Samir Khan's family criticizes U.S. government

[The Northerner]

CHARLOTTE, N.C., Oct. 6 (UPI) -- Samir Khan's family in Charlotte, N.C., called the al-Qaida propagandist killed in a U.S. airstrike a "law-abiding" citizen assassinated by the U.S. government.

In a statement, The Charlotte Observer reported, the family said: "Being a law-abiding citizen of the United States, our late son Samir Khan never broke any law and was never implicated of any crime. The Fifth Amendment states that no citizen shall be 'deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law' yet our government assassinated two of its citizens.""

Khan, 25, was killed in the airstrike on Friday in Yemen along with radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, also a U.S. citizen.

In the statement, the family questioned why Khan was not captured and tried and asked, "Where is the justice?"

Read more: http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/10/06/Khans-family-criticizes-US-government/UPI-26731317936707/

[TheWraith]

1. Perhaps if they wanted him tried, they should have convinced him to turn himself in.

Unless, of course, we're again in the parallel universe where fleeing fugitives never get killed by law enforcement.

[frylock]

2. fleeing fugitives are killed by flying robots every day..

john dillinger killed bonnie & clyde with a drone. just for snoring.....

[geek tragedy]

5. How could he have foreseen that traveling with al Qaeda

terrorists in an armed convoy would be dangerous?

[sabrina 1]

14. Was he charged with a crime? Was he wanted? Al Awlaki was not

charged either. People do not normally go down to the police dept and ask 'am I wanted for anything' unless they've been charged. And if they did, the police would not arrest them if there were no charges to act on. We ARE still a nation of laws. You don't get arrested even if you want to be, if there are no charges against you, nor do people turn themselves in if they are not charged with anything.

So, what do you mean 'he should have turned himself in'? Are you seriously supporting the killing of people without any evidence whatsoever against them? Without even a hint of due process?

Is trashing the Constitution worth it just because our team is doing it? I can't believe the total flip flopping of the 'left' on these issues that are so much more important than any political party or politician.

If this is the new 'Left', it is going to lose millions of members. This is exactly what democrats opposed and why they belonged to this party. And maybe why millions are now taking to the streets realizing that these issues are not going to be solved by either party.

Especially when members of this party refuse to condemn them.

[geek tragedy]

26. Do you think it's possible to verify that no Americans

are present in an armed convoy traveling through tribal Yemen before bombing.

His death is his own damn fault.

[AverageJoe90]

49. He was charged with passport fraud in June 2002 but was never triied for it. :-(

I have a feeling Bush & co. may have pulled some strings back in those days.......this just doesn't smell right. If this guy had been a moderate, non-jihadist Muslim, he probably would've had the book thrown at him. =(

[msanthrope]

3. "It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that I [am] Al Qaeda to the core." Samir Kahn.

Being in Al-Qaeda doesn't make you a law abiding citizen, folks.

[geek tragedy]

37. The extreme left does not view Al Qaeda as their enemy.

Hence the inability to comprehend. They identify more with Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan--feeling that these chaps were dissidents and victims of an oppressive state--than they do with someone like President Obama.

[msanthrope]

41. I've found that the extreme left romanticizes criminals--often to their detriment.

Perhaps some seek to live vicariously. I've seen, up close, the results of a well-meaning, yet clueless person getting close to a criminal. Not pretty.

These al-Q bastards wouldn't hesitate to kill a single one of their defenders here.

[geek tragedy]

43. Nah, they just reflexively defend anyone hated by both

the US political establishment and the American right.

Remember, Noam Chomsky claimed that Osama bin Laden was a "victim of . . . a political assassination.". Just like JFK.

[geek tragedy]

4. Their idiot traitor son was in an AQ convoy.

He put himself in a dangerous place, and danger found him.

Boo fucking hoo.

