"Who does Obama think he is, Michael Corleone?" Obama Wrong to Rub Out Al-Awlaki

[Better Believe It]

Obama Wrong to Rub Out Al-Awlaki
By Matthew Rothschild
Editor of The Progressive
September 30, 2011

Who does Obama think he is, Michael Corleone?

His Justice Department went into court last year to make the claim that no judge in the entire United States has the right to oversee the President’s assassination policy.

The President has become judge, juror, and literally executioner, and that’s not the way our system is supposed to work.

And it sets a new low, and a terrible precedent, for the abuse of Presidential powers.

Read the full article at:

http://www.progressive.org/al_awlaki.html

[FiveGoodMen]

1. "sets a new low"

That's our Obama!

[trueblue2007]

41. thank GOD the President did it!!

[Maraya1969]

86. It was war and he was a high official against the United States of America

I'd say killing him is OK just like killing Bin Laudin was OK.

[ixion]

2. yep, yet another new low

thanks a pantload, Obama.

[Ikonoklast]

43. The people that will still be alive because that newly-dead POS coward

can't cajole someone else to kill them for him will thank Obama, too


Anwar al-Awlaki was a coward, he wanted people that disagreed with him dead, he just couldn't see fit to kill them himself, so he convinced other people do his dirty work for him.

Crocodile tears from the PL, like nectar, so sweet.

[ixion]

59. and how about the people that will be killed because of it

will they be thanking him, too?

Your logic is flawed, at best. And you realize, of course, that you have paid to have this person and hundreds of thousands of other people -- people who were nothing more than innocent civilians -- killed as well. Do you feel great about that?

[Ikonoklast]

62. Strawman, but you know that.

If AQ wants to revenge al-Alwaki's death, then they need to be taken out in the very same manner.

[ixion]

67. Not, it's not in the least. It's a fact.

What, you think al Qaeda is just going to roll over? Are you really that naive?

[Ikonoklast]

74. You're the next guy in line at AQ. You just saw al-Alwaki get the hammer.

You gonna pop your head up, not knowing which of the guys at your elbow are giving intelligence to the U.S., or are you going to try and become invisible?

I'm a realist.

PBO has the AQ's number, and he's dialing it.

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

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

[sad sally]

103. “We’ll fight against America for a thousand years if we have to,”

Young Afghan fighters eager to rejoin Taliban

By Kevin Sieff, Published: September 15

KABUL — The teenage insurgents spend their days learning to make shoes and bookshelves, listening to religious leaders denounce the radical interpretation of Islam they learned as children.

But when they return to their cells at Kabul’s juvenile rehabilitation center, the boys with wispy beards and cracking voices talk only of the holy war from which they were plucked and their plans to resume fighting for the Taliban.

“They bring us here to change us,” said Nane Asha, in his late teens. “But this is our way. We cannot be changed.”

As the Taliban presses its efforts to recruit teenage fighters, Afghan officials and their international backers have crafted a program to reintegrate the country’s youngest insurgents into mainstream society. But that ambition is coming up against the intransigence of the teens, who say they would rather be on the battlefield.

“We’ll fight against America for a thousand years if we have to,” said Ali Ahmad, 17, sitting at a desk that has hearts and Koran verses scratched in the wood. “Jihad is the duty of every Muslim.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia-pacific/young-afghan-fighters-eager-to-rejoin-taliban/2011/08/16/gIQAE5sQVK_print.html?du

[Maraya1969]

90. Oh bullshit. They lost a high power leader. Expect less deaths.

[ixion]

93. lol

whatever. :eyes:

[sabrina 1]

135. Where is the evidence of what you just said? Did you know that

he was never charged with any crime? OBL was charged, not with 9/11 because it is still tricky to make up stuff once it goes to a court of law.

We used to get upset over people being held in detention without charges.

Now we kill them without charges.

I would definitely say this is a new low for this country.

Why was he not even indicted?

Why was his citizenship not removed?

I realize that to take such steps would mean having to provide actual evidence.

Why can't the WH Press Sec. explain when asked, what crimes he committed?

Btw, did you support Bush when he claimed to have these powers, to declare a US citizen to be an enemy combatant who he then had to right execute?

[AverageJoe90]

142. Well, as I've said before, you got a good point. Try to arrest 'em first.

Frankly, I still believe to a point we were running out of options at that point, particularly because nobody knew if that convoy was just another convoy or if it was carrying something like bioweapons or something(and why would we take the chance?); but yeah, this guy could have been detained, as early as 2002 in fact, especially over there in Colo. where there was an actual warrant for his arrest on passport fraud charges. But the prosecutors who were supposed to be doing their damn jobs, basically let this guy go instead. Had this colossal fuck-up not occurred, we possibly could have dug up enough evidence to charge this P.O.S. with enough criminal charges and throw him in prison for the perhaps at least a decade or two.

[Maraya1969]

88. He was a leader of a viable and deadly enemy against the US.

He gave up his citizenship when he moved out of this country and lead a high level combatant group against the US.

[Toucano]

132. No one has proven he did anything other than speak.

Allegations. Made by the same people who declared Saddam bought enriched uranium and possessed weapons of mass destruction.


This president has again violated U.S. law, hence the mobster comparison.

[sabrina 1]

143. No, he was not a leader,he was hardly known to a majority of people in the

ME, and almost all terror experts agree it is laughable to claim he was a leader of Al Queda. What evidence do you have of that? Terror experts cannot find any. Read eg what Jeremy Scahill among others, have said about him. And no, he did NOT give up his citizenship. That requires legal steps that are quite clear in the law.

If the US wanted to remove his citizenship, why didn't they? Why did they not charge him or get an indictment even? Read what is required to remove someone's citizenship before claiming that it is as easy as you are stating. It should scare anyone to think that it would be that easy. Thankfully the government does not have such power over citizens.

All we know about Awlaqi is that he was 'suspected' of something. We do not know anything more than that other than he spewed hateful, rhetoric against the US, which is not a crime, nor should it be.

What should be questioned is why his citizenship was not removed and why he was not charged. By not doing these things, it raises the questions, 'was there any evidence at all that could stand the test of court proceedings'? Because just having elected officials say something, does not make it so, nor should it ever.

[tularetom]

3. Do you trust Obama to only kill bad guys? I do

But I don't trust any of the potential republican candidates and I'm uncomfortable with the precedent that Obama has set by this action.

[ixion]

104. I don't trust any president

Obama or otherwise, which is why I support due process.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

134. That's the same argument I used on my freeper co-workers during bush.

"You are happy now but wait till "President Hitlery" is in charge. Your tune will change."

I guess I showed them.

[harun]

You do realize they consider DU the bad guys, right?

[Better Believe It]

4. An enemy of the state is whoever the President tells you is an enemy of the state

Does nobody see a problem with that?

[Uben]

8. How about when the person tells you he is an enemy?

This wasn't a guessing game, this guy preached jihad against the west. He declared he was an enemy himself! What more do you want? The president didn't tell us he was an enemy, he did! So, no, I don't see a problem with that.

[cliffordu]

35. Never mind the truth.

Some here at DU purposely avoid it whenever possible..

[ixion]

61. I think you mean never mind due process and the Rule of Law

which you who support this seek to avoid at all costs.

[cliffordu]

63. lol. These posts are my favorite.

fail.

[ixion]

69. yea, you lawless folks just love that, don't cha

how cute.

[cliffordu]

99. Heh. More lulz.

nice fail. Really.

[Better Believe It]

64. So you think the government should execute any citizen who the state says is an enemy of the state.

How liberal of you!

Have you ever read the Constitution including the Bill of Rights?

If you have, do you no longer support it?

[SidDithers]

71. "So you"...

:rofl:

Sid

[Ikonoklast]

75. Strawman is all they got.

"So you..." and anything following that is total bullshit, and is to be dismissed as such.

[SidDithers]

78. It's a favourite "debate" tactic of this poster...

watch how often they use it. It's laughable. :thumbsup:

Sid

[Ikonoklast]

81. So you think that the basis for their arguments is, well, less than good?

So, you think that's all they got?

[BlueCheese]

77. Don't think by a longshot that this guy is the only guy on the hit list.

There are others. The list is secret. Are you absolutely positive that everybody on there is a self-declared terrorist? That's why when people argue that what Obama ordered is dangerous, they're talking about the precedent, not necessarily the individual case.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. Every article on the subject says that JSOC has been transformed into a 24 hour assassination team

Apparently insiders (such as top journalists, including Woodward) pride themselves on not being able to divulge to the sheeple that the US engages in literally multiple special operations daily around the world.

[sad sally]

109. The precedent of this act is somewhat terrifying.

The ieda that the President may order the judgment and execution of an American without due process of the established judicial system - the law - means the concept of our laws are no longer operating. It means the American system and America that we and our President ask God to bless - the country that we knew and cared about - is becomming something else.

[Wait Wut]

89. I've been on vacation the past week.

When did DU become a forum for AQ sympathizers? Obviously, protecting this asshole from our big, bad President is much more important than protecting our innocent civilians.

I'm going back on vacation.

[sabrina 1]

137. Lots of people say those things. Are you saying people deserve

the Death Penalty for saying they hate the US? Because there are an awful lot of them around. It's very difficult to prosecute anyone in this country just for what they say, no matter how vile. And all the terror experts interviewed so far say Awlaqi was a nobody in the ME, a vast majority of people never heard of him and greeted his death with a yawn and most had to ask 'who died'?

Jeremy Scahill says the same thing, that he was definitely not a leader of Al Queda. So all we know for now is that he supposedly said some vile things about the US. Iran wanted to kill someone for saying vile things about their country and we thought they were crazy. Now we are acting the same way.

[ixion]

60. Yep, I sure do.

[Uben]

5. So how many more Americans does Al-Awlaki have to kill?

....before it's okay to kill him? A thousand more? Ten thousand? HE has openly declared war on the U.S. and it is the president's job to protect America and Americans. If Al-Awlaki killed one of your loved ones and you knew the president had the opportunity to take him out and didn't, would you feel the same way?

I think anyone who declares war on the U.S. and threatens to kill it's citizens or troops should be a target for elimination by any means possible. It's not like this guy was an innocent bystander. He supported a jihad against the west. By doing so, he put the target on his own back.

Good job Prez. Obama! One more bad guy elilminated. Justice was served.

[spartan61]

7. Thank you for your post.

I so agree with you.

[Better Believe It]

9. How many did he kill? As many as the gov of Texas or civilians killed by predators?

[Uben]

11. How many did Bin Laden kill himself?

Probably none, but he told his followers to kill. Same thing. How you cannot see that is beyond me. We aren't talking about the gov. of Texas, we are talking about a self-declared terrorist. Jeez!

[treestar]

28. Bad logic fail

We may be against the death penalty, but it is still legal in Texas.

[SwampG8r]

36. and it comes with due process

unlike what happened here

[Ikonoklast]

56. As legal as PBO taking out al-Alwaki under the AUMF.

If people don't like those laws, get them declared unconstitutional or changed, until then, they are the law as written.

[GreenStormCloud]

37. The Gov. of Texas can't give reprieves or pardons.

All he can do is give a convict a single 30 day stay of execution. One per convict. All else is handled by the Bureau of Pardons and Paroles.

[dennis4868]

19. I really don't think...

the DUers bashing Obama for killing a terrorist are upset; they just need something new to bitch about everyday regarding Obama...whether we like it or not, we are at war with these people. When we killed Nazis did Americans complain that before we shoot them (while aiming their gun at our troops) we should bring them to trial?

Remember, this is DU, an very anti Obama website....people come here to bitch about him since they don't want to blame themselves for their own problems.

[Ikonoklast]

42. Find an old WWII Veteran who was in the European Theater and ask

them what happened to any Waffen S.S. that came into their hands after surrendering.

