One More Muslim terrorist bites the dust!!

[greg]

First let me say that if Obama attacked our domestic problems like he has been hunting down and killing Muslim terrorist scum, I might have to vote for him!

The killing of of Anwar al-Awlaki is yet another victory for the Obama Administration, as bad as this administration has been overall, they have been surprisingly good in prosecuting the war on terrror (even if they won't call it that)

Many thanks to Obama and Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta (the best, perhaps only decent Obama appointment) in their hunting down and killing of these Muslim Monsters.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(10-01-2011 08:54 AM)greg Wrote:  First let me say that if Obama attacked our domestic problems like he has been hunting down and killing Muslim terrorist scum, I might have to vote for him!

The killing of of Anwar al-Awlaki is yet another victory for the Obama Administration, as bad as this administration has been overall, they have been surprisingly good in prosecuting the war on terrror (even if they won't call it that)

Many thanks to Obama and Defense Secretary, Leon Panetta (the best, perhaps only decent Obama appointment) in their hunting down and killing of these Muslim Monsters.

Greg, did you see the History Channel show? Electrifying! I was glued to my seat.

http://shop.history.com/special-presenta...p?p=359990

Lots of advisers thought the raid was a mistake... honestly, if that many people had told ME not to do something, I wouldn't have. He took a big risk!

Now, why can't he take risks about everything else, is what I wanna know.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(10-01-2011 01:33 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  This was a criminal offense. Whatever happened to the Constitution and due process? Targeting an American citizen for assassination specifically violates the fifth ammendment.

Don, I must say, impressed with your consistency, as I am with RP's.

Unfortunately, only media-vetted flunkies are listened to by the powers that be. GOP ticket will be Perry/Christie, I called it on my radio show this morning.

[Elijah Craig]

(10-01-2011 01:33 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  This was a criminal offense. Whatever happened to the Constitution and due process? Targeting an American citizen for assassination specifically violates the fifth ammendment.

Not when that person is actively and vocally engaged in warfare against the United States on a foreign battlefield. Seriously, Paulistinians have teh stoopids when it comes to stuff like this. They read the Constitution like a KJBO reads the Bible. There's absolutely no historical precedent whatsoever, no basis in any of the statements of the Founders, nothing of substance to support this view at all.

[Elijah Craig]

(10-01-2011 07:15 PM)Donb123 Wrote:  

(10-01-2011 07:11 PM)Elijah Craig Wrote:  Not when that person is actively and vocally engaged in warfare against the United States on a foreign battlefield. Seriously, Paulistinians have teh stoopids when it comes to stuff like this. They read the Constitution like a KJBO reads the Bible. There's absolutely no historical precedent whatsoever, no basis in any of the statements of the Founders, nothing of substance to support this view at all.

As tempting as it is to resort to name calling like you just did I'll just smack you down with the facts instead.

Still waiting on those facts. Please provide historical precedent for interpreting the Fifth Amendment to apply to wartime actions. Please provide quotes from the Founders that would indicate their original intent was to protect enemy combatants in a threatre of war.

I won't hold my breath.

[Elijah Craig]

Blatantly false statements much? "IF this guy were on the battlefield and fighting against the US then your point would stand."

The southern Arabian peninsula is a war zone. Our allies are fighting Islamic militants there. Those militants were being led by an American citizen who publically advocated and boasted of killing Americans.





George Washington had Americans shot on sight for far less.

I'll let you have the last word.

[Darrell]

Quote:I'm totally like a KJBO about the Constitution- and with good reason

At least you're willing to admit it.

[RobMille]

It's an incredibly despicable act. We are all guaranteed a universal inseparable right of citizenship to due process, a fair trial with a full vigorous defense, the right to a speedy trial. None of these are negated by any act of congress or determination/order by the president. If you want to declare a person a traitor or revoke citizenship there are processes for those. I don't know exactly what they are. Lots of nutty people claim all kinds of things Obama has done are impeachable. This one would seem to be an actually impeachable act, and it's being given bipartisan support for who knows what reason.

[Elijah Craig]

(10-01-2011 08:56 PM)RobMille Wrote:  It's an incredibly despicable act. We are all guaranteed a universal inseparable right of citizenship to due process, a fair trial with a full vigorous defense, the right to a speedy trial. None of these are negated by any act of congress or determination/order by the president. If you want to declare a person a traitor or revoke citizenship there are processes for those. I don't know exactly what they are. Lots of nutty people claim all kinds of things Obama has done are impeachable. This one would seem to be an actually impeachable act, and it's being given bipartisan support for who knows what reason.

Mr. al-Awlaki was given due process and convicted by a Yemeni court and was wanted dead or alive for acts of terrorism in that nation. There is no requirement in U.S. law that an individual be tried and found guilty by a U.S. court.

Also, the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution recognizes the long-standing principal in Anglo-American law that an individual invovled in warfare is subject to military law and certain normal civil rights do not apply.

American citizens have been targeted for assassination in nearly ever war in American history and the courts have never interfered. Many of the men responsible for the Constitution and Bill of Rights likewise authorized the summary execution of individuals involved in warfare against the United States. It has always been accepted that the Constitution operates as part of a greater English and American legal tradition, and the Constitution repeatedly and explicitly states that civil rights can be suspended in times of war, unrest, or "trouble."

[RobMille]

It's been pointed out before, but we aren't in a declared state of warfare with anyone, and Yemen is considered an ALLY if anything, not an enemy state, and definitely not an at war with us state.

Actually there is a requirement that our courts be the ones that try & convict/acquit.