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]MadHound
(34,179 posts)144. I used the same quote you posted,
Nor am I linking to any site involving Alex Jones or Rand Paul. I'm simply stating the facts as they are, and those facts leave a significant amount of wiggle room for the President to act.
I suggest you take off your partisan blinders and take a look around at the reality of the situation.
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