[demosincebirth]

6. Maybe he was just hitching a ride.

[geek tragedy]

7. That must be it. nt

[sabrina 1]

16. So what exactly was it?? What crime was he charged with?

Surely you don't just accept the word of the government when they claim the authority to execute people with no due process. Could you please list the crimes committed by this man so the rest of us who actually do not support the POTUS having the powers of a king, can be proven wrong on this?

[geek tragedy]

22. He was not the target. In the wrong place with

the wrong people.

[sabrina 1]

33. What crimes did the 'target' commit? What charges were filed

against him? Where in the Constitution does it cover this extraordinary power to by-pass due process now claimed first by Bush, now by this president?

[geek tragedy]

36. Killing enemies is part of armed conflict.

It is not about punishment. It's about killing them before they can kill some of us.

And, yes, AQ is beyond any sane doubt trying to launch armed attacks against the US and attacks on them are explicitly authorized by an act of Congress.

Joining the ranks of the enemy is dangerous, as it should be.

[sabrina 1]

39. And what proof is there that Al Awlaki was a 'leader of Al Queda'

and what crimes did he commit in that role? All terrorism experts say he was NOT a leader of AQ nor even a lower level operative. In fact most people in the ME never heard of him and when asked what they thought of his execution, had to ask who he was and what he had done.

I do not want to live in a country where the people do not question their government on something as extremely important as the taking of a life. There is enough information on this man that contradicts what we are now told about him that any citizen should not only question, they should demand answers. We do not live in a monarchy, yet. That would be the only excuse for blindly accepting the killing of a citizen without any evidence presented that we have been told is true.

When the WH Press Sec was asked, he was unable to answer the question. The most he could say was that Al Awlaki preached against the US Govt. Lots of people do that, should we kill them all? And does it not trouble you that the WH Sec. could not explain why this man was killed, along with three other human beings? His father denies he was an enemy of this country. The ACLU represented him in an attempt to stop this killing.

It shocks me to see how easy it is to lose all of our rights because people are so willing to accept the word, without any other evidence, of the Government. It even shocked me when Republicans did so. But to see people on the left now doing what we criticized the for doing, is, imo, very disturbing because at least in the past we had hope that maybe half the population would try to uphold our laws and not allow any elected official to claim these kinds of powers. Clearly to restore this democracy is going to much more difficult than simply 'electing democrats' as we once thought.

[geek tragedy]

40. Your claim that "all terrorism experts" agree that he was not a threat is absurd.

They have emails--validated at trial of his co-conspirator--where he asked an airline employee how AQ could get an explosive device on board a US-bound aircraft.

Nidal Hasan, Faisal Shahzad, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab--he was involved with all of these terrorists.


He was the enemy, and was disposed of properly.

The only good AQ member is a dead one.

[geek tragedy]

42. Here's your harmless non-enemy:

Some of the information ... comes from Abdulmutallab, who ... said that he met with al-Awlaki and senior al-Qaeda members during an extended trip to Yemen this year, and that the cleric was involved in some elements of planning or preparing the attack and in providing religious justification for it. Other intelligence linking the two became apparent after the attempted bombing, including communications intercepted by the National Security Agency indicating that the cleric was meeting with "a Nigerian" in preparation for some kind of operation.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/dec/31/nation/la-na-terror-intel31-2009dec31

But, his dear old dad said he wasn't an enemy, which is good enough for you.

[sabrina 1]

44. Sorry, we had similar 'evidence' that Saddam was buying

Uranium from Niger, third hand information which oddly enough most of us here never believed. Now we are asked to believe the same kind of 'evidence' coming from 'sources' we know nothing about either.

This would not be acceptable in a court of law. It is hearsay. Curveball has been forgotten I guess. Info passed along to our media by a NYT 'respected and credible reporter' Judith Miller. I remember rightwingers presenting me with that evidence, assuming that I, as a 'liberal' would accept it because it came from the NYT, a 'liberal rag' as they like to say. But I did not accept it then and I do not accept the same kind of 'evidence' now.