The ones that weren't immediately shot, even with a white flag in their hands, that is.

For some strange reason, most of them never made it to a prison camp, and no tears were shed by anyone.

[COLGATE4]

47. That only happened after the massacre by Waffen SS of our

troops at Malmedy. And that still doesn't execuse summary executions of POW's.

[Ikonoklast]

49. And no tears should be shed for al-Alwaki.

He had no white flag in his hand, far from it.

[Better Believe It]

65. Should all of the Nazi POW's been executed?

[Ikonoklast]

85. I don't know, what do you think?

[Bobbie Jo]

102. lol

:rofl:

[Bake]

72. A. This website is NOT anti-Obama. It's PRO-DEMOCRAT.

B. If Obama wants our support, he should act like a DEMOCRAT. The name of this website is DEOMCRATICUnderground.com.

The problem is the total lack of concern for constitutional rights and guarantees.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over al-Awlaki, but what about the NEXT person declared to be an "enemy of the state?"

And what if it's a Puke in the White House and the enemy of the state is a dissident U.S. citizen????

Bake

[madmom]

22. Case in point...how many yelled

"if only Clinton had taken out osama bin laden when he had the chance, 911 would never have happened" ? It would have been the same thing here. There is no satisfying some people.:eyes:

[whatchamacallit]

46. My understanding is he didn't kill any

but don't let that stop your comfortable ignorance.

[hue]

92. the one who orders the killings rarely does the killing...

they rely on others to do the dirty work.

[Ikonoklast]

96. The *real* Michael Corleone in this is the late, unlamented coward al-Alwaki.

Smooth talker convincing others to do the dirty work, while he hides.

[Abq_Sarah]

106. Justice was served?

This wasn't about justice in the legal sense, it was about vengeance.

Like it or not, al-Awlaki was a citizen, entitled to every protection afforded to every other citizen. Nothing in US laws addresses situations like this and until there is a change in the law, people like al-Awlaki can't be eliminated just because they're vile assholes. The President does not have the authority to unilaterally decide a single citizen is not entitled to due process.

[Kahuna]

6. Oh brother!

:eyes:

[Bobbie Jo]

10. The mission continues...

Someone is having a good laugh out there.

Plants need water to take root and grow....

[SidDithers]

51. +1...

would be comical if it wasn't so pathetic.

Sid

[Ikonoklast]

87. Bullshit helps, too.

Lots of bullshit.

[Historic NY]

12. Were at war with Al Qaeda did you forget..............

Al-Awlaki is an enemy combatant against the US. He has already demonstrated his indifference in trying to kill his fellow countryman (US citizens). He is an American by birth here only, by his own actions he is the enemy. None of his victims worldwide were ever given the right to a fair trial.

[MadHound]

18. We are?

Where is the declaration of war? How can you be at war with a group that is not a state? Besides, if we are at war with al Qaeda, why are we helping them out in Libya?

So I suppose that if you use the old "by his own actions he is the enemy" test, we should have summarily executed the OKC bomber, the Unibomber, and the killer of George Tiller. None of their victims were given a fair trial.

Psst, "enemy combatant" is a designation made up by the Bush administration to allow them to freely detain individuals, including American citizens, indefinitely, torture with impunity, execute without a trial, and in general act like they were above the law. Nice to see you using the same bullshit language, NOT.

[msanthrope]

68. Yes. Where have you been the last decade? Our Congress issued the AUMF under the WPA

on 9.18.01--declaring war on the person, persons, nations, or organizations that perpetrated 9/11.

Seriously--where ya' been?

[MadHound]

82. You declare war on a state, sorry.

Not an organization or group. And wasn't the AUMF justifiably damned by liberals here and in the real world for being too broad and wide ranging in the power that it granted, and the fact that it wasn't a declaration of war against a state?

But hey, everything changes once a Dem takes office, right:eyes:

[msanthrope]

110. You don't think Mexico should have the right to declare war on the cartels?

I think anytime an organization is killing your citizens, you have the right to explore military action against them.

[hue]

117. historically this is soo wrong!

Wars between groups form the beginning of time were historically rarely officially between states.
For example are the Basque separatists in Spain a state? How about Native American tribes who waged wars
between each other. Were the Nazis a STATE??
al Qaeda drew up a fatwa of war against the west & USA. They declared it before we ever knew what was going on.

[Abq_Sarah]

108. The AUMF does not and cannot negate the Constitution

Which happens to be the supreme law of the land.

[EFerrari]

40. Who are these victims? Is there a list somewhere?

[Better Believe It]

66. So whoever the government declares is "an enemy combatant" or radical terrorist should be murdured!

So if a future right-wing Republican president declares someone to be an "enemy" anarchist, terrorist or "violent" communist you will also support their murder without trial by the government.

Is that right? Or does that doctrine only apply to this President?

[hue]

120. actually al Alwaki and other al Qaeda declared themselves

enemies of the US and the west!! No one had to declare them enemies! Their goals of killing Westerners are
stated on line, preached in certain mosques & madrases.

[Historic NY]

126. "Get Yamamoto." was the order FDR gave to his Sec of the Navy..

Frank Knox. Knox instructed Admiral Chester W. Nimitz of Roosevelt's wishes. Admiral Nimitz consulted Admiral William F. Halsey, Jr., Commander, South Pacific, then authorized a mission to intercept Yamamoto's flight en route and shoot it down.

We were at war then

[slackmaster]

13. Al-Awlaki said repeatedly that Americans should be killed

So he got exactly what he wanted.

[ThomWV]

23. So what? A person can say what they like, write what they like, and think what they like.

But the President does not have any authority what so ever to commit murder.

[slackmaster]

25. I see it as a justifiable use of deadly force to stop a fugitive felony suspect

As a member of a family who lost a member to a terrorist attack, I welcome the elimination of the threat he presented.

:hi:

[RC]

14. The end justifies the means. That is how the War on Terror is justified on all sides.

By doing this, how are we any better than any other terrorist country?

[FSogol]

15. Unrec. With this line of thinking the next step will be to call for impeachment.

Hopefully, the admins will clean house before that happens.

[dionysus]

16. hmm, more harping.

:rofl:

[HighContext]

17. A non-issue for most middle Americans. [np]

[ThomWV]

21. So, does that make it legal to kill and American without a trial?

who gives a fuck what is or is not an issue with most Americans? It is not an issue to most Americans when your or my wife or sister is raped either, but that doesn't make it right or legal.

[HighContext]

26. 'Who gives a fuck what most middle Americans think'? Um, politicians, other Americans...etc etc [np]

[FiveGoodMen]

39. Goodbye forever

[HighContext]

45. lol. i hardly knew ye....

But, if you're so easily put off, then buh-bye!:hi:

[Ikonoklast]

20. I love the smell of desperation in the morning.

Are the vast majority glad Obama is taking out terrorists that have called for Jihad and death to all Americans?

You Better Believe It!

Love the hand-wringing, though, it accomplishes soooo much.

[dionysus]

27. he's like the energizer bunny. he keeps posting, and posting, and posting...

[FSogol]

31. LOL. n/t

[treestar]

30. And it was the same thing when OBL got rubbed out

Literally posts with the same content.

[bananas]

24. I was thinking the same thing - very apt comparison. nt

[Name removed]

29. Deleted message

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

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

32. "They do it, so we do it" is piss poor foreign policy. K&R

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Friedrich Nietzche

[WI_DEM]

33. you must spend every day looking up anti-Obama stuff to post

[dionysus]

34. yes, i wonder what the google search strings are...

[EFerrari]

98. The Progressive has 13,000 followers on Twitter. n/t

[Swede]

38. It's a daily constant scouring of the internet for this one

and crew.

[SidDithers]

54. I don't know...

there was that time he was casually browsing articles in the Sri Lankan Sunday Times, and came across an interesting anti-Obama article that he thought it might be worthwhile to share. Surely, he wasn't just searching for anti-Obama stuff from whatever source provides it.

