If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo) Followup Despite earlier reports, the decision to kill American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki was not made unilaterally by Obama. it was made by a secret government panel, meeting in secret, using secret criteria. There, now don't you feel much better?   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 295
More: Followup, Anwar al-Awlaki, Awlaki, obama, Americans, AQAP, Arabian Peninsula, war on terrorism, Abdulmutallab  
•       •       •

5946 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Oct 2011 at 3:15 PM   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»   |    Get this fabulous T-Shirt and impress the methane out of your friends! shirt it!



295 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-10-06 12:07:51 PM
Anybody who thought obama made these decisions himself is a dolt.
It's more like the smart people lay out the plans and obama says "Okay, if you guys say so"
 
2011-10-06 12:11:59 PM
troll.me
 
2011-10-06 12:29:40 PM
Cool. Americans who have been charged with no crime can be put on a kill list and assassinated by a robot, because lawyers said it was OK.
 
2011-10-06 12:38:11 PM
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2011-10-06 12:50:17 PM
FTFA: They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list. Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

Its interesting that while due process is required, there has been some debate as to whether a court trial is required in all cases (new window) to constitute "due process" when it comes to the military prosecution of a war. So far the judicial branch seems to be deferring to Mr. Obama's administration in this case. As Awlaki publicly identified himself as a very public part of a movement that has openly declared war on the United States several times, he doesn't seem to fit the definition of a "civiian."
 
2011-10-06 01:22:55 PM
Personally, I'm totally OK if the President targets a rogue citizen who is now an enemy of the country.
 
2011-10-06 01:33:27 PM
Is GITMO still open ?

/ just askin'
 
2011-10-06 02:00:30 PM
Rain-Monkey: Personally, I'm totally OK if the President targets a rogue citizen who is now an enemy of the country.

What if he decides you're an enemy of the country?
 
2011-10-06 02:06:58 PM
Walker: Rain-Monkey: Personally, I'm totally OK if the President targets a rogue citizen who is now an enemy of the country.

What if he decides you're an enemy of the country?


Since the criteria for that seems to be set at "joining a terrorist organization that has on multiple occasions stated and acted upon its desire to destroy the United States," I'm good with it.

Kind of like how cops can kill someone who meets the "he's shooting a gun at me" criteria.
 
2011-10-06 02:08:20 PM
Rain-Monkey: Personally, I'm totally OK if the President targets a rogue citizen who is now an enemy of the country.

What Rogue citizens might look like:

www.realadventures.com

/hot link, but cool river.
 
2011-10-06 02:11:06 PM
But torturing foreigners who also want to kill Americans is totes bad.
 
2011-10-06 02:16:11 PM
timujin: Walker: Rain-Monkey: Personally, I'm totally OK if the President targets a rogue citizen who is now an enemy of the country.

What if he decides you're an enemy of the country?

Since the criteria for that seems to be set at "joining a terrorist organization that has on multiple occasions stated and acted upon its desire to destroy the United States," I'm good with it.

Kind of like how cops can kill someone who meets the "he's shooting a gun at me" criteria.


The problem is there's no criteria. There's no one to hold accountable. It's all done in secret. It's the beginning of a slippery slope. I'm not fan of Ron Paul but here is his take on it which I agree with:

"If the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating who he thinks are bad guys I think it's sad," Paul told NBC News. "What would the people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him. We were pretty certain that he had done it. And they put him through the courts and they executed him."
Ron Paul sees the assassination as a breach of the U.S. Constitution and as a further abuse of an empirical reach the Paul campaign has been rallying against.

"Awlaki was a U.S. citizen," Paul wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Daily News on Sunday. "Under our Constitution, American citizens, even those living abroad, must be charged with a crime before being sentenced. As President, I would have arrested Awlaki, brought him to the U.S., tried him and pushed for the stiffest punishment allowed by law. Treason has historically been judged to be the worst of crimes, deserving of the harshest sentencing. But what I would not do as President is what Obama has done and continues to do in spectacular fashion: circumvent the rule of law."
 
2011-10-06 02:21:23 PM
Aarontology: But torturing foreigners who also want to kill Americans is totes bad.

yep. all torture ever accomplishes is satisfying the sadistic impulses of the torturer. The US gained zero useful intel through torture. Now killing someone who'd actually participated in an attack on the US (the underwear bomb) and indicated his desire to do more? Weapons Free.

"Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate - and quickly."
 
2011-10-06 02:23:51 PM
Magorn: "Your enemy is never a villain in his own eyes. Keep this in mind; it may offer a way to make him your friend. If not, you can kill him without hate - and quickly."

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence
 
2011-10-06 02:29:19 PM
Wait, so you're telling me that the government has a 21st century version of Section 31?

ok, find me a major world government that doesn't have such an arrangement.
 
2011-10-06 02:46:47 PM
Aarontology: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial

Congress did authorize the pursuit, capture and/or killing of those understood to be responsible for the Al Qaeda attacks. It did not mandate or make a distinctions as to the citizenhood of the perpetrators, nor did it mandate criminal prosecutions in all cases. Apart from Ron Paul's editorial views, I don't know that everyone agrees that Alwaki was actually even a citizen at the time of his death. While citizenship is granted jus soli and jus sanguinus as the USA does, there are ways of renouncing or letting go of such things too. I would be interested to see a representative of the Federal government state unequivocally that he was a U.S. citizen at the time of his death.
 
2011-10-06 02:51:03 PM
Ron Paul: What would the people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him. We were pretty certain that he had done it. And they put him through the courts and they executed him....Awlaki was a U.S. citizen," Paul wrote in an opinion piece for the New York Daily News on Sunday.

Everyone agrees that McVeigh was a citizen, and he did not declare himself at war with the USA as a whole, unlike Alwaki. And I need better verification that was a citizen at the time of his death than Ron Paul believes he was. That's not good enough.
 
2011-10-06 02:51:39 PM
Walker: The problem is there's no criteria.

Walker: "What would the people have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him. We were pretty certain that he had done it. And they put him through the courts and they executed him."

To both statements:
"Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone "from inspirational to operational." That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets"

There's your criteria. McVeigh didn't put out such videos, he didn't plot or participate in multiple attacks against us. He didn't hide in a compound in another country so that extracting him would have most likely cost the lives of American soldiers. False analogy is false.
 
2011-10-06 03:16:56 PM
farm4.static.flickr.com
 
2011-10-06 03:18:05 PM
Change you can count on!
 
2011-10-06 03:18:10 PM
Walker: Cool. Americans who have been charged with no crime can be put on a kill list and assassinated by a robot, because lawyers said it was OK.

He gave up his American citizenship when he decided to declare war on the United States, and join with his Idiot zealot mindless zombie bombtard friends.. So..imo..he wasn't a American at all, but a traitor, and he got what was coming to him.
 
2011-10-06 03:18:15 PM
i.ebayimg.com
 
2011-10-06 03:18:20 PM
...you mean much like the secret intelligence court, set up by Bush? Secret evidence kept secret, secret witnesses, secret decisions made secretly.....that kind of thing?
 
2011-10-06 03:18:58 PM
That's all I need to know from the most transparent government in American history.

The Light Bringer can do no wrong, and when he does it is the Tea Party Terrorists' fault. End of story.
 
2011-10-06 03:19:24 PM
I told you Obama had death panels, but did you listen? Nooooo.
 
2011-10-06 03:20:27 PM
GORDON: The Light Bringer can do no wrong, and when he does it is the Tea Party Terrorists' fault.

you sound victimish
 
2011-10-06 03:20:55 PM
That's all fine and dandy, but what does this have to do with Steve Jobs dying?
 
2011-10-06 03:22:25 PM
To be honest, I felt fine before reading this article, and I feel fine after reading this article.

/If you don't wanna get blowed up, don't go hang out with people who have a tendency to blow up/get blowed up.
 
2011-10-06 03:23:23 PM
meh
 
2011-10-06 03:23:49 PM
www.nogw.com
 
2011-10-06 03:24:44 PM
Well, he was already on double-secret probation, so taking him out was the next logical step.
 
2011-10-06 03:24:45 PM
Walker: Rain-Monkey: Personally, I'm totally OK if the President targets a rogue citizen who is now an enemy of the country.

What if he decides you're an enemy of the country?


Am I involved with an organization the USA is at war with? Because, I'm not sure if you've heard this before, but people die in wars all the time.
 
