death of al-awaki 26 replies, 16310 views

crunkmoose
10/4/2011 8:40:00 AM
Anyone else have a problem with this?
LastOnePicked
10/4/2011 8:44:00 AM
I thought they were saying he isn't dead now?

either way....no...not really,
crunkmoose
10/4/2011 9:01:00 AM
Well, it is the summary execution of an American citizen without charges or trial, and even if he had a trial it is questionable if his activities would actually get him a death sentence.. leastways from what I know of them.
LastOnePicked
10/4/2011 9:30:00 AM
Well, i figure it seems like he was obviously actively involved with al-qaeda, as well as financially supportive them and other terrorist groups. He as also with a few al-qaeda members when he was killed.

I don't think it's something that we should be making a habit of. It's just not something i'll be losing any sleep over.
LEATHERFACE
10/4/2011 9:45:00 AM
Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Anyone else have a problem with this?

I have a big problem with it; the Bush administration caught massive protests and face possible war-crimes for arresting and detaining citizens without due process, yet Obama can just order a fucking hit on one of us and the same people who slammed bush aren't saying a damn word. This was a gross abuse of power and a disgrace to the constitution. Hope and Change, my ass!
crunkmoose
10/4/2011 10:08:00 AM
Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Anyone else have a problem with this?

I have a big problem with it; the Bush administration caught massive protests and face possible war-crimes for arresting and detaining citizens without due process, yet Obama can just order a fucking hit on one of us and the same people who slammed bush aren't saying a damn word. This was a gross abuse of power and a disgrace to the constitution. Hope and Change, my ass!

Well, some people are saying something about it.
LEATHERFACE
10/4/2011 10:21:00 AM
Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Anyone else have a problem with this?



I have a big problem with it; the Bush administration caught massive protests and face possible war-crimes for arresting and detaining citizens without due process, yet Obama can just order a fucking hit on one of us and the same people who slammed bush aren't saying a damn word. This was a gross abuse of power and a disgrace to the constitution. Hope and Change, my ass!



Well, some people are saying something about it.

As compared to before this administration, it may as well nobody at all. The media was really quick to try and justify him on this, which is scary.
crunkmoose
10/4/2011 12:29:00 PM
Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Originally posted by: LEATHERFACE

Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Anyone else have a problem with this?



I have a big problem with it; the Bush administration caught massive protests and face possible war-crimes for arresting and detaining citizens without due process, yet Obama can just order a fucking hit on one of us and the same people who slammed bush aren't saying a damn word. This was a gross abuse of power and a disgrace to the constitution. Hope and Change, my ass!



Well, some people are saying something about it.

As compared to before this administration, it may as well nobody at all. The media was really quick to try and justify him on this, which is scary.

Scary, yes. Not at all surprising, though. Rachel Maddow did an interesting piece on his death. And, yes.. very few people are speaking out, but I think in part that is because many don't quite get why it is important and an important precedent.
Bashar al-Acab
10/4/2011 12:31:00 PM
maybe he shouldn't have been in Yemen
crunkmoose
10/4/2011 2:14:00 PM
Originally posted by: Westley Gisbon

maybe he shouldn't have been in Yemen

Doesn't matter. He is still a citizen. The idea that the US government can radically change how it treats its own citizens as long as they are outside of the US is ludicrously dangerous.
Yodel Toast
10/4/2011 2:15:00 PM
I guess he's al-asleepi now.

LEATHERFACE
10/4/2011 2:18:00 PM
Originally posted by: Yodel Toast

I guess he's al-asleepi now.