However, Matthew Rothschild is an old standby when an anti-Obama screed is needed.

Sid

[EFerrari]

84. The Progressive is not an obscure publication. n/t

[Number23]

138. Nah. I'm sure he's got a Google alert now. The anti-Obama shit probably finds him now

and not the other way around.

[hue]

44. What gave al Awlaki the right to be judge, juror and the ability to

delegate others to be executioners of "Westerners and Americans"?

Many of the supposed fundamental Islamic clerics preach jihad against Westerners. As al Awlaki stated:
In a video posted to the internet on November 8, 2010, al-Awlaki called for Muslims around the world to kill Americans “without hesitation”, and overthrow Arab leaders. He said that no fatwa (special clerical ruling) is required to kill Americans: “Don’t consult with anyone in fighting the Americans, fighting the devil doesn’t require consultation or prayers or seeking divine guidance. They are the party of the devils.

Many times al Awlaki called for violence and killings of Americans. In most executions the person calling for the execution (beheading, hanging, electric chair etc.) is not the one doing the killing. Terrorism as well as peace begins in the minds of people. al Awlaki preached to young, vulnerable peeps who were/are susceptible to charismatic leaders. Yet al Awlaki went against the very essence of Islam (which means peace) as he called for the deaths of any Americans. The Qur'an
states that only Allah(swt) holds the keys to life and death. Many times the Qur'an states that only Allah(swt) can judge a person. Hence al Awlaki raised himself up to the level of Allah(swt) in judging others in who should live and who should die. He also called Americans devils which condemns them to hell which is another right of Allah(swt) alone.
In the most essential/basic of ways al Awlaki committed shirk. They distort Islam not just once but uncountable times. What I'm trying to convey here is that Terrorism is NOT the religion of Islam.
Yet the terrorists definitely want their soldiers to think it is. They insist that Islamists' loyalty is with Islam first and foremost. Citizenship of a worldly country is of no consequence or holds no validity for them. The constitution and laws of the US or any other worldly country do not apply to them. Their own version of Sharia law and the world of jihadism is their law!

al Qaeda is not a country. It is a state of mind. It is an extremist cult. They declared war on the USA before we realized what was truly happening. al Qaeda killed many of our
innocents. Some of the clerics or leaders of al Qaeda ordered the killings and others carried the orders out.
The terrorists disenfranchised themselves and they would have no other way. They have stated many times they would "fight to the death". They don't want to be tried in our courts. They are judge, juror and executioner of themselves and those who follow in their violent ways.
al Awlaki knew about the drones. He could have surrendered to go through the legitimate system of justice many times. He knew he was on the hit list. His Father tried to get him off the hit list but the case was thrown out. al Awlaki was an adult responsible for his own legal course.
Do we see the posters here relieved that more will not be inspired and directed by him to kill our soldiers, citizens, and even others who feel the desire to be rewarded in heaven via suicide bombings etc.?
Who is really the initial judge, juror, and executioner here are why isn't this completely obvious to peeps?

[MadHound]

52. The same "logic" could be applied to the Unibomber, and McVeigh among many others,

Yet they all got due process. But not in this case, why? What's the difference?

[hue]

57. errr.. they were eventually accessible...not hiding in mntns of Yemen

[MadHound]

83. That is what extradition is for,

Happens all the time.

Not to mention that we went in and seized the Bushco bagman Noriega in Panama, brought him back here for trial and imprisonment.

[msanthrope]

105. Um, you do realize that Yemen tried, that right? Yemen had already convicted him

in fact, had hundreds of soldiers looking for him....

"Update: Yemen has deployed hundreds more troops to capture al-Alwaki.

Wanted, dead or alive: A Judge in Yemen has ordered Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and a relative arrested "by any means" to face terrorism charges in connection with the killing of French engineer Jacques Spagnolo last month. The order was issued as hearings got underway in the trial of a third man accused of the murder."

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/11/6/124536/723

[MadHound]

107. Ah, so because somebody is difficult to catch,

We send in the drones to off him in cold blood? Funny, we didn't do that with the Unibomber.

[msanthrope]

111. Yes. Unless you want to give it a go? nt

[MadHound]

113. So justice is limited by the convenience and ease of picking up the suspect

Wow, just wow.

[msanthrope]

116. Not justice. Simply how many American lives get put in jeopardy picking this dude up.

You seem to think the people who have to go get him are expendable.

I do not think they are.

[MadHound]

119. You assume a lot about what I think, yet know absolutely nothing.

Meanwhile history is loaded with examples of felons abroad being picked up and brought home for justice. Noriega is one of the latest.

You seem to think that justice and the Constitution are expendable, a matter of convenience.

[hue]

123. and who thinks/said this?? you are assuming now.

"You seem to think that justice and the Constitution are expendable, a matter of convenience."

For al Alwaki he was the one who disregarded/threw away our Constitution and propagandized the killing of any American.
Terrorism starts in the minds of people. al Alwaki planted/spread many seeds of hatred & advanced a campaign of war
against Westerners. If he wanted American justice he could have given himself up many times.

[Toucano]

129. C'mon! The Constitution clearly says we have a right to a trial by a jury of our peers...

as long as the president thinks we do.

And we're easy to find.

It's a "nation of laws"!

The Federalist Papers make the founders' intentions clear: Ye olde unmanned drone strike shall be an acceptable substitution for an inconvient trial by jury if the president says so.

D'uh!

[hack89]

115. Not in parts of the world where there is no effective government

The government of Yemen is involved in a civil war - there are parts of the country where they have no power at all. Your Panama example is funny - are you suggesting we invade Yemen in a massive military operation, potentially get a bunch of American soldiers killed, all to arrest this guy?

What happens if arrest and extradition really is impossible - are you saying the Constitution requires us to do nothing as he continues to plan to kill innocent Americans?

[Toucano]

130. Like say, Washington D.C.?

Where is that "effective government" clause written again?

[hack89]

131. If you don't want a serious discussion, just say so. Ok ? nt

[Toucano]

133. You lost that ground when you repeated the FOX News talking point.

You've got the progress and the lives of 310 million people being stiffled by ONE lone Kentucky nutjob Senator and you seriously claim you have an "effective government"?

Arrogance and ignorance do not make an attractive ensemble, which is why Fox has to spew them out of a bubble-headed bleach blonde's pie hole. You're not cute enough to get away with repeating it.

If the U.S. thinks Yemen's government is so ineffective, maybe it should stop dumping weapons all over the place and propping that government up.

[hack89]

140. Law enforcement has withdrawn from parts of the country?

there are parts of the country where all elected officials have fled in fear for their lives? There are terrorist groups that control whole swaths of America? Let remember the topic at hand - why arresting this bozo in Yemen may not have been possible. That is not a Fox talking point - it is reality.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

144. Usually when people are accused of these things

We have a process whereby the evidence is heard, opposing council represents the accused, there is discovery, cross-examination, the accusers must present themselves, an impartial judge presides, there are appeals etc etc etc.

All that has been created because "Take my word for it, kill him!" is not acceptable for a civilized society.

[defendandprotect]

48. kr

[SidDithers]

50. Unrec...

:rofl:

Sid

[Life Long Dem]

53. If Bush killed Al-Awlaki...

I would be saying the same thing. Quit coddling a terrorist.

[msanthrope]

70. I'd have been joyful if the Bush Admin had target killed OBL. nt

[CakeGrrl]

55. Unrec

"Sets a new low" = code for "WORSE THAN BUSH".

This administration walks the damned walk when it comes to dealing with terrorism.

No matter what this President does, someone's gonna complain bitterly. Who cares? Let 'em.

[Octafish]

58. The Truth Hurts the Reagan Republicans masquerading as New Democrats.

Kick and it stayed at zero.
As a member of what's now denigrated as the "Professional Left," I'd like to remind everyone of what the Democratic Party I stand for is about: NOT ACTING LIKE A REAGAN REPUBLICAN, THAT INCLUDES Equal Justice for ALL, not just those who aren't enemies of the state.

