Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You're just repeating Government B.S. He was NEVER implicated in direct terrorist attacks on the US.
* The U.S . government claims that Awlaki has tried to obtain weapons of mass destruction – specifically poisons such as cyanide and ricin – for use in attacking Westerners.
* Awlaki specifically directed Umar Faruq Abdulmutallab in December 2009 to detonate the “underwear” bomb on board a Christmas Day Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit. The government said that Awlaki told Abdulmutallab to detonate the bomb while over U.S. airspace so as to maximize casualties.
* In October 2010, AQAP attempted to explode two U.S. cargo planes by detonating explosives hidden in ink cartridges mailed to synagogues in Chicago. The U.S. government said that Awlaki directly supervised this failed terrorist plot.
* In 2010, Awlaki communicated with Rajib Karim, then a British airlines worker, seeking a way to get a bomb aboard a plane at Heathrow Airport. Karim was convicted in March 2011 in a British court on terrorism charges, and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
* The U.S . government claims that Awlaki has tried to obtain weapons of mass destruction – specifically poisons such as cyanide and ricin – for use in attacking Westerners.
* Awlaki specifically directed Umar Faruq Abdulmutallab in December 2009 to detonate the “underwear” bomb on board a Christmas Day Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit. The government said that Awlaki told Abdulmutallab to detonate the bomb while over U.S. airspace so as to maximize casualties.
* In October 2010, AQAP attempted to explode two U.S. cargo planes by detonating explosives hidden in ink cartridges mailed to synagogues in Chicago. The U.S. government said that Awlaki directly supervised this failed terrorist plot.
* In 2010, Awlaki communicated with Rajib Karim, then a British airlines worker, seeking a way to get a bomb aboard a plane at Heathrow Airport. Karim was convicted in March 2011 in a British court on terrorism charges, and sentenced to 30 years in prison.
See how easily these lemmings take any government claim as the gospel truth.
When Yemeni experts in the USA dispute the the governments claim he had any operational role in terrorists attacks.
Now that's some disputation. An op-ed piece in the NYT's and a Tweet. Well there ya have it.
Either way, you nor anyone else for that matter has answered the fundamental question, if the 4th through 8th Amendment protections are not reserved for citizens then it follows that the government can not target any suspected terrorists anywhere. If that is your position then we have a very different set of issues to discuss. The argument that it is unconstitutional to target terrorist simply because they are American simply defies legal precedent and logic.
Glen Greenwald would be considered a leftist by most folks. One I happen to agree with on this issue. So, for those of you claiming no one on the left is decrying this action...here you go:
Glad he said it. Glad this is getting your attention, but lets hear the outcry from libertarians, indies, and conservatives who ought to know better. This is the similar sticky wicket Clinton was in having an opportunity to snuff out Osama for a pre crime punctuated by patriot act madness. We've simply got to find a better way in keeping with our justice system. To do otherwise renders our nation a mockery of itself. Guantanamo bay is another blaring example of disaster.
This isn't about left or right, hawk or dove. It's about the very integrity of our nation dragging us down to the level of criminals threatening to be used against us on political whims of madmen. Not just NO, but HELL NO. If the consequence to Clinton, Bush or Obama were to be drawn and quartered in the streets of DC on grounds of high treason by their own party if they ever once abused a tablespoon of their authority over these matters, they'd think long and hard about committing themselves to such a decision. As is, there's no consequence beyond empty words and bogus promises of impeachment for public consumption dramatic effect.
I believe Obama was justified taking him out and would feel the same if an R were in office as it occurred. I believe the process determining that as credible use of executive power is sorely lacking. Liberty's lynch pin keeping it healthy are it's checks and balances, and I see that aspect lacking/ suppressed in crude attempts to keep up with modern times. That's where the work needs to happen. Not over the top negation of Commander in Chief function having to make those tough calls in genuine defense of the nation.
Now that's some disputation. An op-ed piece in the NYT's and a Tweet. Well there ya have it.
Either way, you nor anyone else for that matter has answered the fundamental question, if the 4th through 8th Amendment protections are not reserved for citizens then it follows that the government can not target any suspected terrorists anywhere. If that is your position then we have a very different set of issues to discuss. The argument that it is unconstitutional to target terrorist simply because they are American simply defies legal precedent and logic.
SCOTUS has already ruled the the President does not have carte blanche when imprisoning combatants in the name of his Presidential powers so why would he have the power to assasinate US citizens without judicial oversight?
The President is in violation of the 5th amendment.
No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
Ovaccatto wants you to take what Obama says about Al-awaki as the gospel truth.
The same administration that claims their 1000's of bomb sorties in Libya is not covered by the War Powers Act...LOL
Speaking of lemmings, no discussion of pragmatic foriegn policy or reasonable conditions justifying declaration of war will be attended by anyone who isn't using 'the gubbermint' as the blame. YOU are to blame if you're avoiding the issue hiding out in purist ideology. Stand above it all, apply the consequences to your own town USA. Think about it.
Speaking of lemmings, no discussion of pragmatic foriegn policy or reasonable conditions justifying declaration of war will be attended by anyone who isn't using 'the gubbermint' as the blame. YOU are to blame if you're avoiding the issue hiding out in purist ideology. Stand above it all, apply the consequences to your own town USA. Think about it.
The isn't about being "reasonable". This is about following the rule of law.
Many laws are not reasonable and don't make sense. ( I would argue this one does)
If you don't like the law ...work to have it changed.
Now that's some disputation. An op-ed piece in the NYT's and a Tweet. Well there ya have it.
Either way, you nor anyone else for that matter has answered the fundamental question, if the 4th through 8th Amendment protections are not reserved for citizens then it follows that the government can not target any suspected terrorists anywhere. If that is your position then we have a very different set of issues to discuss. The argument that it is unconstitutional to target terrorist simply because they are American simply defies legal precedent and logic.
You are citing legal absolutism but the Constitution's protections are not absolute. While the First Amendment protects freedom of speech, it does not absolve one of slander or liable. While the Fourth Amendment says that the government needs a warrant for a search, if there is probable cause to search, a warrant is not required.
What interpretations of the constitution try to uphold is a sense of reasonableness. If an American citizen is in league with al Qaeda, plotting to kill other Americans -- and is beyond the reach of apprehension, it is certainly reasonable to take him out with a Predator's Hellfire missile.
Oh, the 4th Amendment isn't limited to "citizens." The exact wording is "The right of the people to be secure in their persons..." That would mean that the U.S. wasn't justified killing bin Laden, something just about everyone is cool with.
Wasn't the guy a terrorist plotting against the US? What's the issue? Anybody plotting against the country should be destroyed, American or Not.
Some will conveniently quote the constitution to meet the needs of their argument/agenda of course.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