Two points
Mechanical Birds
10/4/2011 3:38:00 PM
I understand the sentiment with disagreeing with what happened, but at the end of the day, the guy was a supportive, charismatic, influential and well-known admitted operative of FUCKING AL QUIDA. This doesn't set any precedent - it takes advantage of a precedent set thousands of years ago that every nation has taken advantage of at one point or another. The guy was an important figure in the alleged biggest threat to the American way of life. It's not like the guy was in another country running from tax evasion charges or something.
crunkmoose
10/4/2011 8:48:00 PM
Originally posted by: 3,000 piece McNugget

I understand the sentiment with disagreeing with what happened, but at the end of the day, the guy was a supportive, charismatic, influential and well-known admitted operative of FUCKING AL QUIDA. This doesn't set any precedent - it takes advantage of a precedent set thousands of years ago that every nation has taken advantage of at one point or another. The guy was an important figure in the alleged biggest threat to the American way of life. It's not like the guy was in another country running from tax evasion charges or something.

Actually, yeah.. it does set a precedent. The killing of a citizen of the united states by the government with no due process whatsoever.

"It's not like the guy was in another country running from tax evasion charges or something."

Yeah.. because he was never charged with ANYTHING.
drunkship
10/4/2011 9:30:00 PM
So he's died how many times now? It's just like this Bin Laden nonsense. Roll out a death claim when it's politically expedient, yet also claim the boogie man still lives when equally expedient. All that aside, in alawaki's case it is indeed disturbing the idea that our govt. can put hits on Americans. But in the end it's all doublespeak. An attempt to confuse the overall debate, so both sides of a casual arguement have simply false and fabricated information from the same sources.
'Al Qaeda' attacks us, giving a pretext for pre-emptive war and occupation/destabilization, but now the same group is simotaniously our allies in North Africa (like handing over Tripoli to Belhadj). All of these things are in front of us, plain as day, and should point to an outside organization attempting to play the world against itself, so when everything is in ruins their system can be fully realized and implemented.

Bottom line, how can anything from the corporate-military-intelligence complex ever be trusted?

It simply can't.
Mechanical Birds
10/5/2011 4:39:00 AM
Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Originally posted by: 3,000 piece McNugget

I understand the sentiment with disagreeing with what happened, but at the end of the day, the guy was a supportive, charismatic, influential and well-known admitted operative of FUCKING AL QUIDA. This doesn't set any precedent - it takes advantage of a precedent set thousands of years ago that every nation has taken advantage of at one point or another. The guy was an important figure in the alleged biggest threat to the American way of life. It's not like the guy was in another country running from tax evasion charges or something.

Actually, yeah.. it does set a precedent. The killing of a citizen of the united states by the government with no due process whatsoever.


i pointed out how the US used the precedent set forth thousands of years ago where countries kill their enemies.
carlos danger
10/6/2011 11:55:00 PM
We'll never know the full story here. A decade-or-so after the end of Obama's political career this might turn up in a memoir, but we'll never really know how the decision was made. To me, yes on some level I am bothered that there was no due process involved here (although we don't know that for sure since there are courts authorized to deal with issues of treason that are considered classified and therefore never made totally public, we can imagine if al-Awlaki were publicly convicted of treason he might go into hiding which would make an operation like this much more difficult). Conversely any public trial that might have been held for this guy would be a total sham anyway. First, he would never had show up to defend himself, second, there is no one in this country that could be described as his "peer" to serve on a jury, and third, there is no American attorney who could adequately defend him. I think his record speaks for itself in this case and his actions clearly fall within the legal definition of treason.

"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death."

so when it comes down to it I really see the people that oppose this as opposing it purely on the basis that protocol was not followed, and I don't really give a fuck about protocol in situations like this. I get the slippery slope/can of worms argument, which is always a fun one, but I don't really see how a judge ceremoniously sounding a gavel is an important determinant of anything in this instance.
crunkmoose
10/7/2011 12:06:00 AM
"(although we don't know that for sure since there are courts authorized to deal with issues of treason that are considered classified and therefore never made totally public, we can imagine if al-Awlaki were publicly convicted of treason he might go into hiding which would make an operation like this much more difficult)."