[bananas]

141. Over at www.Reagan Republican Underground.com they are cheering.

http://vastleft.blogspot.com/2011/08/american-extremists-national-man-of.html

[harun]

146. +1 for being a real Progressive.

[Better Believe It]

73. If a right-wing Republican President declares a U.S. citizen to be an "enemy" anarchist, terrorist,

or "violent" radical who here would also support their murder without trial by the government?

Speak up!

I'm listening.

[Bobbie Jo]

95. "I'm listening"

:rofl:

....your ridiculous use of generalities and robotic, scripted responses say otherwise.

So when did you stop kicking your dog, and why do you support dog-kicking?

btw...right wing Republican is a bit.....redundant.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

79. No wonder right-wingers laugh at us

Willing to sandbag our own president, a guy who was accused of being soft on terror, with shit like this. If Bush had killed OBL they'd be throwing fucking parades every day, but we have to wring our hands about it.

[CakeGrrl]

80. Yep. The GOP builds up their leaders, the Dems doubt theirs down. -nt

[EFerrari]

97. Questioning unreviewable presidential power. Who the hell do we think we are?

Lmao.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

121. Funny coming from the head of the Chavez Cabal

LMAO indeed.

[Number23]

139. SNAP!!!

:rofl:

[EFerrari]

145. And you still don't know anything about Venezuela.

LOL

[watercolors]

91. Such bull- crap tired of it on DU!!!!!!!

[Better Believe It]

94. Time to throw the ACLU and other defenders of the Bill of Rights under the bus!

[ClarkUSA]

100. Time to throw President Obama & the AUMF under the bus to defend the head of Al-Qaeda in Yemen.

You're so predictable.

[EFerrari]

112. No one but the White House is making that claim.

No expert on Al Qaida would say that with a straight face.

[Robb]

118. Actually, the WH called him "a" principal leader, which is fair.

Since the death of al-Wuhayshi, it's a bit unclear if anyone in particular is singularly leading AQAP. I'm going to meet them halfway and assume al-Awlaki would very much have liked to have slipped into al-Wuhayshi's shoes. Well, at least those he had while living.

It has been a difficult year for AQAP leadership.

[MrSlayer]

114. It's really no wonder that we've lost the country.

Instead of propping our guy up and using these victories over al-Qaeda as a weapon against the idiotic right-wing notion that President Obama is soft on defense we attack him for them. When we hem and haw over the killing of a fucking terrorist we look like we are sympathizing with them and taking their side over the side of America. It's stupid and foolish. We are terrible at politics.

[Better Believe It]

122. I agree. It's far more important that Obama look tough on defense. Screw the Bill of Rights!

Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

[MrSlayer]

124. Round and round it goes.

Where it stops? Nobody knows!

It was legal and the right thing to do. The minute you declare yourself a traitor, you forfeit your rights. And it is important that we put up a unified front. It's almost like we don't want to win.

[ixion]

125. It was legal... oh please. It was justified using the Bush Doctrine

which was justified by Alberto Gonzales and John Yoo, and it was railed against on this board until Obama was elected, and now it's a-okay.

the problem is that people put politics over doing what's right, and this is evidence of just that.

[Bobbie Jo]

127. Yes, you have repeated yourself for the 10th time

At least...

Same strawman, etc...You would think they would send you some new key phrases or talking points. I would definitely complain to management.

[SomethingFishy]

128. Wow... This is the Democratic Underground right?

There are an awful lot of people here seemingly willing to give up their rights to a trial and to face their accusers in a court of law.

Lots of Americans speak out against their government. I am no fan of Al-Awlaki but to toss the constitution out the window and kill a man with no trial?

We have lost our way. It's no wonder the country is so fucked up.

[Canuckistanian]

136. It distresses me too

It's illegal to execute someone unless they do this very specific thing that we don't like.

Fine, then. Put it into the law. Vote on it. Campaign on it, even.

But don't say it's Constitutional.