither side tried all the people they killed during the war. Besides, Lincoln wasn't the President of the South during the Civil War.

The constitution calls for 2 witnesses to an overt act or an open admission in court.

My understanding is that a video from an unnamed source is not a witness. With the way the government conducted the Fast and Furious fiasco and Gunwalker, I would not put it past them to doctor a video.

The same Constitution that Americans created, those folks who risked life and limb to end the tyranny of the King. The same one the South seceded over because the North was infringing on. The same one our grand fathers and fathers fought for.

It's a shame that foks are so scared of a guy that they are ready to throw out the Constitution.

The battlefield may have changed, but the Constitution only changes through amendments. If Americans want the government to be able to kill citizens without due process, then perhaps y'all should write your Congressmen.

Until the requirements for Treason, as defined in the Constitution are satisfied, this is an impeachable offense.

Regardless of how people "feel".

Edited October 5, 2011 by sigmtnman

[JayC]

I've seen bits and pieces of his videos, mostly a sentence or two taken out of context. I see him saying that his religion allows Jihad against America (Show me videos where in his own words he is calling for people to be killed, vs saying that his religious text allows Jihad), I have not seen any evidence that he was involved in planning or terrorist operations in anyway shape or form... Just a muslim cleric giving religious sermons.

He was never a member of Al Qaeda, but a member of another group call Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which wasn't even around in 2002 when we passed the use of force authorization. Which did not include Yemen where he has been for years.

Anwar al-Awlaki most likely needed to be put in jail, or even executed, but that should have been done after he was found guilty by a jury of his peers.

Now as for your argument again about the civil war, we're not talking about 2 groups of soldiers meeting and fighting, we're talking about an canon unit knowingly firing on an unarmed chaplin. Again, I've seen no proof that al-Awlaki was ever directly involved in attacks on US citizens/soldiers, he was just preaching, which may in and of itself be a crime because it lent aid and comfort to the 'enemy', but did not make him an enemy combatant, even under the laws passed during the Bush Administration.

My point about Lincoln is two fold, first that we're not talking about 2 groups of armed men meeting... we're talking about killing a US citizen without due process of law, not armed at the time he was killed. Second, that Lincoln was an evil despot that did a lot of harm to the country that we're still paying the price for today. But, even he wouldn't summary execute an American citizen for speaking out against his unconstitutional war.

I get my information right from him. He routinely called for Jihad against America. Watch some of his videos, you'll see it for yourself. Also, he aligned himself with Al Qeida, who has declared war against us, and us against them. If someone joins and participates in a group that we are at war with, that makes them an enemy combatant in that war, and therefore fair game in wartime operations.

The battlefield has changed since the 1800's. They used to line up, stand up and shoot each other back then, now we kill each other from miles away. Do you really think that during the Civil War, that if a group of soldiers travelling down the road met another opposing group, that they would make plans to meet back at the battlefield? No, they would fight it out right there. You take the battlefield to the battle, not the battle to the battlefield. Did the 9/11 attacks happen on a battlefield?

I'm not sure what you mean by Lincoln, but I never mentioned him. My point was there were two sides of opposing US citizens at war against each other and neither side tried all the people they killed during the war. Besides, Lincoln wasn't the President of the South during the Civil War.

Edited October 5, 2011 by JayC

[Guest boatme99]

Waco was a cluster **** against American citizens. Awlaki was NOT an American citizen. He denounced his citizenship, moved, and began fomenting war against the U.S. He's just a dead terrorist now. Good riddance. May we see many more.

[daddyo]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Doesn't say "citizens."

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Doesn't say "citizen."

[sigmtnman]

Waco was a cluster **** against American citizens. Awlaki was NOT an American citizen. He denounced his citizenship, moved, and began fomenting war against the U.S. He's just a dead terrorist now. Good riddance. May we see many more.

The federal government has rules for denouncing citizenship, believe it or not. Using their own rules, there has been no evidence presented that he ever denounced it.

They did this to keep people from escaping jurisdiction.

[G27]

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list' - Yahoo! News

[mikegideon]

Secret panel can put Americans on "kill list' - Yahoo! News

Not a good time to join Al Qaeda. Sucks when the intent to kill goes both ways.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Waco was a cluster **** against American citizens. Awlaki was NOT an American citizen. He denounced his citizenship, moved, and began fomenting war against the U.S. He's just a dead terrorist now. Good riddance. May we see many more.

Just hope you're not one of the "many more" from a related class of your terrorists. Definitions

can change.

[sigmtnman]

Definitions can change.

Boy can they. The evolution of word meanings is a fascinating subject in and of itself.

Take Terrific and terrible. Originally they were synonyms for 'that which evokes terror or dread'. Today, we all know that terrific has changed to mean great, Of great size, amount, or intensity or Extremely good.

Aweful originally meant inspiring awe or similar, though now it generally is used to mean extremely disagreeable or objectionable.