Of course the idea of a secret trial where one is not allowed to even know one is on trial, much less know the charges, call witnesses, or refute testimony and evidence is still a lack of due process.

"but I don't really see how a judge ceremoniously sounding a gavel is an important determinant of anything in this instance."

Well, you basically seem to be saying "I see the value of due process, but I don't see the value of due process."
Ron Shark
10/7/2011 12:45:00 AM
Originally posted by: Yodel Toast

I guess he's al-asleepi now.


carlos danger
10/7/2011 11:54:00 AM
Originally posted by: crunkmoose

"(although we don't know that for sure since there are courts authorized to deal with issues of treason that are considered classified and therefore never made totally public, we can imagine if al-Awlaki were publicly convicted of treason he might go into hiding which would make an operation like this much more difficult)."

Of course the idea of a secret trial where one is not allowed to even know one is on trial, much less know the charges, call witnesses, or refute testimony and evidence is still a lack of due process.

"but I don't really see how a judge ceremoniously sounding a gavel is an important determinant of anything in this instance."

Well, you basically seem to be saying "I see the value of due process, but I don't see the value of due process."

All I'm really saying is that IN THIS CASE for AL-AWLAKI and people like him there is no due process. The only trial you can have for a person living abroad in a country that will not extradite him or her, and who has publicly disavowed their place of birth and incited violence and death upon its citizens is a pretend trial anyway. You're just going through the motions for the sake of going through the motions because like I said:

- he would not be present for his trial
- no American citizen could be an impartial juror to a known terrorist
- no American citizen could adequately be described as his peer
- no American attorney could honestly defend him

Like I said I don't feel great about this, but I think if Obama had addressed the nation and said, "Tonight we had the chance to kill a dangerous terrorist who has incited and personally committed acts of terror against the United States and its allies, who has direct ties to all major al-Qaeda-realted acts of terror in the past decade, and who is believed to be a key element of their organization for planning of future attack. We, however, stood down and let him get away because he did not receive a public trial." I would feel a lot worse.
Tim E. Husk
10/7/2011 2:01:00 PM
I agree with your points about a hypothetical trial, but I have to note that the renunciation of U.S. citizenship is also a legal process. In other words, it doesn't matter if you leave the country, burn your passport, and claim no longer to be a citizen - you still are until the paperwork is filed and processed, and even then you can still be taxed for years.

Lol.
sidney
10/7/2011 2:04:00 PM
i think you missed the part where he committed treason
Bashar al-Acab
10/7/2011 5:18:00 PM
i think you missed the part where he was a brown guy in yemen
carlos danger
10/7/2011 6:28:00 PM
Originally posted by: barbarossa

I agree with your points about a hypothetical trial, but I have to note that the renunciation of U.S. citizenship is also a legal process. In other words, it doesn't matter if you leave the country, burn your passport, and claim no longer to be a citizen - you still are until the paperwork is filed and processed, and even then you can still be taxed for years.

Lol.

So, once again, you're just upset that protocol wasn't followed. You agree he effectively renounced his citizenship and committed acts of treason. You're just upset some government paper pusher didn't move a document from one file to another file before he was killed. You're a true patriot.

If he wanted a trial he should have surrendered himself to the US government. He was put on the CIA's capture or kill list in early 2010 (which was deemed legal by the Courts, by the way) so it's not like he didn't know if he didn't give himself up he might be killed.
crunkmoose
10/7/2011 6:37:00 PM
Originally posted by: sidney

i think you missed the part where he committed treason

I think you missed the part where one has to be charged with, tried for, and convicted of a crime before one can be executed for that crime. Thats what due process is all about.
sidney
10/7/2011 6:39:00 PM
Originally posted by: crunkmoose

Originally posted by: sidney

i think you missed the part where he committed treason

I think you missed the part where one has to be charged with, tried for, and convicted of a crime before one can be executed for that crime. Thats what due process is all about.

nahh...i don't like that part

got what he deserved