He seems to have been involved in various operations on more than a propaganda level. I'm against the death penalty, but if a cop has to shoot someone that cannot be arrested and is a real threat to people, I'm all for it.
He seems to have been involved in various operations on more than a propaganda level. I'm against the death penalty, but if a cop has to shoot someone that cannot be arrested and is a real threat to people, I'm all for it.
Orleander said:
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?
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
I'm not arguing freedom of speech, I'm arguing that the guy should have been brought back to the US to stand trial, he wasn't a major player in Al Qaeda, in fact he was nothing more than a propagandist from all accounts.
I just find it unsettling that not very many people are concerned about how this executive privilege is being carried out.
I don't believe that this law can be legal its not even constitutional, what I am saying is that there is this trend now that anything immoral once sanctioned as legal it goes unquestioned. Either your constitution is the bases of law or it isn't.
Yemen wouldn't have said no, Yemen never says no. Yemen is one of the most cooperative countries in the war on terror or whatever you want to call it. Yemen has said yes yes yes to the chagrin of its own people. Yemen wouldn't have said no because this guy wasn't important, not to anyone in the middle east anyway, they considered him some low level cleric and an american to boot.
I do like the way you say 'if congress doesn't want to change things' as if this is a government body somehow divorced from you the citizen. I thought those boys were supposed to work for you? I thought they were supposed to represent you? You know, that dying carcass in the corner they call 'the democracy'. Anyway, isn't it up to you to demand these changes?
Resisted arrest? It was a drone attack!!!!
No.
Our police don't work in Yemen so this isn't a legal issue.
It's a MILITARY issue.
Dealt with by the CIC of our military.
If you take up arms against the US, as Al Qaeda has done, then we can send a drone to blow your ass off the map and it doesn't matter if all you do is make the coffee for the big boys.
Arthur
So the State asserts that he was now a "operational tactician and strategist", a very strong charge to say the least. Mostly based on hearsay and assumption, with little to no proof. And you support the solution of just murdering them without trial?
I find your attitude discomforting, because there is explicit support for political and military assassinations based on hearsay.
Mrs.Lucysnow said:
You obviously have a reading comprehension problem if you assert that my point is that the US killed a poor innocent person.
Something about smoking crack goes here, madam, for you certainly have some sort of memory trouble if you don't recall your own statements:
• "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?" (#1)
• "I'm not arguing freedom of speech, I'm arguing that the guy should have been brought back to the US to stand trial, he wasn't a major player in Al Qaeda, in fact he was nothing more than a propagandist from all accounts." (#40)
Like what for example? What makes you say he couldn't be arrested? What makes you believe they tried to have him arrested?
See this?
"Al-Awlaki's ability to advocate violent jihad in plain English and his use of the Internet and social media such as Facebook and YouTube to disseminate his sermons made him an exceptional recruiter for violent jihad, especially among young, English-speaking Muslims."
That's all they could say about him. Do you know how many people are around the world making tapes like that and posting them on the internet? Know how many do so regularly out of London University in the UK? Difference is that those operating out of the UK are actually better known and Alwaki was hardly known by anyone ESPECIALLY in the ME. Its all bullshit.
What kind of specially trained Al Qaeda operative puts videos and messages of that nature on Facebook and Youtube for christs sake! Think about it. He's supposedly this really menacing figure but he couldn't conceal it in websites like his betters in the UK? He puts it on Facebook and Youtube like some teenager? And he's the master propaganda guy? Seriously? You buy that? You guys believe almost anything the government tells you at this point.
...
It depends what you mean by radical. If that includes aiding a known terrorist organization who kills Americans, then there should be a drone missile with your name on it. Maybe they looked at the security situation, thought about the prospects of arresting him... or maybe revealing to the public what they know and therefore how they know would be dangerous.
He wasn't killed for being a cleric. Can you at least admit that? You are minimizing his terrorist activity by calling it merely ideological. What if their evidence is an intercepted communication, such that revealing it would reveal an Al Quida security weakness that could be exploited in the future?
If you abandon due process, you've lost the basis of civil society
So the State asserts that he was now a "operational tactician and strategist", a very strong charge to say the least. Mostly based on hearsay and assumption, with little to no proof. And you support the solution of just murdering them without trial?
I find your attitude discomforting, because there is explicit support for political and military assassinations based on hearsay.
Here! Here!:cheers:
My ultimate judgement against this kind of executive privilege is that it was based on mere assertion, hearsay and alleged crimes, all of which should have been worked out before a kill mandate was enacted. I deeply worry, and I mean this genuinely, that this kind of laissez faire privilege by executive order without having to back up their claims, can and will be abused in the future. These kind of laws once installed enable less judicious governments to attack those they believe are threats. When one accepts a law, one should look past the immediate circumstances that allows for the law and also look at how it can be used in the future. This is why documents such as the Magna Carta and the US constitution are so unique and special in their preservation of citizen rights, because they try and pre-emp possibilities of abuse. Remember we are talking about the government's ability to use such an action against its own citizens. We are talking about the government's right to turn lethal force against americans without any judicial overview or without even pressing charges but just on the issuing of an executive order. All they have to do with this precedent is declare an individual or individuals 'enemies of the state' without any demand of evidence or overview. Its all based on executive or military say so. Think about that for a moment.