[Averti$ingGuru]

It really does need to be stated that the majority of our Constitution only applies to our citizens...as it was intended. You're better off quoting a UN Mandate.

For starters...

1) No, it doesn't.

Secondly...

2) The guy WAS an American citizen.

[diseeKeythilt]

I don't see a problem here. The guy was a scumbag that held dual citizenship. He was one of the biggest threats to the US. He fucked around and got smoked. We should have done the same to John Lindh.

If that is all that is needed to qualify one for the "list", then why isn't Bill Ayers, or Steven Learner, or Van Jones, or Cornel West, or Farakan on that list? All of them have growing support for the destruction of the country, some actually committed violent acts that have gotten a few people killed. But they all have one thing in common, they are friends of Obama.

If you have a problem with the Kill List then you should probably talk about what bullshit the PATRIOT act is (thank you for that one, GW). I have and do disagree with the patriot act. It is a GOP progressive law that has no constitutional backing to it.
The government can do anything they want if it threatens national security. Wow, that is a slippery slope to the realm of a dictatorship. I am pretty sure Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Mussolini all used that form of reasoning too.

This isn't Obama. This is the government. Obama is the one that gives this type of order to kill an american citizen with military assets. Just like he gives the consent to sell guns to drug cartels from Mexico.

[13spebampiliece]

Really?

Reuters cited the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, who said the process involves “going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law.”

It's not just Conservatives. I'm neither Conservative or Liberal and I agree with what they did to Awlaki and Khan. They had plenty of evidence. Trust me - we can't just go shooting whoever we want w/o a legal review and other processes.

Legal review includes a trial by ones peers. I have yet to see that trial. They straight up killed 2 American citizens that were not in the act of committing a crime.

[Diortarkivoff]

It really does need to be stated that the majority of our Constitution only applies to our citizens...as it was intended. You're better off quoting a UN Mandate.

These were citizens.

[TypeTeasiaDer]

See I was actually surprised when I saw this thread... I thought WJ5 had finally come to his senses.

Now I see this is just another "I hate Obama" rant. Yes, Obama is the one who authorized it, but you're woefully ignorant if you don't see the much larger trend here.

[neerewed]

See I was actually surprised when I saw this thread... I thought WJ5 had finally come to his senses.

Now I see this is just another "I hate Obama" rant. Yes, Obama is the one who authorized it, but you're woefully ignorant if you don't see the much larger trend here.

Of course it is a "I hate Obama" thread cause I am calling out the government only when he is in office. I bet it is because I am racist too right?

[shumozar]

I'm no fan of the current administration, but they did the right thing here. This is pretty run of the mill during war. We didn't go around arresting and trying all of the confederates during the civil war - we killed them because they declared war against the U.S. Much like american "citizen" in question.

[Lån-Penge]

I'm no fan of the current administration, but they did the right thing here. This is pretty run of the mill during war. We didn't go around arresting and trying all of the confederates during the civil war - we killed them because they declared war against the U.S. Much like american "citizen" in question.

On this note, did the abolishment of slavery really require the price of so many American lives? We weren't the first and we weren't the only nation that engaged in the act of slavery in our history, yet how many of those other countries have slaves now? How many of them experienced civil wars to change it? I can tell you this, it wasn't all of them. Ever wonder why that might be? What did they do different? Bears some thought I'd imagine.

Let's pretend for the moment that the Civil War was 100% beyond dispute necessary to accomplish that objective. An important distinction here is what is being attacked and defended, and whether the use of force to accomplish objectives is proportional to the amount of resistance met. Back then the odds were relatively even, and force was applied until the threat was nullified, not necessarily extinguished. If you had the means to do so without significant risk to your own mission, you absolutely took prisoners.

This type of warfare is new, in a war that is not declared by Congress and has given virtually unbounded constraints to the Executive branch towards its execution, and in absolute secrecy, all in the name of this nebulous facade of "security". The targets now are not just objectives, they are individuals, and the force applied is far disproportionate to which is necessary to accomplish these objectives, in the sovereign territory of nations we are also not officially at war with. We never offered the option of surrendering themselves to due process under our own laws. It boggles my mind how we simply rule out the option of building solid partnerships with these nations to bring terrorists to justice. They have as much and sometimes more to fear from AQ than we do. They have to live around it. I can only begin to articulate how demoralizing it would be for the infrastructure of AQ to see peaceful Muslim's in the Middle East standing with the United States in bringing AQ to justice. What people so frequently fail to recognize is the power of the psychological elements in this modern war. The terrorists set us back a long way and steered us towards a nearly bankrupt and tyrannical system of government. This very thing caused the USSR to fall apart, when they were fighting the very same enemy. I don't see how we can possibly believe the very strategy that fragmented our chief rival of half a century might have a different result if we take the very same actions in response.

I believe there's a way we can throw them off completely, we can cease intruding in their internal affairs and let them face the people who they had victimized before they could use us and the USSR as a scapegoat for their ineptitude. When critical thinking Muslims don't have a big powerful foreign empire sailing their ships off their coastlines, establishing major bases for their own military to exercise control of their government on their own soil, and causing collateral damage to innocent civilians in the process of waging war on a few individuals in hiding, there will be no one left to blame for what ails them then those who seek to govern by fear and terror. If, when it angers them enough, they can rise up to throw off this tyranny, and should they wish embrace us as future partners in a freer society. Either way, AQ will have more than enough to worry about locally to worry about harming a country that has so much military power at its command and would not have otherwise been involved.

[serius_06]

I'm no fan of the current administration, but they did the right thing here. This is pretty run of the mill during war. We didn't go around arresting and trying all of the confederates during the civil war - we killed them because they declared war against the U.S. Much like american "citizen" in question.

Yes, we killed those that were actively shooting at the union, but we didn't go around killing unarmed citizens who were not posing an immanent threat. Hell, we are even giving Hassan a full trial, and he was the one actually doing the shooting. There is more proof that Hassan did the acts than Al Alawki doing any influencing.

[dHXaE2h9]

Legal review includes a trial by ones peers. I have yet to see that trial. They straight up killed 2 American citizens that were not in the act of committing a crime.

Yes they had been and yes they were.

[Mello]

Yes, we killed those that were actively shooting at the union, but we didn't go around killing unarmed citizens who were not posing an immanent threat. Hell, we are even giving Hassan a full trial, and he was the one actually doing the shooting. There is more proof that Hassan did the acts than Al Alawki doing any influencing.

And if Awlaki and Khan had been in the US during this time, they would've been arrested. But you really think they're going to come back to the US after working for AQ?

[LClan439]

Yes they had been and yes they were.

Kind of tough to say without the trial, don't ya think? You mentioned before I don't seem to know very much about the guys. You were 100% correct, never heard of them personally until I saw the "obituary" on CNN. I can't say I trust anything I learned after the fact because I highly doubt the government would disclose anything that makes him look like anything other than a vicious and hateful individual.

Say tomorrow the Rick Santorum/Michelle Bachman types suddenly gained sufficient influence in our government to reinstitute DADT (strictly hypothetical, I find this scenario extremely unlikely). The government decides to renege on its comments that currently open homosexuals would be protected and mass discharges the whole bunch. You make some offhanded comments in anger that implies those responsible are no longer worthy of life. The government overreacts slightly and labels you a terror threat. Since they are capable of individual assassinations they decide to take you out. Do you think CNN the following day would be broadcasting that you were a good and faithful American servant?

There is a lot of room for doubt towards the process we employ for "fighting the enemy", we've defined the term enemy so loosely that it's not a major stretch to define people engaging in the act of free speech as a terrorist threat, and even American citizens are not immune, not that it should really make much difference in the first place. The Patriot Act and its effects on our mentality has been the single most unpatriotic development in our history, I'd even put it beyond Jim Crow laws and the like because this single piece of legislation set the precedents for the Executive Branch of our government to drastically violate its Constitutionally granted authority and operate in complete secrecy.

[ZXRamon]

And if Awlaki and Khan had been in the US during this time, they would've been arrested. But you really think they're going to come back to the US after working for AQ?

Who knows? they were never given the opportunity to resist arrest.

[vSzsgifP]

Yes they had been and yes they were.

"Yes they had been" what? "Yes they were" what?

There was never a trial for Al Alwaki, the courts would not even listen to his dad saying his son was targeted for assassination. And what was the act they were doing at the time they were blown up?

[strongjannabiz]

And if Awlaki and Khan had been in the US during this time, they would've been arrested. But you really think they're going to come back to the US after working for AQ?

So...we can just kill who ever doesn't come back? Where is the drone strike on that guys that has been charged with rape but won't come back to face trial?

