American citizens can be placed on a kill list and Obummer knows........

[OldSchoolRanger]

They put him on a kill list, without a trial, knowing he was a US citizen
 
 
LOST. Citizen maybe. American?? No way, just another muslim and a self avowed enemy. Good shoot. POWDERMAN. 

PM - Your correct, according to Merrian-Webster dictionary the:
Definition of CITIZEN

1   : an inhabitant of a city or town; especially : one entitled to the rights and privileges of a
       freeman

2  a: a member of a state

    b: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to
        protection from it

3    : a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state

I hi-lighted and underlined the important part required of the "citizen".  It's a two way street in being a citizen.  You owe something back to the country, it's not they (the nation) that owes you.

[magooch]

In the real world we are at war with terrorists and there was just cause to kill the terrorist in question.  Just cause he was a freaking turncoat muzzy.

[OldSchoolRanger]

The real reason Obama preferred this guy dead.

Kill, don’t capture? Obama’s odd terrorist policy  Last Updated: 4:26 AM, October 6, 2011
 Posted: 10:20 PM, October 5, 2011
             More Print     Jonah Goldberg
  I agree with the Obama administration’s decision to kill the American-born al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki. What I can’t fathom is why the administration agrees with me.
Here’s Defense Secretary Leon Panetta responding to complaints from the ACLU over the “assassination” of a US citizen without due process: “This individual was clearly a terrorist. And yes, he was a citizen, but if you’re a terrorist, you’re a terrorist. And that means that we have the ability to go after those who would threaten to attack the United States and kill Americans.”
    EPA  So we can kill Awlaki with a drone -- but if we’d caught him, we’d have to give him a civilian trial?       I agree with that. The Constitution empowers the president to put down insurrection, and what was Awlaki if not an insurrectionist? From the Whiskey Rebellion to the Civil War to World War II, there have been times when presidents legally and constitutionally treated US citizens as enemy combatants. Awlaki hardly seems deserving of special treatment.
Moreover, the authorization for the use of force passed on Sept. 18, 2001, says 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 Sept. 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.”
It doesn’t say anything about exempting Americans.
If news reports, statements from US officials and Awlaki himself are to be believed, Awlaki was a member of al Qaeda. Moreover, he helped orchestrate and incite violence aimed at the United States. He never denied the charges against him but hid outside of US jurisdiction fomenting violence against America. Case closed.
And yet, I sympathize with critics on the far left and libertarian right who find the whole thing unseemly. Surely when an American is in the crosshairs, there’s a higher political bar, even if there isn’t a higher legal or constitutional one.
ABC’s Jake Tapper asked White House spokesman Jay Carney, “Does the administration not see at all how a president asserting that he has the right to kill an American citizen without due process, and that he’s not going to even explain why he thinks he has that right, is troublesome to some people?”
Carney’s response: “I’m not going to ... discuss the circumstances of his death.”
The mind reels to think how people would have responded if President Bush’s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, had said that.
But here’s where I am confused. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the administration is committed to treating captured terrorists as criminals, entitled to all of the rights and privileges of a civilian criminal trial.
It seems the Defense Department disagrees, given that some lesser-known prisoners are allegedly kept on ships -- call them floating Gitmos -- without trials.
Meanwhile, President Obama keeps ordering that the more famous terrorists be killed on sight. That’s fine with me. But as far as I can tell, he’s never disagreed with Holder’s view about the need for civilian trials for terrorists we don’t kill, like Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Hence my confusion. If you believe that even non-American terrorists should be treated like American criminals, with all of the Fifth Amendment rights we grant to our own accused, how can you sanction killing an American without so much as a hearing?
The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” A Predator drone strike seems to deprive all three.
Which would you prefer: to be arrested, possibly waterboarded and then tried by a US military court in Cuba, or to be disintegrated by a Hellfire missile? What’s worse, to be executed after a less-than-perfect military trial, or to be executed with no trial at all?
And let’s not forget, these missiles aren’t that surgical. They kill the people around the target too. In this case Samir Khan, a US-born editor of al Qaeda’s magazine, Inspire, was killed -- not to mention a number of others. Where was their day in court?
And that’s the point, really. If captured alive, terrorists pose political problems for Obama. Where do we put them? How do we interrogate them? And, most pressingly, how do we try them?
I don’t think those are tough questions. But Obama does. So he prefers to kill these people outright, avoiding the questions altogether.
JonahsColumn@aol.com
Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/kill_don_capture_yG99oujjSaHs0nGnAxG4HN#ixzz1a9OlvLxJ

[powderman]

I agree with the Obama administration’s decision to kill the American-born al Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki. What I can’t fathom is why the administration agrees with me.

