A person is only 'alleged' to be involved in something until proven in a court of law
But he admitted he did it. That's not alleged anything, that's what they call a confession!
A person is only 'alleged' to be involved in something until proven in a court of law
...What I am asking is since when is it okay to not allow an american due process...
But he admitted he did it. That's not alleged anything, that's what they call a confession!
why do you care so much about the American part and not the al Qaeda part? If he had been born in Yemen and not New Mexico would you care?
U.S. intelligence indicates that the top al Qaeda bomb-maker in Yemen also died in the drone strike that killed radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, two U.S. officials said Friday.
Ibrahim al-Asiri is the bomb-maker linked to the bomb hidden in the underwear of a Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a plane over Detroit on Christmas Day 2009...
what about him? He didn't get a trial.
And you want to separate yourself from terrorists how? ...
I guess I can as easily as you can :shrug:
The rule of law does indicate that he should have gotten a trial if he were under US jurisdiction. He wasn't. Taking out a confessed murder and enemy of the country while he's abroad is not illegal by any means.
Get a grip now, I didn't say that it war right. I never think that killing is right except in self defense. However it is currently legal. The two terms are far from synonymous.
As the West Celebrates a Cleric’s Death, the Mideast Shrugs:
Until about two years ago, few in Yemen or the Arab world had heard of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born propagandist for Islamic radicalism whose death President Obama celebrated as a major blow against Al Qaeda.
“A dime-a-dozen cleric” was one response, by Gregory Johnsen, a Princeton professor who studies Yemen. Another: “I don’t think your average Middle Easterner knows who Anwar al-Awlaki is,” said Emad Shahin, a scholar of political Islam at Notre Dame University.
While Western officials and commentators saw the end of Mr. Awlaki as another serious loss for Al Qaeda, a very different reception in the Middle East was the latest reminder of the disconnect between American aims and Arab perceptions. In a region transfixed by the drama of its revolts, Mr. Awlaki’s voice has had almost no resonance.
You keep saying it is but what statute makes this legal?
Its certainly not constitutionally granted so what grants these powers?
And more importantly do you believe the government should have executive execution powers without due process?
In other words are you going to take their word for it.
Remember that these precedents don't go away, these powers remain way after these so called 'threats' have passed.
I know its a long shot but I'll try. Does anyone here care that Anwar al-Awlaki, an american citizen, was targeted and killed by a drone for basically exercising his freedom of speech outside of the US by hosting an Al Qaeda inspired english speaking magazine?
At what point an American citizen looses his citizenship ?
Did al-Awlaki forfeit his citizenship ? If he did then he is just a plain enemy.
I do agree most American are zombie. During the Viet Nam war there were some left with balls , but now they lost them
I know its a long shot but I'll try. Does anyone here care that Anwar al-Awlaki, an american citizen, was targeted and killed by a drone for basically exercising his freedom of speech outside of the US by hosting an Al Qaeda inspired english speaking magazine?
At what point an American citizen looses his citizenship ?
Did al-Awlaki forfeit his citizenship ? If he did then he is just a plain enemy.
I do agree most American are zombie. During the Viet Nam war there were some left with balls , but now they lost them
But that's just it there is no such thing as 'losing' ones citizenship just because one has gone rogue. Walker didn't lose his citizenship nor was he killed, he was brought back to the US and stood trial.
@Lucy --
There's no statute that makes it illegal so therefore it's legal by default. If something isn't illegal then it is automatically legal as the terms legal and illegal are a mutually defining dichotomy. No, the question of whether it's right or not is far more interesting.
It is if they interpret it as treason during wartime, then they have the power to execute on the spot. This is my entire problem with law is that it's almost entirely subjective as one word can have a thousand different definitions and a million different interpretations.
I don't think that the government should have the power to execute even with due process, but this is irrelevant to the topic of legality. Now we've wandered into the territory of the ethics of corporal punishment. Let's not confuse the two topics.
I don't take their word for it, but according to the data we have(which we don't have reason to suspect is fraudulent) he admitted his guilt. I will take his word for it when there's absolutely no evidence of coercion.
Ah, the slippery slope argument, albeit this time with some merit. Of course I know that these powers don't just go away, but that's absolutely irrelevant to whether or not such actions are legal. If it's legal then it's legal regardless of what the consequences may be.
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
I know its a long shot but I'll try. Does anyone here care that Anwar al-Awlaki, an american citizen, was targeted and killed by a drone for basically exercising his freedom of speech outside of the US by hosting an Al Qaeda inspired english speaking magazine?