[Xcqjwarl]

Of course it is a "I hate Obama" thread cause I am calling out the government only when he is in office. I bet it is because I am racist too right?

Actually, I honestly think if a Republican or Tea Bagger were president, you would be SUPPORTING the assassination.

For starters, from what I've seen, you've NEVER had warm fuzzies for Muslims. Hell, I've never even seen you acknowledge them as HUMAN BEINGS before... which leads me to believe you are still unchanged, its just your blind hatred for Obama that has led you cry about the assassination.

[Appeselve]

So...we can just kill who ever doesn't come back? Where is the drone strike on that guys that has been charged with rape but won't come back to face trial?

Actually, I'd love that. Sounds cruel, but we've (humanity) a distinct lack of ability for people to face consequences or take responsibility, even when it comes to the wrongly accused. Running never makes you more innocent.

Yes, I am taking a slightly harder line than normal here, but it's getting good discussion.

[MegaJIT]

"Yes they had been" what? "Yes they were" what?

There was never a trial for Al Alwaki, the courts would not even listen to his dad saying his son was targeted for assassination. And what was the act they were doing at the time they were blown up?

Hit the nail on the head. Killing an American citizen is a big precedent in itself- but we've also set the precedent of killing people at will outside a combat zone. Yemen is NOT a combat zone, no matter what some Conservatives like to think.

Many Conservatives live under this illusion that the entire world outside of the United States is some sort of hellish Leftist Muslim Dystopia, so dropping bombs on it is okay.

[buchmausar]

Kind of tough to say without the trial, don't ya think? You mentioned before I don't seem to know very much about the guys. You were 100% correct, never heard of them personally until I saw the "obituary" on CNN. I can't say I trust anything I learned after the fact because I highly doubt the government would disclose anything that makes him look like anything other than a vicious and hateful individual.

Say tomorrow the Rick Santorum/Michelle Bachman types suddenly gained sufficient influence in our government to reinstitute DADT (strictly hypothetical, I find this scenario extremely unlikely). The government decides to renege on its comments that currently open homosexuals would be protected and mass discharges the whole bunch. You make some offhanded comments in anger that implies those responsible are no longer worthy of life. The government overreacts slightly and labels you a terror threat. Since they are capable of individual assassinations they decide to take you out. Do you think CNN the following day would be broadcasting that you were a good and faithful American servant?

There is a lot of room for doubt towards the process we employ for "fighting the enemy", we've defined the term enemy so loosely that it's not a major stretch to define people engaging in the act of free speech as a terrorist threat, and even American citizens are not immune, not that it should really make much difference in the first place. The Patriot Act and its effects on our mentality has been the single most unpatriotic development in our history, I'd even put it beyond Jim Crow laws and the like because this single piece of legislation set the precedents for the Executive Branch of our government to drastically violate its Constitutionally granted authority and operate in complete secrecy.

I guarantee you half the population of the US don’t know anything about terrorism, terrorists or any of the terrorist groups out there. I would not be surprised if some people forgot the reason we went to Afghanistan to begin with. You can think he was a super innocent who happened to be a US citizen. He wasn’t.

This scenario is not the same thing that happened to those two. The definition of terrorism is:
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government

Tell me how me saying “I hope those politicians die” is any form of terrorism? Now if I planned an attack against any government officials, buildings, etc in the US and attempted to carry it out or I did carry it out, that would make me a terrorist. If I were to try to use violence and threats to intimidate, then that makes me a terrorist. But me saying I hope someone dies does not make me a terrorist and that is not what Awlaki did. If the government somehow did label me a “terrorist” I would then do everything in my power to clear my name. Awlaki did not do this either. He did nothing to refute the label of a terrorist. They had given their allegiance to an internationally recognized terrorist group. They facilitated attacks against US citizens IN the US (that luckily did not work the way they were planned), he wrote their central piece of propaganda.

The Patriot Act has no effect on my mentality and I would argue that the Patriot Act was the “most unpatriotic development.” FDR did much worse and went waaay out of his executive powers during WWII for one. If he was president today and did the things he did, people would be asking for his head. Other presidents have also done things going out of the powers they are supposed to have. Notably the Sedition Act.

[Dwemadayday]

"Yes they had been" what? "Yes they were" what?

There was never a trial for Al Alwaki, the courts would not even listen to his dad saying his son was targeted for assassination. And what was the act they were doing at the time they were blown up?

They were terrorists.