 
 
Not hard to figure out. The obamination is trying to convince us that he is an American and not a muslim. His agenda has not changed, just his tactics. Claim that our military killed bin laden but hide the body and all proof, kill alwaki, among others. It's all for votes boys and girls, and to hide his muslim agenda. These dead guys are expendable in his war against America. POWDERMAN. 

[lakota]

I too question Obama's motives for getting tough on terrorists all of a sudden. While campaigning he acted like the US could kiss and hug its way to peace with them. Why the change now?
 
Another question I have about the ala whacky killing-What US law enforcement agency would have the authority to go abroad and arrest him and bring him back here for trial or would we just depend on the Yemeni government to do the right thing and arrest and extradite him for us.

[jlwilliams]

  No doubt, Al Alwaki needed killing.  No doubt he had taken arms against the USA.  Read the fine print in your Passport, that puts one in for a world of bad repercussions.
 
  Here's the catch (and there is always a catch): our leagl system is as much a system of law by precedent as it is law by legislation.  In this case in point, a US citizen was targeted specificaly for killing.  There is a not so subtle difference between killing him as a specific target and killing an American serving in German uniform at the Battle of the Bulge.  In this case, the target is such that we all say; 'he was a legitimate target, it was OK to kill him'.  The die is cast.  The government has targeted a US citizen, killed him, and the public went along with it.
 
  Now what?  What level of culpability will future targets have?  Public opinion now sees an American expat who openly practices Jihad against his home country as an OK target.  I know I do.  Considering how so much of American public opinion is moulded by the TV and manipulated by professional 'opinion smiths', how long might it be untill public opinion sees petty criminals as executable?  How long untill 'presumtion of innocence' is replaced with 'presumed culpability'?  I once heard a cop say that he thought it should be OK to shoot a fleeing suspect because "if he wasn't guilty why would he run?".   This cop was literally advocating summary execution of petty criminals who run, and others agreed with him.  (this conversation was after a wedding among friends and family)  People can be convinced of some wrong things, and that goes for large numbers of people too.
 
  That brings me back to my point.  Once the legal precedent has taken hold, it grows.  If we accept that the President in person or a group answerable to him can pass a death sentence on us as individuals, we are screwed.  If that is where we are then I have to say to all of you veterans:  "Thanks for all you did but sorry guys, but the nation you fought for is gone."  We are on the brink of that point and I don't see much of a wave against it.  The 'public opinion shaping machine' seems to be all for whatever this asshat in office does.  They let him off the hook for this, they let him off the hook for 'fast and furious', there doesn't sem to be anything they will hold the current administartion acountable for.
 
  A few posters have suggested that he could have been tried in absentia, could have ad his citizenship revoked.  Suggested that there could and should be a legal mechanism to do this.  Fair enough.  There are parts of that sort of system in place already, but that's not how our 'leaders' roll.  They have vast power and no accountability.  Being the boss means never having to answer and never having to say 'sorry'.  Being in power today means being in total power, so they just decided what to do and did it.
 
  I don't have any sorrow over the A-hole in question eating lead.  I have great sorrow for the great nation who got a bullet in the head and died quietly along the way.

[Shu]

If the government can put people on a kill list without going before a judge and presenting evidence what is to stop them from putting anyone of us on the list?
Member X  has mentioned several times there needs to be a revolution and he would supply arms and ammuntion to anyone who would help over throw the government. Does this statement warrant Member X going on the kill list without his name ever going before a judge? According to alot of posters yes, it does. Except Member X never left the States. Should federal troops or a predetor drone be headed to his house right now?
Constitution? What constitution?
 
 

[magooch]

There is always and has always been a fine line between what is prudent for the government to do and what is stepping over the line.  Taking out any enemy terrorist during a time of war is not stepping over the line.
 
I don't trust much of anything that the present IIC (idiot in charge) does, but if George Bush had done the same, I would have cheered him.  I'm not cheering Obama, but I'll not condemn him for doing what I would have done.  I'll not cheer him because I doubt that he took this action in the same spirit that a righteous leader would have.  I believe he gave the approval because the military and his Defense Sec. wanted it and Obama figured it was politically better to go along.

[magooch]

Ask the IIC.

[lakota]

I can tell you I would feel very different if the CIA sent some assasain to gun this alawaki guy down in an american city...but they didnt.
 
He was embedded with the enemy which leads me to another problem. What are we supposed to do? Should we send a SEAL team into unfriendly territory on a high risk mission from which some of them may never return to extract him so that he gets his right to a fair trial? What about the SEAL team members' right to life? Its not their fault he ran off into Yemen and began plotting against the US. Should they be forced to give their lives in an attempt to make sure a traitor gets his day in court?

[SHOOTALL]

If you want to be treated like an American citizen you should act like one and not be in the enemy camp ploting aginst Americans.

The problem comes with this: some self-styled 'patriots' think folks with diff politics aren't Real Americans; some of the might be willing to kill, if they think God is on their side. Just look at the drivel some post here, and the terms they use to refer to folks that aren't of their approved religion or political persuasion.

.
That and the fact that the governmnet never proved what Anwar actually did....except they just associated him with doing things that many of the self-styled 'patriots' here daily advocate for their own favorite team.  BHO took out Anwar (if they were actually successful?) to boost anti-jihad sales in the neocon-neolib anti-arab campaign that has gone awry.....with Iracq aligning more with Iran, Afghanis insurgents able to kill US occupation forces at will, world wanting Palestinian statehood against backdrop of isreali atrocities...Libya gone haywire,and  pending attack on Damascus not advised......also note,,,Iranians may have long range Ukranian rockets bought at Soviet breakup and speculation of how they are 'tipped' is not good news for the neocon-lib firsters.  So what do you do? Just go out and take out an American jihadi who use to hang around the Pentacon, and that the Yemeni governmnet says next to nobody listened to anyway.....while just ignoring the US Constitution and due process.
 
..TM7

you do realize he denounced his citizenship ?

[powderman]

I can tell you I would feel very different if the CIA sent some assasain to gun this alawaki guy down in an american city...but they didnt.
 
He was embedded with the enemy which leads me to another problem. What are we supposed to do? Should we send a SEAL team into unfriendly territory on a high risk mission from which some of them may never return to extract him so that he gets his right to a fair trial? What about the SEAL team members' right to life? Its not their fault he ran off into Yemen and began plotting against the US. Should they be forced to give their lives in an attempt to make sure a traitor gets his day in court?

 
LAKOTA. Exactly. There are a few here that would have been upset that John Dillenger, Bonnie n Clyde, etc weren't read their rights. POWDERMAN. 

[Shu]

If Alwaki renounced his US citizenship then he has no protection under the law of the US.
 
The constitution is becoming toilet paper more and  more everyday.
 
PM,
Miranda warnings came about much later than the days of Bonnie and Clyde

[SHOOTALL]

Its like the old west poster DEAD OR ALIVE . Did that get protest ? He could have turned himself in    .
At what point do you say OK he can have his day in court if he comes in but if not and keeps ploting aginst America we stop it.

[SwampThing762]

If you want to be treated like an American citizen you should act like one and not be in the enemy camp ploting aginst Americans.

The problem comes with this: some self-styled 'patriots' think folks with diff politics aren't Real Americans; some of the might be willing to kill, if they think God is on their side. Just look at the drivel some post here, and the terms they use to refer to folks that aren't of their approved religion or political persuasion.

.
That and the fact that the governmnet never proved what Anwar actually did....except they just associated him with doing things that many of the self-styled 'patriots' here daily advocate for their own favorite team.  BHO took out Anwar (if they were actually successful?) to boost anti-jihad sales in the neocon-neolib anti-arab campaign that has gone awry.....with Iracq aligning more with Iran, Afghanis insurgents able to kill US occupation forces at will, world wanting Palestinian statehood against backdrop of isreali atrocities...Libya gone haywire,and  pending attack on Damascus not advised......also note,,,Iranians may have long range Ukranian rockets bought at Soviet breakup and speculation of how they are 'tipped' is not good news for the neocon-lib firsters.  So what do you do? Just go out and take out an American jihadi who use to hang around the Pentacon, and that the Yemeni governmnet says next to nobody listened to anyway.....while just ignoring the US Constitution and due process.
 
..TM7

you do realize he denounced his citizenship ?

SHOOTALL,

Do you realize there is a profound legal difference between "denounce" and "renounce" as it pertains to citizenship?  US law requires and individual go to a US embassy and consulate to sign an oath of renunciation.  ONLY THEN does an individual lose all benefits of citizenship.    I have found no news reportings that indicate Awlaki ever renounced his citizenship.  He still was a a citizen under US law, and entitled to due process, even if that due process was a military tribunal and a bacon-lubed bullet.

If the POTUS gives an order to kill an American citizen without due process, that is an asassination.  This act makes POTUS no better than a Mafia godfather, or a drug dealer, ordering a contract hit.   It is, in fact, murder.   

Therein, lies the precedent, and who is to say an American citizen  gets added to the list because the president or his minions do not like what a person says?

Food for thought....

ST762

[BUGEYE]

hmmm, there may be a drone headed for my house now. hope it hit's before my wife and daughter get here.  I HAVE been very vocal about this government.

