President Obama delivers a "devastating hit" to the U. S. Constitution and international law

[Better Believe It]

Al-Awlaki killing hailed by Obama, slammed by rights groups
By Paul Koring
October 1, 2011

President Barack Obama hailed the killing of American Anwar al-Awlaki as a “milestone” and “a major blow to al-Qaeda,” but rights groups raised fears that the U.S. Constitution had also taken a devastating hit.

Missile-firing Predator drones, flown by CIA pilots sometimes half a world away, are increasingly the President’s weapon of choice. Hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects have been killed in Pakistan by roving Predators and similar strikes have been launched in Somalia and Yemen. The attacks often go unreported, downed drones are deniable and there is, of course, no opportunity for surrender nor any attempt to capture.

Former president George W. Bush stretched constitutional limits with an offshore prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba in a failed effort to deny foreign detainees due process. Now Mr. Obama has upped the ante.

Few Americans will lament the killing of the charismatic, Internet-savvy cleric who inspired a slew of jihadists and was linked to half-a-dozen vicious attacks. But the killing may be the first shot in the fundamental conflict over constitutional and geographic limits – if any – to Mr. Obama’s new methods of waging war.

Read the full article at:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/al-awlaki-killing-hailed-by-obama-slammed-by-rights-groups/article2187362/


--------------------------------------------



Anwar al-Awlaki's Extrajudicial Murder
The law on the use of lethal force by executive order is specific. This assassination broke it – that creates a terrifying precedent
by Michael Ratner
Michael Ratner is the president of the Center for Constitutional Rights.
September 30, 2011

This was the very result we at the Center for Constitutional Rights and the ACLU feared when we brought a case in US federal court on behalf of Anwar al-Awlaki's father, hoping to prevent this targeted killing. We lost the case on procedural grounds, but the judge considered the implications of the practice as raising "serious questions", asking:

"Can the executive order the assassination of a US citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organisation?"

The claim, after the fact, by President Obama that Awlaki "operationally directed efforts" to attack the United States was never presented to a court before he was placed on the "kill" list and is untested. Even if President Obama's claim has some validity, unless Awlaki's alleged terrorists actions were imminent and unless deadly force employed as a last resort, this killing constitutes murder.

The dire implications of this killing should not be lost on any of us. There appears to be no limit to the president's power to kill anywhere in the world, even if it involves killing a citizen of his own country. Today, it's in Yemen; tomorrow, it could be in the UK or even in the United States.

Read the full article at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/sep/30/anwar-awlaki-extrajudicial-murder


-------------------------------------------



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 30, 2011
CONTACT: ACLU
Josh Bell, ACLU, [phone] or 2666; [e-mail]

ACLU Statement on Killing of Anwar Al-Aulaqi

WASHINGTON - September 30 - U.S. airstrikes in Yemen today killed Anwar Al-Aulaqi, an American citizen who has never been charged with any crime.

ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said, "The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law. As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts. The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President – any President – with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country."

ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner said, "Outside the theater of war, the use of lethal force is lawful only as a last resort to counter an imminent threat of deadly attack. Based on the administration's public statements, the program that the President has authorized is far more sweeping. If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the President does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state."

More information on the government's targeted killing policy is available at:
www.aclu.org/targetedkillings

Jameel Jaffer and Ben Wizner are available for television interviews using the ACLU's in-house studio facility, which has an outbound fiber line for standard definition (SD) video.
.
###


The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) conserves America's original civic values working in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in the United States by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/09/30-0


-------------------------------------------



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 30, 2011
CONTACT: Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR)

CCR Condemns Targeted Assassination of U.S. Citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki
CCR Cites a Lack of Adherence to Constitutional and International Laws that Afford Due Process

WASHINGTON - September 30 - Today, in response to the news that a missile attack by an American drone aircraft had killed U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen, the Center for Constitutional Rights, which had previously brought a challenge in federal court to the legality of the authorization to target Al-Awlaki in Yemen, released the following statement:

“The assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki by American drone attacks is the latest of many affronts to domestic and international law,” said Vince Warren, Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The targeted assassination program that started under President Bush and expanded under the Obama Administration essentially grants the executive the power to kill any U.S. citizen deemed a threat, without any judicial oversight, or any of the rights afforded by our Constitution. If we allow such gross overreaches of power to continue, we are setting the stage for increasing erosions of civil liberties and the rule of law.”

Pardiss Kebriaei, a CCR senior staff attorney, added: “In dismissing our complaint, the district court noted that there were nonetheless "disturbing questions" raised by the authority being asserted by the United States. There certainly are disturbing questions that need to be asked again, and answered by the U.S. government about the circumstances of the killing and the legal standard that governed it.”


Further information on CCR’s challenge to targeted killings is online at http://ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings
.
###

The Center for Constitutional Rights is dedicated to advancing and protecting the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Founded in 1966 by attorneys who represented civil rights movements in the South, CCR is a non-profit legal and educational organization committed to the creative use of law as a positive force for social change.

http://www.commondreams.org/newswire/2011/09/30-1

[liberal N proud]

1. This guy wasn't much of a citizen

One can speak against the government under freedom of speech protection, but when you are calling for death to America and directing attacks against the country, you are committing treason.

Due process was not possible in this situation. There are just some situations that need to be dealt with differently and IMO, this was one.

[COLGATE4]

2. Read your Constitution. Treason is clearly defined. What he did

was not Treason as legally defined.

[bhikkhu]

76. How is it not treason? From Article 3:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. 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."

Have you even read what al-Awlaki did that resulted in his being singled out and "targeted"? It was hardly a spontaneous decision, and he had apparently been a busy guy since he arrived in Yemen in 2004. He would have been arrested there long ago if not for the private army he traveled with.

I suppose you could say that there is no treason without conviction, by the definition given, but if that requires that he be arrested and tried rather than die on the battlefield, then I think the point becomes moot anyway. He made his choice.

[Old Troop]

88. what part of "aid and comfort to the enemy" don't you understand?

[Better Believe It]

8. So what terrorist attacks did Anwar Al-Awlaki organize and direct in the United States?

Since you apparently have information on these terrorists attacks, please post your documentation and evidence along with any credible links you may have regarding the terrorist attacks Al-Awlaki directed.

I also wonder exactly how the United States of America as a nation could die since Anwar Al-Awlaki called for "death to America" according to your post.

So if you hear someone in a demonstration shout out "death to America" I assume you would immediately contact the feds in the hopes that person would be charged with treason or perhaps even be executed by the Obama administration for "terrorism".

Is that right?

[EFerrari]

11. Our criminal justice system was not put together for boy scouts

but to handle the worst offenders. There is nothing to indicate due process was not possible in this situation and, this individual is not the only one that Obama claims he can kill at any time for any reason so Awlaki's individual behavior is sort of beside the point of Obama's claims.

[roguevalley]

90. I think there are some people on this board that are so young

that they only know the shit of the last forty years. I remember when we were a country. This sucks. Our Constitution is toilet paper anymore and our vaunted ethics situational.

[bvar22]

97. But it IS possible to petition the Court...

...for an Indictment and an Arrest Warrant.


You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.

Solidarity!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[YellowCosmicSun]

3. You can have al-Awlaki. I'll stick with Obama. We'll see who gets farther.

[Better Believe It]

9. I'll defend our laws and the U.S. Constitution on this rather than President Obama.

[YellowCosmicSun]

13. you would defend anything against Obama. that much is clear.

You just don't like the man.

[Better Believe It]

15. I'm sure that President Obama is a very charming and likable person.

But that's not the issue here.

It's the Constitution and Bill of Rights of the United States that he swore to uphold.

And now he is trashing it.

I'm sorry you don't value it very highly.

[YellowCosmicSun]

18. Nobody's fooled.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Melinda]

46. Correct - you've fooled nobody.

Enjoy your visit.

[girl gone mad]

84. He's fooled himself.

[Bobbie Jo]

55. Thank you.

It's just a matter of time. They give themselves away eventually, this one is no different.
Count on it.

[girl gone mad]

82. How is it relevant whether one 'likes' the man or not?

I'm certain he's likeable enough. His policies, however, are largely indefensible.

[Broderick]

23. +1000000000000000

[emilyg]

37. + a zillion

[dana_b]

52. I'm with you. n/t

[Supersedeas]

66. a question of priorities

[Pisces]

4. THe penalty for Treason is Death.

[EFerrari]

6. The penalty phase shouldn't precede the trial. n/t

[Octafish]

17. Thanks! I knew there was something...

Unbelievable that this has to be explained. When did they stop teaching civics in high school? Before Bush or After Bushes?

[truedelphi]

71. Brilliantly and concisely statted.

If the guy had a nuke in his closet, I could see trying to assassinate him (As long as the Special Forces platoon avoids attacking the closet!)

But otherwise, why can't these people be brought to trial?

[bhikkhu]

77. So as long as you have a private army and reside in a foreign country

so that you effectively cannot be arrested, and any attempt to arrest you results in a small war (note that the military in Yemen declined to take up the challenge), then you can't be guilty of treason.

[PSPS]

5. Opinions on this seem to follow the Obama divide

If you're of the "Obama is my guy no matter what he does or doesn't do" persuasion, you're OK with this action.

If you're of the "I'm disappointed in Obama because his actions don't match his rhetoric" persuasion, you're not OK with this action.

In other words, this has become part and parcel of one's belief system and no amount of discussion or argument will change one's mind. Of course, this doesn't mean that neither opinion is "correct." Just because opinion on this is mixed doesn't bestow acceptability to both sides.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Broderick]

24. Not true for me

I support many things he has done, but I refuse to support killing a US citizen without a trial and because the government says it was okay. I don't believe the Yemen court argument (which doesn't have a unilateral extradition treaty with us) has any bearing on our nation of laws.

[Hydra]

59. That's a cute way to frame it

But you're only half right. I'm rule of law, whether it be Bush, Obama, or almighty God.

If laws are optional, we can't even pretend to have a functioning society.

[Bonobo]

85. Yes, and that is a major problem.

Obama won't always be in office.

If you say this is okay, you are giving the same power to Dubya Bush, Dick Cheney and Michelle Bachmann if they become president.

Ahem. Still sound like a good idea?

[treestar]

7. That Obama

Man he is the worst thing to ever happen to this country!

If we could just have Bush and Cheney back!

[Broderick]

26. There is a possiblity

the next president will not be Obama. Always a possibility. And the precedent is set. You want Bush III with that power? Perry? Christy? Romney?

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Better Believe It]

12. Right. Do you want a "pure" Bill of Rights with trials, juries, free speech and other stuff?

We can't have that stuff if we want to defeat the terriorists!

[Recovered Repug]

16. You, I and all of the other posters have one luxury

that the president (any president) does not have. We do not bear the responsibility for making decisions like this, or the accountability of the consequences of those decisions. Therefore, we can remain as pure as we choose to be. I simply realize that in an imperfect world, remaining pure is not always the best option. So if I was given the choice between remaining pure and hoping for the best and firing a missile at him - I would choose the missile.

You could then have the luxury of criticizing my decision. I'll leave you with the words of Thomas Jefferson:

strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

[Octafish]

19. Good point. That must explain why Bush and Cheney remain free.

They not only broke the law to lie America into war, they used the war to enrich their cronies. But because they were pretzeldent, it is OK.

I can understand the nation, but where did Jefferson say it was all right for men to be above the law?

[Better Believe It]

20. Is President Obama also assuming responsibility for undermining our Constitution and Bill of Rights?

Or is that an irrelevant or insignificant matter compared to killing one "terrorist" who would have destroyed the entire nation with his superhuman powers had he not been stopped .... and just in the nick of time.

[Recovered Repug]

34. I imagine that, given the different options,

President Obama chose the one that he felt was best. Now you have the option (and luxury) to criticize that decision.

[treestar]

38. And would have taken that option in either case

Now had Alwacki done his terror attack, we would be hearing criticism of PBO for not getting him first

[Better Believe It]

50. President Obama shouldn't have the option to either defend or defy the U.S. Constitution

Why do you think presidents, be they Bush or Obama, should have that option?

Presidents Bush and Obama took an oath of allegiance to this nation and its Constitution.

Do you also believe that George W. Bush should have been given an exemption from that oath?

[Recovered Repug]

56. Ideally that choice should never be an option.

The last time I looked, we do not live in a perfect, ideal world. I simply believe that while following the Constitution is the preferred option, there is the possibility that "gray" areas exist. In this case, being able to make an arrest would have been the ideal. BTW, would you have risked your neck to make an arrest - thus ensuring he received his due process? How many others would you risk trying to arrest him - assuming that he could be taken alive? Would that be something President Obama would consider?

So if attempting to make an arrest yesterday would lead to uncertain results, there seems to be 2 options left.

Option 1: Wait and hope for a better opportunity. This option carries the risk that the delay may have unfortunate consequences - perhaps even the deaths of others, including American citizens.
Option 2: Take him out. This, of course, would deny due process to an American citizen.

Perhaps there's a third option that I haven't considered, if so please tell me. Of the 2 options that I mentioned, neither choice is ideal. We know what option Obama chose. I suspect that I know what you would choose. As I said earlier, you don't have to make the choice so you can have the luxury of remaining pure. He doesn't.

[Better Believe It]

61. You prefer that the President uphold the Constitution when it's convenient? How liberal of you!

There is only one option.

The President is not above the U.S. law, international law and the U.S.Constitution, even if you think he/she should be.

Not George W. Bush and not Barack Obama.

[Recovered Repug]

62. Would you risk your neck to capture him?

How many other innocents would you allow to die in any attacks he inspired for you to remain pure? The presidency comes with responsibilities that neither you nor I will ever know. If the choice is either killing one or potentially having many die, I would choose the one. If Congress wishes to hold me accountable thru impeachment, they are certainly more than welcome to do so. Personally, I would rather die with the blood of one piece of shit on my hands than the blood of innocents on my conscience. Than again, I never claimed purity.

[Better Believe It]

67. Yes. So what terrorist attacks did this guy organize? Be specific.

[Recovered Repug]

68. I said inspired attacks. Youtube videos available.

How many would have to die from these attacks for you to remain pure. Be specific.

[Better Believe It]

79. So which specific terrorist attacks on the homeland did he "inspire"?

[Recovered Repug]

80. We've been going around and around for a while

and it's apparent that we will never agree. As much as I've enjoyed this debate, I must tend to other matters. For me it comes down to the question of "What if I'm wrong"? If given the options that Obama had:

What if I was wrong in ordering the attack and al-Awlaki wasn't a threat? Well, I would have ordered a citizen killed and bear the responsibility for that decision.
What if I was wrong in waiting and al-Awlaki inspired/was involved with an attack that killed a number of innocents? Well, I would have bear the responsibility of that decision, too.

Given the 2 options, neither of them desirable, I would choose the former. You may not agree and I understand that. Fortunately, I am not in the position to have to make that decision.

Have a good day and maybe we'll do this again sometime.

[StarsInHerHair]

87. so where are the youtube links? you seem to have nothing but ignorance on your side

now THAT'S what I call a luxury!

[Better Believe It]

91. So you can't find any terrorist attacks that you allege he inspired.

I think with that it's time for you to say goodbye.

[Recovered Repug]

92. Odd, anyone with a little effort could have found the following:

Over the past two years, Awlaki had been connected to three attacks against America. Officials say his emails inspired accused Fort Hood gunman Major Nidal Hasan. Awlaki helped plan the failed Underwear bomb attack, and was part of the plot to bring down cargo planes with explosives inside computer printers.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/10/01/earlyshow/saturday/main20114273.shtml

Or on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heDD2Cul0W4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0OJQLXcWJw

Now, I'm sure that this will be viewed as being distorted/manipulated/fabricated or whatever excuse you will come up with. For me - Anwar made himself a legitimate target and got what he deserved. You can continue to mourn his death, but I have football to watch. Good day.

[Better Believe It]

94. So you're basing your evidence on a secret government memo you've never read!!!!

Well, I'm sure everything submitted in the memo to justify the murder is absolutely true .... even if no evidence is provided to indicate he organized any terrorist attacks on the fatherland.

Is that the best you can do in justifying the murder of an American citizen without a trial?

Well, guess it's time to throw the ACLU under the bus!

[lumberjack_jeff]

72. Jack Nicholson delivered this line better.

"You can't handle the truth!"

[LWolf]

96. I consider "purist" an epithet the same as "nigger" or any other

bigoted hate-term.

It carries the same negative connotations, and stems from the same hatefulness.

Attacking Democrats for holding Democratic values, for being unwilling to compromise them, is sickening in itself.

Attacking Democrats for upholding the Constitution and Bill of Rights, suggesting that we ought to "compromise" on the Bill of Rights, is flat out dangerous.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ixion]

28. oh yeah. they're all over this.

suddenly the Bush Doctrine is a-okay. :puke:

[Broderick]

29. Blind support is easy

and fruitless in this matter. Just my opinion. No man is above our laws as a nation.

[ixion]

25. Yes, he did. k/r

very disappointing to see him embrace the Bush Doctrine.

[Progressive dog]

27. Why not ask the congress to impeach Obama?

If you believe this, why don't you just ask that the Constitutional remedy be followed and ask for the Presidents impeachment?
Since it's a violation of international law (according to?) why not ask the Int. Court of Justice to get him.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

[ixion]

30. The Constitution isn't, but the Bush Doctrine most certainly is

And what's the point of asking congress? Nancy "impeachment is off the table" Pelosi has already made it quite clear she supports the neocon agenda.

[treestar]

40. Boner is the speaker now

He'd be only too glad to do it.

[RetroLounge]

31. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Spoken in perfect right-wing dialect.

RL

[treestar]

39. This Congress would be willing to do it, too

[RSillsbee]

32. When you cut through all the bull shit

The guy offered aid and comfort to enemies of the United States. He set himself up as an enemy himself. I have no heartburn over this.

[EFerrari]

41. Human rights are not limited to people who like you and whom you like. n/t

[RSillsbee]

58. Very true

That said if you decide to make the U.S.A your enemy don't be surprised when Uncle Sam sends someone in BDUs (or what ever they call them these days) to kill you.
And definetely don't expect me to get all weepy about it.

[EFerrari]

74. Don't weep for people who make bad choices unless they make bad choices

with your rights.

[RSillsbee]

81. I'm not trying to be a prick about this

My perception is that this guy was pretty actively aiding and abetting the enemies of the United States. It's not like he got killed in a no knock raid where the SWAT team go the wrong house. that would be a rights violation. He had actively joined himself to Al Queda and in so doing made himself a legitimate target.

I'm sorry we disagree but I don't feel bad that he's dead.

[EFerrari]

83. It's okay if we disagree.

:)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

33. Yes. But, extrajudiciial killing of Americans accompanied by flag waving is a good campaign move.

[tritsofme]

35. The president had sufficient legal authority under the 2001 AUMF to carry out the operation.

[EFerrari]

42. That's not settled, no. He claims he does. n/t

[tritsofme]

44. The law calls for the president to make the determination.

The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

There is no question about his authority to act under the AUMF.

[EFerrari]

45. That happens to be wrong. You should go see what

actual lawyers and courts say about this. The court in the case brought by Awlaki's father certainly didn't say that, so Obama had to invoke state secrets.

[tritsofme]

47. The case was dismissed for lack of standing.

The courts did not challenge the president's ability to act under the AUMF.

The 2001 AUMF gives the president very broad powers. If that is disagreeable, the solution is to change the law.

[EFerrari]

49. The court said this case raised very serious questions.

It did not give Obama a free pass. I don't want to garble it by mis-paraphrasing, which is why I suggest you read the finding, I wasn't trying to be snippy in saying that.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

36. quick question: does the due process have to be in an US court, or can it be in the court of another

country?

[Melinda]

48. It depends if one is referencing U.S. Constitutional Due Process

under the BIll of Rights. The 5th amendment applies to actions of the Federal government only; the 14th to the States. The concept of Due Process was codified in the Magna Carta from which English Common Law is derived.

In the instant case however, we have a U.S. President issuing an order of execution thereby apparently (and I believe this to be true) circumventing Constitutional Due Process. Thus the legality of said order is subject to U.S. Judicial review, and not that of any other country.

My take, anyway.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

53. could one not argue that he was tried in Yemen(which i'm quite sure he was)

and the Yemen government likely asking the US for help in bringing him down?

I don't see why the US in such a situation should have said no to an ally/friend even if the person is an american.

The main disagreement i have with some here on DU is that many claims he wasn't put on trial and wasn't given due process, i personally think that happened in the yemen court system(If people won't accept Yemen's authority within their own lands I think that is more a posters problem then the Yemen and US governments)

[Melinda]

54. I've not seen proof he was tried in Yemen, but that argument could be asserted.

Life calls... I have to run. HAGD,

Melinda

[Fool Count]

86. Yeah, sure, US should now ask all the "friendly" regimes in the world

for lists of people they want executed and go do some killing. I mean, what's wrong with little
friendly help? Costs us nearly nothing, we have all those awesome drones and missiles, we can even charge
them some reasonable fees to pay for the gas and explosives. Just make sure that it's all bullet-proof
legal, like ask for some sharia court guilty verdict or at least a fatwa from a reputable cleric and
off you go. What can be wrong with that?

[Better Believe It]

93. Do you consider Saudi Arabia to be a "friendly" regime with "friendly" anti-terrorist rulers?

A real role model for democracy and human rights!

Do they also torture and murder people?

[Fool Count]

98. Did you take my suggestion seriously?

If you did, this is a perfect illustration of how fucked up in the head the American public is.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dionysus]

65. ...

:rofl:

[gulliver]

51. Nonsense. It's just like a SWAT team.

Trials take place after arrests. If an arrest can't be made without jeopardizing the lives of law enforcement or risking the lives of potential victims, then the offender can be stopped with deadly force.

[zalinda]

57. What of the innocents?

I can understand the whole debate about treason and such, and I certainly would understand people arguing that it is okay, if it was done the same way Osama was killed. (Although, I thought he should be put on trial.) But the argument stops when a drone was used. How many drones did it take before they got the correct person? How many people in the neighborhood who had nothing to do with terrorism, were killed? I could almost see the murder being justified if there was hand to hand fighting, but not a computer driven drone.

This whole thing reminds me of the old Star Trek episode, where people were herded into killing rooms when a computer said their opponent had 'bombed' them.

zalinda

[gulliver]

60. I don't know the answer to your question.

I assume that, absent any concrete information to the contrary, there were no innocents killed in drone operations to get the guy. I would expect Yemen to be literally screaming bloody murder if that had happened. Have not seen it in this case. I know it has happened elsewhere, though.

I think the Star Trek you are talking about is A Taste of Armageddon, by the way. One of my favorite episodes. General Order 24 makes Obama's action look kind of minor. General Order 1 is thrown out the window as usual.

[Better Believe It]

64. The Bush Doctrine is OK if it's implemented by a Democratic President

[Major Hogwash]

75. You sound like Sister Sarah now, this wasn't part of the Bush Doctrine.

Geezus Sesame, talk about stretching it clear out of proportion!

[Better Believe It]

78. So you think this is a new doctrine? You may be right. What would you call it?

[Better Believe It]

63. Do SWAT teams used predator drones? When did that start?

[zalinda]

69. When Obama doesn't want to look like he is starting another war. n/t

[Dragonbreathp9d]

70. It's hard for me to rejoice over the death of any human being

But meh, I think y'all are making this a bigger deal than it is. Should he have had a trial? Probably yes. Do I really care? Probably no

[Gregorian]

73. Thank you. I just cannot believe how this is bringing out the true colors of people.

I'm quite frankly disgusted with the discovery over the last few days.

[ProSense]

89. Anwar al-Awlaki vs. Kamal Derwish

here

[Better Believe It]

95. Is it time to throw the ACLU under the bus? What the hell do they know about the Constitution?

Didn't George W. Bush or one of his flunkies say it's just a piece of paper?