Hello:

You know what I don't like about Obama?? It's that he's WORSE than G.W. Bush.. You know what I don't like about Democrats?? It's that what Obama does is fine, when they called Bush a war criminal for doing the same thing..

The very same faction of Democrats is now perfectly content to have their own president kill accused terrorists without due process of law, even when those targeted are their fellow citizens.

In his 60 Minutes interview, we have life-long Democrat Leon Panetta, telling you as clearly as he can that once the President accuses you of being a terrorist, a decision made in secert and with no checks or due process, that they can do ANYTHING they want to you, including executing you wherever they find you.

It’s hard to know what’s more extraordinary: that he feels so comfortable saying this right out in the open, or that so few people seem to mind.

excon

You have the right to be silent

I agree with the decision to target Anwar al-Awlaki.
He was waging war against the US from a nation where it was not feasible... actually near impossible to "arrest" him .
Meanwhile he was daily recruting jihadists to attack the US home and abroad.

He is also covered in the provisions of the AUMF after 9-11 which passed in bipartisan vote in the House 420 - 1 Nay with 10 not voting... and in the Senate 98 -0 Nays with 2 Present votes.

Al-Awlaki ,as leader of 'Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula' is the very reason the resolution was passed.Bottom line...
Al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant killed in the asymmetrical war against jihadistan. If he would have been in the US AND surrendered to police, then he would have been entitled to due process of law, but he died on the battle field.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

If he would have been in the US AND surrendered to police, then he would have been entitled to due process of law, but he died on the battle field.

---

Hello tom:

How could he surrender? There were never any charges - just a sentence.

excon

Why are you crying about a terrorist, he would have shed no tears for you.

I think you are crying about innocence lost, you can no longer look down from your pedistal and lament the actions of others

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Why are you crying about a terrorist, he would have shed no tears for you.

---

Hello clete:

Bummer.. You MISSED it. It's NOT about a terrorist.. It's about the loss of MY rights..

excon

Your rights, EX ? What have you done?

There are times when you project just a little too far and develop a scenario that goes beyond reason.

Exactly... when an American who isn't the leader of a jihadist organization;who has openly declared his intent to attack America , in a land where he could not be abducted ,from a lawless area ,of a failed state ,is targeted... then there will be a case that the President exceeded his Constitutional mandate .

Ex ;you don't need a trial to kill a terrorist leader at war with us . The truth is that he at least twice recruited jihadists to wage war in this country . One was a failed attempt on a Christmas night that almost succeeded ;and another was a successful attack on an American military base in Texas.
Maybe you can explain to the 13 soldiers killed and 29 wounded soldiers why al-Awlaki deserved to be charged like a criminal instead of killed like the enemy combatant he was.

You will recall that in the middle of WWII [both WWII and AUMF being declared wars ] ,an air operation called OPERATION Vengeance was conducted to take out the commander of the Japanese fleet. The mission was specifically to kill Yamamoto and was based on intelligence on Yamamoto's travel plans .

That is the best comparison to this situation. The fact that his organization does not fit the typical 'nation at war ' defined in the rules of war is not relevant . That is also covered under Geneva .
The Third Geneva Convention states that legal rights are extended to combatants only if they are under the command of a recognizable person responsible for his subordinates, are wearing or displaying a distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, are carrying arms openly, and conduct themselves according to international laws of war. Unless ALL of these conditions are met, the combatants may be considered "illegal combatant" whose punishment may include summary execution.
This was a battlefield killing .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by paraclete

Your rights, EX ? What have you done?

---

Hello clete & tom:

You're missing it AGAIN, clete... It's NOT difficult either... Let's say in your country, you have a right to due process... But, if the government takes that right away from ONE person, there's no saying they won't take it away from you. Therefore, your right is NO longer a right.

It's NOT a difficult concept...

Tom, Yemen experts have long questioned whether Awlaki had any operational role at all in Al Qaeda (as opposed to a role as its advocate, which is clearly protected free speech). We simply have the untested, unverified accusations of government officials, such as Leon Panetta, that he is guilty: in other words, we have nothing but decrees of guilt.

The U.S. Constitution, first and foremost, was designed to prohibit the doling out of punishments based on government accusations untested and unproven in a court of law; for those who doubt that, just read the relevant provisions (“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“; “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”).

Or, that's the way it USED to be here in this formally great country of ours.

excon

Sorry ;not buying your argument ,and I'll use a phrase you don't like to explain it.. . The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

If American citizenship creates a zone of protection around jihadists who wage war against the United States, then America's enemies will have an incentive to recruit individuals who can claim American citizenship but who have no actual loyalty to the country. This will provide them with an unwarranted tactical advantage, an advantage not in any way mandated by the Constitution.

As it is there are 50 million dual citizenship Americans ,born of foreign parents who claim the very dubious 'birthright 'citizen status.I know that there is a growing industry in China for pregnant women to visit the US for the purpose of giving birth in the US so their children can claim citizenship. The 14th Amendment birthright issues have not been something well defined . I think the way it is employed is overly broad .

Who are the Yemen experts who think that his recruiting web sites were not part of his operation of war against the US ?