[SHOOTALL]

OK this legal stuff is fine to a point but at some point safety of Americans has to be considered. How could this criminal come onto American soil ? He could not and walk away. Much like the dead or alive posters in the old west he was being looked for. And like some of the animals on those old posters he needed to be stoped before he did more harm. Most with a grain of sense in their head would realize that shooting someone pointing a gun at you is self defense in his case he points a group of terroist instead of a gun. His way is far more dangerous.
 So how many American's should we have let this SOB kill before giving him a trial ?

[SHOOTALL]

He made the plans , If he is not guilty of murder then Hitler isn't either ..........

[SHOOTALL]

Our govt. said the twin towers and to be honest another one I can't recall .

[Shu]

I understand the wanted dead or alive concept. Who were wanted posters issued by? Realizing the laws have changed in the past 100 years or so. Were those posters issued in States or territories? Were they issued in concurrance with a judges orders? Territorail law being different than state law.
Just because a lawyer says so don't make it right. It should go before a judge thats what we have them for.
As member Bugeye states he has been very vocal about revolution, does that make him a terrorist? Should he be expecting a drone strike? Would it be right to call member Bugeye a threat to the United States? Member Bugeye as also said he would provide arms and ammunition in other posts. Do we send a special forces team to his home? Do we allow him his freedom of speech or do we get together and shoot him becuase he is a "threat"? Personally, I think member Bugeye is excercising his right to free speech as gaurunteed by the constitution.
I am happy Alwaki was hit but think about this for just a moment- an American citizen was put on the kill list. Not a foriegner. (Alwaki did not sign the papers renouncing his citizenship).
That means ANY US CITIZEN can be put on this list at the whim of the "panel". Whether it was BHO, Bush or any other president the intentional killing of a US citizen without a Judges consent or other law in place  is punishing someone for a crime without a trial an right gaurunteed by our constitution and title 18 USC. This is a dark day for our constitution. Yes that document we scream about when our rights are infringed. Is it ok to infringe on someone elses rights as long as it doesn't affect us?
 
Well I guess it's a moot point since it's allready done. How much of your constitution are you willing to give up?

[SHOOTALL]

Fed law put out some of those posters and US marshalls carried out many hunts. The Consitution was in effect then and has not changed so what changed ? hum
I don't think when a group of the highest ranking officals is brough together to decide the fate of a person its not taken lightly. Does this pannel have the authority of a court ? People are tried in their absents are they not ? Can the court rule on their verdict ?

[BUGEYE]

Our govt. said the twin towers and to be honest another one I can't recall .

it was either the "shoe" or the "underwear" bomber.

[SHOOTALL]

Our govt. said the twin towers and to be honest another one I can't recall .

it was either the "shoe" or the "underwear" bomber.

Some people would gripe if you hung them with a new rope !

[BUGEYE]

Our govt. said the twin towers and to be honest another one I can't recall .

it was either the "shoe" or the "underwear" bomber.

Some people would gripe if you hung them with a new rope !

yeah they would.

[powderman]

PM,
Miranda warnings came about much later than the days of Bonnie and Clyde

 
SHU. True, but you missed my point. Point was that these people were found and killed without todays, HALT, PUT DOWN YOUR WEAPON, HOLD UP YOUR HANDS, YOU ARE UNDER ARREST. POWDERMAN. 

[Shu]

PM,
I pretty sure someone yelled freeze police, they just couldn't hear it over the gun fire.
 
This government hit list just gives me concerns about how names are put on it, who makes the final decisions and could this be another way to get rid of people who don't agree with the current administration. I would like to know what kind of oversight this panel has.

[SwampThing762]

SHOOTALL,

I do not dispute the benefit of a dead al-Alawki.  If he got his due process, I would gladly hand over a new Kentucky hemp rope or a good cast bullet lubed with bacon grease.   I just find it disturbing that an anonymous government "council of shadows" can determine the life or death of an American citizen without trial or due process.  Simply put, it is a violation of American civil liberties under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th and 14th Amendments.   

Welcome to the world of 1984.

ST762

[SHOOTALL]

Maybe his family will take the US govt to court in a wrongful death suit and then all will come to light .

[OldSchoolRanger]

Our govt. said the twin towers and to be honest another one I can't recall .

it was either the "shoe" or the "underwear" bomber.

BUGEYE - He was linked to the foiled 2009 Christmas Day "underwear bomber" plot, to the foiled Times Square bomb attempt in May of 2010, and the November 2009 Fort Hood shooting.

[OldSchoolRanger]

Guess who's also complaining about al-Awlaki being killed by US forces? 

"Al-Qaeda has also criticized the Obama administration for killing U.S. citizens, saying doing so “contradicts” American law.
“Where are what  they keep talking about regarding freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms?!” the statement says, according to a translation by SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist Web sites.
from Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/al-qaeda-joins-those-questioning-legality-of-awlaki-killing/2011/10/10/gIQAH7nZaL_blog.html