Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Why was Anwar al-Awlaki executed by drone, without due process? [View all]99Forever
(14,524 posts)128. But of course...
... your convenient tale has been subjected to the scrutiny of court proceedings to prove its honesty, veracity, and credibility, right?
Link to those proceedings please.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
202 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
A citizen does not have a right to take up arms, join our enemies & make war against the US govt.
baldguy
Mar 2013
#1
He didn't kill any Americans, but he certainly wanted to. And he praised those who did.
baldguy
Mar 2013
#6
There are lots of people in this world who want to kill Americans, and praise those who do so,
MadHound
Mar 2013
#11
So killing American citizens without due process doesn't rise to the level of grievous activities?
MadHound
Mar 2013
#28
That's not the policy, has never been the policy, and there are no plans for that being the policy
baldguy
Mar 2013
#25
Well, judging by how the drone program is being carried out, that is indeed the policy.
MadHound
Mar 2013
#32
Actually three US citizens have been killed by US drone strikes, at least that we know about.
MadHound
Mar 2013
#78
The reality of the situation is that you're trying to pin an imaginary policy onto the President
baldguy
Mar 2013
#153
Sorry, but I have no sympathy for ANYONE, US citizen or not, who engages in....
OldDem2012
Mar 2013
#103
So, leaving al-Awlaki out of it altogether, what about his son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki?
MadHound
Mar 2013
#146
Wow. Your post is so full of false assumptions. But no matter what anyone tries to tell you....
OldDem2012
Mar 2013
#164
self-serving garbage to rationalize crimes every bit as awful as anything done by our official
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#177
so is bombing other countries and assassinating their citizens. fuck this pretense of 'legality'
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#181
"Because the United States itself has a long record of supporting terrorists and using terrorist
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#184
You're using the same "reasoning" the OP is. And it's nothing but lying propaganda against Obama.
baldguy
Mar 2013
#102
Bush killed more americans than this guy could dream of. Based on a fucking lie. Drone *him*.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#171
"...but he certainly wanted to." You made madhound's case right there. n/t
truth2power
Mar 2013
#199
he 'joined' al qaeda? is there an official sign-up sheet with a secret handshake?
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#173
This was settled in 1865. A US citizen taking up arms against the US govt is committing treason.
baldguy
Mar 2013
#192
i'll bet you'd show some outrage if it was a drone belonging to another government.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#174
His son was executed by drone two weeks later for even less discernable reasons.
Poll_Blind
Mar 2013
#10
The AUMF essentially makes the whole world a battlefield which means everybody is a potential target
MadHound
Mar 2013
#15
An Amicus Brief is not a court decision. So your comment about Constitutionality is invalid.
Agnosticsherbet
Mar 2013
#113
It actually reaches beyond the constitution, we are talking absolute tyranny here.
TheKentuckian
Mar 2013
#185
Ah, so we should wait until all the information is in before doing anything, eh?
MadHound
Mar 2013
#34
americans have unlimited rights to butcher anyone at any time for any reason. its in the 10
msongs
Mar 2013
#42
Semantical difference? When agencies carry out conspiracies they're called programs and policies.
leveymg
Mar 2013
#70
You interjected an assumption into the narrative that doesn't necessarily follow the rest.
leveymg
Mar 2013
#74
The timing was very significant. On Dec. 24, the day before the Underwear Bomber was put on that
leveymg
Mar 2013
#61
The 1 attack he is accused of "coordinating" resulted in no casualties except the bomber's scorched
leveymg
Mar 2013
#67
He appears to have been a double-agent who worked both sides. We don't know what he believed he
leveymg
Mar 2013
#63
"The use of poisons of chemical and biological weapons against population centers is allowed"
bhikkhu
Mar 2013
#62
Sorry, not buying the idea that you don't have a vendetta against the President. nt.
OldDem2012
Mar 2013
#97
You conveniently forget Mr. Awlaki's involvement in the BA bomb plot, the Cargo Bomb plot, Times
msanthrope
Mar 2013
#79
Direct contact and conspiracy with Rajib Karim on the BA Passenger Bomb Plot--
msanthrope
Mar 2013
#87
Handwringing over a terrorist who was directly plotting to kill Americans. He was lawfully killed
msanthrope
Mar 2013
#95
But, but, but don't you understand? If we can kill a US citizen/terrorist overseas,.....
OldDem2012
Mar 2013
#98
Anyone who poses a threat to the safety of others and cannot be arrested - see Tennesee v Garner.
Donald Ian Rankin
Mar 2013
#147
MadHound--the AUMF of 9/18/2001 was passed by Congress, invoking the WPA, and directing
msanthrope
Mar 2013
#149
AUMF was declared unconstituional by the US District Court, Southern District of New York
MadHound
Mar 2013
#151
Wrong law, MadHound. Hedges vs. Obama involved the NDAA of 2012. And it was stayed.
msanthrope
Mar 2013
#152
On January 25, 2010, al-Awlaki's name had already been published as being on the kill list. He must
leveymg
Mar 2013
#116
So, Obama is Nixon now? Killing terrorists is the same as spying on political opponents?
baldguy
Mar 2013
#111
By posting the video you're comparing Obama to Nixon. That's false equivalency - BY DEFINITION.
baldguy
Mar 2013
#114
Nixons stance doesn't apply to this situation. And YOU brought him into this thread, not me.
baldguy
Mar 2013
#133
You are fabricating what was posted at #106. Anyone can read it for themselves and see that
AnotherMcIntosh
Mar 2013
#136
The words in the video at #106 speak for themselves and anyone can verify that for themselves.
AnotherMcIntosh
Mar 2013
#139
It's hard to be tried when you're not actually formally accused of anything.
BlueCheese
Mar 2013
#154
It's hard to formally accuse someone who will not cooperate with legal processes
treestar
Mar 2013
#161
My point is that it's odd to ask someone to turn himself in if he hasn't been indicted.
BlueCheese
Mar 2013
#166
Your argument for killing someone is that it might be "awkard" to indict them? Are you joking?
Gravitycollapse
Mar 2013
#194
So because he wouldn't turn himself in, we have a right to murder him?
Gravitycollapse
Mar 2013
#163
Virtually anyone charged with a crime participates in those charges about 0%
TheKentuckian
Mar 2013
#197
The same arguments used to justify torture are used to justify drone murders.
Gravitycollapse
Mar 2013
#160
There is legal precedent for "inhanced interrogation techniques." Doesn't make it right.
Gravitycollapse
Mar 2013
#169
"Legal precedent" for torture? Because Bush Admin lawyers said it was okay to do so?....
OldDem2012
Mar 2013
#178
george w bush is a shitbag terrorist who killed more americans than 911, based on a pack of lies.
HiPointDem
Mar 2013
#175