2011-10-06 03:24:52 PM
Is this where I make the jump in logic from "the government is allowed to kill known terrorists" to "OMG! They're gonna get me - an average citizen with no ties to Al Qaeda or the Taliban! THIS IS AN OUTRAGE!"?
 
2011-10-06 03:25:06 PM
cuttothepaste.jbchicago.com

/surprised I was the Weeners it.
 
2011-10-06 03:26:37 PM
There, now don't you feel much better?

Depends. Was this secret panel the Five Jewish Bankers who live in space?
 
2011-10-06 03:26:42 PM
" Omg, they should have set up a roadblock, stopped the car, and asked the guy nicely to come back to the US with them so they could put him on trial? Its an outrage!"

Anyone else think this wouldn't even be an issue if Obama were a Republican?
 
2011-10-06 03:27:00 PM
..and then the decision was made public and a lawsuit was filed to remove the T from the list. Lawsuit tossed, T killed.
 
2011-10-06 03:27:02 PM
Rain-Monkey: Personally, I'm totally OK if the President targets a rogue citizen who is now an enemy of the country.

I agree, gitmo was much worse right? Good thing we closed it.
 
2011-10-06 03:27:23 PM
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

I read that in the same voice as the Law & Order introduction, and felt mildly concerned. Then, I read it again in Morgan Freeman's voice and felt better.
 
2011-10-06 03:28:05 PM
Wasn't the guy an anchor baby anyways? I thought they didn't count as citizens anymore?

Only when it is politcly convient?
 
2011-10-06 03:28:28 PM
All governments everywhere kill people they feel it is necessary to kill. How naive do you have to be, to believe that we are/ have been any different?
/no license to kill
 
2011-10-06 03:28:53 PM
Rain-Monkey: Personally, I'm totally OK if the President targets a rogue citizen who is now an enemy of the country.

Until that citizen is you for saying or doing something a secret panel does not like.
 
2011-10-06 03:29:52 PM
Cerebral Knievel: Wasn't the guy an anchor baby anyways? I thought they didn't count as citizens anymore?

Only when it is politcly convient?


If he was an anchor baby, then I guess this means Obama is very tough on immigration. Wow, now that's an amazing pre-election move.
 
2011-10-06 03:30:35 PM
Rain-Monkey: Personally, I'm totally OK if the President targets a rogue citizen who is now an enemy of the country.

jehovahs witness protection: Anybody who thought obama made these decisions himself is a dolt.
It's more like the smart people lay out the plans and obama says "Okay, if you guys say so"


Ill remember that in 10 years when you go to a mosque and are shortly renditioned after.
 
2011-10-06 03:31:24 PM
There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2011-10-06 03:31:41 PM
Old enough to know better: " Omg, they should have set up a roadblock, stopped the car, and asked the guy nicely to come back to the US with them so they could put him on trial? Its an outrage!"

Anyone else think this wouldn't even be an issue if Obama were a Republican?


All the arguments would be reversed.
 
2011-10-06 03:31:57 PM
lohphat: Rain-Monkey: Personally, I'm totally OK if the President targets a rogue citizen who is now an enemy of the country.

Until that citizen is you for saying or doing something a secret panel does not like.


It's funny because if anything you spout of that retarded mouth actually does come true, you'd be on the list before the people who are okay with the "roving secret gestapo death police"
 
2011-10-06 03:32:29 PM
Rain-Monkey: Personally, I'm totally OK if the President targets a rogue citizen who is now an enemy of the country.

Now he should put every employee of the DEA on the hit list, as they are also enemies of the country who are actively engaged in war against the US.
 
2011-10-06 03:32:43 PM
This is what kills me about the USA: The US Gov't will pass a law, within the USA, that makes it 'legal' for the USA to kill people, in other countries. "It's not a war crime, it's perfectly legal. We passed a law".

Who the hell does that and thinks it's okay? If I decided that I would unilaterally destroy all of my neighbour's belongings - because I perceived it as a threat to my aesthetic sensibilities - I would be put in jail. But it's A Okay for the USA to decide that, "that person way over there is a threat to my security / access to oil / market share of a country! Kill 'em!"

Sorry, but that's farked!
 
2011-10-06 03:33:43 PM
Can congress pass a law revoking someone's citizenship for belonging to Alqueda or any organization that has openly declared war on the US and wants to kill as many of us as possible? Just curious. Sounds like a good plan to me.
 
Displayed 50 of 295 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »