>> ^quantumushroom:

No one is harder on Prez Soetoro than me and I think his sanctioned removal of another turbaned anus from the planet is just wonderful. There are plenty of American citizens who are enemies of legitimate American government, such as the entire taxocrat party.
Just kidding.
On a more serious note, His Earness never takes the killing of his fellow Muslim brothers lightly.
(Just kidding, he's a closet atheist).


If I blow out the back of your skull because I "think" you're a threat to the country with all your Obama bashing...

nevermind I have nothing further to add except my creepy smile

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Sorry @NetRunner, I have to disagree with you on this one. Have we actually declared war on Awlaki's organisation? I don't think so. And his US citizenship is very pertinent here. Next time it may be the executive branch deciding to take out a "domestic terrorist". Due process should be a right for all US citizens, it's enshrined in the constitution. Good on Jake Tapper, the guy's got big heroic journalist balls.

Much appreciated, mate. In reply to this comment by blankfist:
*quality *doublepromote

>> ^packo:

>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)


You misunderstand.

It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.

The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.

You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.

>> ^NetRunner:

There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics


technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example

the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life

the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE

the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate

as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant

holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

>> ^criticalthud:

i don't remember congress declaring war
if so, on who?
this is murder by drone.
citizen. non-citizen. doesn't matter. this is murder.
we can say we are at war with a noun...but that's bullshit. We are picking wars of resource opportunity.
we are engaged in aggressive war. specifically the highest crime under the geneva convention. it's what we hung the nazi's for at Nuremberg.


Right, wars of resource opportunity. So Iraq's oil contracts could be sold to china on the open market. So that Awlaki will no longer stand in the way of America's insatiable hunger for Yemen's vast wealth of... sand?

Do you want to discuss this like an adult, or just whine incoherently like a spoiled naive child?

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^blankfist:
Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.
Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.

Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.
This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.
It doesn't work that way.
Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.
It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.

>> ^notarobot:

I think he's applying the Socratic method of asking questions he already knows the answer to in order to get those answers from the guy squirming at the podium. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:
I love how confused the reporter is, I am also as confused.



I think your right on many of the questions towards the end, but the Socratic method still allows you to be stupefied by the answer...even if it is known

>> ^blankfist:

Does AUMF trump the Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment? In other words, does the 2001 Congressional resolution you cited as grounds for legal assassination of U.S. citizens exceed the authority of the Constitutional protections of due process? Trick questions. The answer is no they don't.
Al-Awlaki was assassinated as a suspect without ever being charged with a crime. Obama has followed Bush into completely removing the rights of the people to due process.


Ummm yeah. The Fifth, Sixth and Fourteenth amendments are talking about crimes. Al-Alwaki was not charged with a crime, nor was his death a punishment for one. He was a soldier for a foreign army who we have a declaration of war with, and our military killed him.

This is sorta like saying that in every war, the US forces can't fire a shot until each individual soldier they target has been tried and convicted of a capital crime.

It doesn't work that way.

Now I agree, this is a crappy way to do things, but it wasn't my idea. I think the courts should've stopped it under Bush, but instead they pretty much completely upheld the Constitutional and legal validity of this stance.

It's true that Obama isn't taking action to limit the power of the office he's in, but I think that's a much lesser charge than what you're aiming for.

>> ^Duckman33:

I know full well about the man's past. I don't need to google it. I'm a 9/11 "truther" remember? But a man's past does not necessarily constitute what he is currently doing, or what he will do in the future. People change. Not saying he has. More than likely he hasn't. Just saying. If people judged me on the things I did in my past. I would have no friends, and I'd most likely be in jail right now. I'm a different man than I was 20, hell even 10 years ago. I'm sure I'll be a different man 20 years from now, if I'm still alive.
And oh, yes, asking tough questions. So hard on Obama, poor him! I really should lay off of him because he has it so rough.
As a US citizen it's my obligation, and right to ask tough questions. Much like the reporter. I'm glad there are people like him still in journalism. We need more people like him in journalism. A lot more.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.


I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.
If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.
Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.
If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?
If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?



Your gonna go with 'people change'? Tell me, your study of Awlaki, did it include where he was and what he was doing when he died? Seems as though his past and present were still in harmony, no?

I'm all for asking Obama tough questions. Unfortunately the 'tough' questions being asked here are banal, obvious and easy to ask. It's the underlying problems that are hard. Instead of asking about the legalities and controversy around killing a mass murder in Yemen, maybe they could probe something both tougher and more helpful. Like what's his position on supporting a dictator in Yemen opposed by Al-Qaida dominated rebels? But it's more politically beneficial to ask the flashy and sexy questions about one dead bad guy.

Your video, Jake Tapper grills Jay Carney on al-Awlaki assassination, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I think he's applying the Socratic method of asking questions he already knows the answer to in order to get those answers from the guy squirming at the podium. >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

I love how confused the reporter is, I am also as confused.

I know full well about the man's past. I don't need to google it. I'm a 9/11 "truther" remember? But a man's past does not necessarily constitute what he is currently doing, or what he will do in the future. People change. Not saying he has. More than likely he hasn't. Just saying. If people judged me on the things I did in my past. I would have no friends, and I'd most likely be in jail right now. I'm a different man than I was 20, hell even 10 years ago. I'm sure I'll be a different man 20 years from now, if I'm still alive.

And oh, yes, asking tough questions. So hard on Obama, poor him! I really should lay off of him because he has it so rough.

As a US citizen it's my obligation, and right to ask tough questions. Much like the reporter. I'm glad there are people like him still in journalism. We need more people like him in journalism. A lot more.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^Duckman33:
I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.


I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.
If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.
Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.
If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?
If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?

>> ^conan:

>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.

Wow. Thank god for the internet. If google says it's true it sure is. If google says the next guy on the street is a bad man i say let's sent some drones and kill him. just so, no judge. And there i was thinking of life as being so complicated. Have to get me some of those penis enlargement pills. google say they work just fine.


Right, asking someone to do even the barest semblance of their own research into something is akin to 'the interweb told me so'.

Please enlighten, what burden of evidence has so convinced you of Obama's guilt, and can you be troubled to study that same source's information on Alwaki as well?

I know, gray areas are so uncomfortable for young idealists, but you really should try to see the shades between black and white.

>> ^Duckman33:

I don't believe everything I read on the interwebs. Specially when it comes to corporate owned news stations.
By the way, I'm not in a "holy rage" just because I ask questions. I ask questions because I don't appreciate being lied to, or manipulated into having an, "Ameerrrricaaa, Fuck yeah!" mentality.
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^Duckman33:
>> ^bcglorf:
>> ^blankfist:
It was a government sanctioned assassination of one of their own citizens. He wasn't charged with a crime and sentenced. Do we have the protection of rule of law or don't we? This is exactly the problem I have with this whole social contract thing. What happens when the government breaks that contract with its citizens?
quality doublepromote

Since they both refused to be so nice as to come over and face trial, and more importantly, plotted and executed acts of violence against American assets while abroad, America was in tough spot. The deaths of these two is not so terribly different from any common criminal charging out of a hostage situation with guns blazing and a grenade in his hand.

And I will re-iterate the reporters question. Where is the proof the he was plotting to execute acts of violence against American Citizens? When are we going to get to see that proof? Judging from your comment you are privy to some information the rest of us and the reporter isn't.

Have you typed his name into google?
Anyone in a holy rage over the burden of proof in this, can you please answer this two questions first?
1. Do you believe Alwaki was responsible for the plotting and assassination of multiple people, and on what evidence?
2. Same question, but regarding Obama's assassination of Alwaki.
You're wanting to have your cake and eat it too, I'm not on board for that.



I never asked if you believe everything you read on the net. I asked if you had even attempted googling the man's past. If that's asking you to believe everything you read on the net I do believe you are doing it wrong.

If you bother doing any of your own searching, you'll find Alwaki repeatedly and proudly advocated and recruited people to wage jihad against American civilians. That strikes me as equivalent evidence against him as the 'targeted killing' list approved by Obama.

Before you declare victory in agreeing with the parallel, choose if you truly believe in holding the same burden of proof up for both men. If you do, then you conclude both are innocent, or both are guilty.

If both are innocent, why are you riding Obama so hard?

If both are guilty, Alwaki supported the murder of civilians in a holy war, and Obama supported the targeted killing of Alwaki for his support of murdering civilians in a holy war. In this case again, why are you riding Obama so hard?