If they were so certain of his guilt, they had ample opportunity over the past ten years to charge him but they never did. The only reason for not doing so? Because when you file charges you have to be specific and it is open to challenges, as it should be.

I also remember the case of Al Zarqawi. I followed that story, the multiple times we 'killed him' and the claims that he too was a 'leader of Al Queda. I asksed the same questions then and never got any answers. I did find out a lot about him, thanks to some terror experts who offered their opinions and one or two real journalists who investigated the man's history.

In the end, a US General admitted that the Al Zarqawi story was psyops to a reporter and his admission was caught on tape. The raised the question whether it was legal to conduct such an operation on the American people. The answer is 'no, it is not legal'. But hey, who cares? We are all so terrified and filled with hatred now, that laws do not matter anymore and we don't need answers! They are 'keeping us safe' so anything goes. What total BS.

I would rather risk a terror attack than lose of all our rights. And when they are all gone, we will have to fight for them again, or live in fear, not of foreign terrorists, but of our own government. Sorry, I will not contribute to such a state of affairs. I like our Constitution, far more than 'feeling safe'. And just how safe did this killing make us? Or any of the killings of the hundreds of thousands of human beings killed to 'keep us safe'?

Fear, I wish people were not so easily frightened. We all die sometime, but while we are here, it is not worth living in a world where we have no rights and can at any time, be assassinated by our own government.

[geek tragedy]

45. In other words, you don't really care if he was trying to kill

people.

You just don't believe it's legal for the US to defend itself without holding a trial first.

Never mind the logical absurdity of requiring a demonstration of guilt before we can take action against any enemy anywhere.

[sabrina 1]

46. No, I DO care whether or not he was trying to kill anyone.

You don't seem to care frankly. Governments can accuse anyone of anything, but generally that is not enough for the death penalty. I also care about innocent people being killed by the government. And before you say 'oh, we wouldn't do that', check out how many innocent men, women and children this government has killed over the past 20 years or so, and continues to kill with impunity on a daily basis. We here in the US can look the other way, certain of our right to kill anyone anywhere regardless of guilt or innocence. And then ask innocently 'why do they hate us'.

Ask the mother of one of the babies blown to pieces by one of our drones what SHE thinks this government is capable of and whether her baby was a threat to this country. Or whether she buys the 'collateral damage' excuse.

Sorry, if you care about whether or not he planned to kill anyone, I would think you would want more than 'my government said so'. Our government has said a lot that turned out not to be true. In fact their record of truthfulness is pretty dismal. I find it pretty scary for citizens of any country to totally trust everything their government tells them without question.

Saddam Hussein was not involved with Al Queda either, in fact he hated them. Yet over 70% of the American people believed their government when they were told that lie. Do we never learn? Or is it that this time the president is a democrat? And why would that make a difference since he is using the same policies we on the left opposed so vehemently for all the right reasons not so long ago?

I still see no reason for the killing of Alwaki and the three others who were with him.

He will forever be the US Citizen who was executed on the order of the US President based on his words and without charges filed against him. THAT is a fact and imho a shameful one. And if Bush was in the WH you and I would not be having this disagreement.

[geek tragedy]

48. I supported Bush's right to kill terrorists.

I did not support his right to torture prisoners.

All evidence in the public record points to al awlaki being an AQ terrorist as well as a traitor.

[sabrina 1]

50. I did not support any US President having the powers of a king

especially Bush who was the first to claim them and I never met a Democrat during that time who supported it either. You are the first to admit to supporting those policies. I give you credit for that at least because everyone else I have asked who now supports this, has refused to answer.

You keep saying there is evidence, but even the WH Sec has admitted that he cannot provide it. And where in the US Constitution does it even hint at a President of the US being given such awesome powers? My reading of the Constitution tells me the exact opposite. That those who wrote it anticipated this happening and tried to make sure it was not possible. Bush and his gang of war criminals found phony ways to throw out the Constitution but I thought when we elected Democrats we were going to restore Habeas Corpus and the Rule of Law.

Even King George had to keep the appearance of respecting the law if he wanted to execute someone, and they believed in Habeas Corpus back then.

I hope this is not the official position of the Democratic Party now. Because if it is, they are going to lose an awful lot of their members. I would like to see some official statement from the Party regarding this abuse of the rule of law and maybe it is something that needs to be clarified before the next election.

I would not want to belong to a party that so totally ignores the Constitution. That is why I am not a Republican.

[Cali_Democrat]

9. Allegedly. n/t

[geek tragedy]

10. Um, no.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1319845/Samir-Khan-talks-pride-traitor-Al-Qaeda-magazine.html

[Cali_Democrat]

12. Was this "evidence" presented to a grand jury in order to produce an indictment?

Or was this so-called "evidence" ever presented in a court of law? Didn't think so. Until then, it's alleged.

This is why adjudication is important. It's why we have a judiciary.

Also, the Daily Mail is a conservative rag.

[hack89]

17. We don't indict enemy soldiers - we kill them. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

18. We indicted Bin Laden for the embassy bombings and the USS cole attack

Was he not an enemy soldier?

[hack89]

19. He was indicted pre-911

The AUMF changed things.

[Cali_Democrat]

20. We indicted Zacarias Moussaoui after 9/11

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/indictment-of-zacarias-moussaoui-1

[hack89]

21. He was in US custody at the time

he was arrested on 16 August 2001 - before 911.

[Cali_Democrat]

24. He was not in custody when the indictment was unsealed. You're just wrong.

You keep shifting the goal posts. First we don't indict enemy soldiers, we kill them. Then we only indicted Bin Laden because that was pre 9/11. Now we only indict terrorists after 9/11 if they were previously in US custody?

[hack89]

28. He was arrested 4 months before the indictment was unsealed. He was in custody.

arrested 16 August 2001
indicted 11 December 2001.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5243788

[Cali_Democrat]

29. OK

What about this guy? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/08/nyregion/08terror.html

[Cali_Democrat]

30. This man was indicted and is not in custody

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/adnan-g.-el-shukrijumah

[hack89]

32. So now is it ok to kill him if we can't arrest him? nt

[geek tragedy]

38. If he's trying to kill Americans, it is more than

allowed, it is required.

[geek tragedy]

25. He was in an armed Al Qaeda convoy.

He put himself in the line of fire. The bombing of enemy convoys in foreign countries is not something courts have authority over.

Stupid ass traitor put himself in the cross-hairs and paid the price.

[Cali_Democrat]

31. "He was in an armed Al Qaeda convoy"

Allegedly.

[geek tragedy]

35. "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt"

is not the relevant standard.

[Cali_Democrat]

11. .

.

[Honeycombe8]

8. He was a criminal. He posted videos on the Net recruiting Americans to join AQ...

to kill Americans. A crime.

The news is that he'll be hard to replace, for AQ. That is good news.

Lives have no doubt been saved by the assassination of a key member of Al Qaeda and his cohort.

[Boojatta]

13. He was an American. He was trying to get Americans killed.

He was killed. Therefore, he succeeded.

[RZM]

27. LOL n/t

[sabrina 1]

34. Well, I could say that about anyone. But no one would believe me

unless I provided at least some evidence. So, where is the evidence that convinced you so completely about this 'guilt' you speak of? I have not even been able to find any charges filed or even a GJ indictment. If you have, you are in possession of some very important information that many, many people have been asking to see.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. He was given a fair trial, convicted, and sentenced to death....oh, wait.

Some bureaucrats from CIA told the commander-in-chief that some other guy was a really bad guy and the commander-in-chief told them to kill the other guy...and ignore the constitution.

[geek tragedy]

23. No, his death was not intended.

A bonus, as it turned out.

[AngkorWot]

47. Maybe they should be ashamed of themselves for raising a terrorist.

:nopity: