How do we feel about the Al-Awlaki assassination

Discussion in 'Freedom and Liberty' started by Avarice, Oct 1, 2011.


  1. Pax Mentis

    Pax Mentis Philosopher King |RIP 11-4-2017

    I said I would not argue this matter any further, and I will not.

    However, I find myself unable to refrain from commenting on the incredible arrogance of this post.

    By what right do you intimate that any with combat experience would (or should) support your position?

    I spent just short of 18 months in the SE Asia cluster-whatever...first running LRRPs and then working the door of C-model gunships. I followed that with over 20+ years as a state and federal LEO and administrator (working, coincidentally, with serial killers among others).

    I may believe those who disagree with my position while claiming respect for the constitution are wrong, short-sighted and...to a degree, hypocritical, but I would never have the effrontery to claim that my position is the only one that could be held by one who had "been there".

    I guess my real comment here is that you can take your arrogant superiority and your position that yours is the only valid one for those who have seen the elephant and shove it where the sunlight will never reach.
     
  2. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    I still think we are muddying the waters here some. No one has said that he should have been captured, read his Miranda rights or anything of the sort. I have no problem with sending a missile up his tailpipe.

    And of course the president had an intelligence briefing and had military planners and advisers that told him this guy was a threat and needed to be taken out. And I actually commend him for having the cajones to listen to that advice. But the order is at the sole discretion of the POTUS and needs no review or approval to implement.

    And yes the CIA and other agencies of the govt have carried out assassinations of our enemies for as long as there has been a country. But not on American citizens. (that we know of) That is the fly in the ointment here.

    And to clear up another misconception. The US Constitution is "FOR" the US. It is not "OF" the US. It is not the constitution of the people but for the govt. It does not grant any rights to anyone. It defines those "inalienable" rights and prohibits the govt from infringing upon them. And there is no clause that requires citizenship as a condition to have those rights. Any person in this country is protected by the constitution against govt infringement upon those inalienable rights. And that protection is in force for citizens of this country no matter where in the world they may be.

    A criminal who is lawfully charged with a crime and an arrest warrant issued, who takes up arms to resist the implementation of that lawful order, and is killed in the process of executing that warrant, is in no way comparable to this situation. A kill or capture order was not issued for him. And he does not have to be tried in absentia and be found guilty of a crime to be charged with that crime and have an arrest warrant issued.

    There are many groups and individuals who are questioning the validity of this order. And rightfully so. It needs to be clarified and a process that allows for implementation of the order to be carried out in an expedient manner, with proper oversight, should be adopted. And as with most regulations governing such things there is always a clause that provides for circumstances where there is an imminent and immediate threat that allows immediate implementation of any action that safeguards the country and it's people. And oversight is provided after the fact.

    But that is not the case with this order. It is above any oversight or review, pre or post. That is the only thing that people are taking exception to. And that exception is not even for foreign enemy combatants. There has never been a question about the validity of taking out sworn enemies of our nation. But when it comes to a natural born citizen of this country, no matter how egregious and abhorrent their actions, the rules are different. They are and should be much more strict.

    It always saddens me to see how people will rail against the abuses to our constitutional rights when it is a cause they support. But when those rights hinder something they don't agree with, or are applied to someone they don't like, then they have no problem subverting them. That is how we come to find ourselves today with a president of the United States saying that the constitution is nothing but a "g..damned piece of paper". A document that is given lip service at best by politicians and that is regularly trampled upon and marginalized.
    Laws are passed and actions implemented with no regard to whether they are authorized or not by what was meant to be the "law of the land" the final word on all govt actions. The litmus test to be passed before any laws are ever adopted.

    The guy declared war on the US. He became an enemy of our country. A capture or kill order was issued. We got him in our crosshairs and pulled the trigger.
    I don't think there is anyone, on this board or in this country that has a problem with that. The only problem is that that order was issued by one man, with no review or oversight permitted. That is not American, that is not constitutional, that is not right. That is a precedent that if allowed to go unchallenged will one day haunt us, our children, or our grandchildren. I believe that with every fiber of my being.
     
    CraftyMofo and Pax Mentis like this.
  3. Alpha Dog

    Alpha Dog survival of the breed

    I think the big part of the argument now for me is that when he chose to join the enemy and made it clear that he did not want to be an American on his own free will. I believe he gave up having any rights that are given to US citizens. This man was killed on enemy soil not on US soil so there for US law and right's don't apply. Just another military mission completed not a violation of any rights this man had no US right's. Now I do feel that if he was still living on US soil and comitting crime's against our country he should have been tried in a court of law and if found guilty been exicuted on the spot no appeals. When he left he gave up the right to a US trial. Just my way of thinking
     
  4. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn RIP 1/13/21

    you might want to read this news article posted 30 sept 2011

    I had this news article emailed to me prior to this post even coming into being. It was interesting to read all the comments pro and con from so many angles.
    .
    Maybe reading this news article will shed some light on things.
    .
    Also it seems a very similiar drone strike occured in 2002 under the Bush administration.
    .
    I still have no problem with this action. Both the 2002 strike and this one made the news in short order. I think we are talking apples and oranges about fears of this happening on US soil in an incident like Ruby Ridge or Waco. If such an incident were to occur it would hit the news almost immediately, it would be the straw that broke the camels back with the peoples accepting whatever the government does.
    .
    Since no one up to now has referenced this news article, you all might want to read it.
    .
    Secret U.S. memo sanctioned killing of Aulaqi - The Washington Post
     
  5. Witch Doctor 01

    Witch Doctor 01 Mojo Maker

    I think everyone is missing the point... everyone knows that it is illegal to use a weapon like the hell fire missles on people (geneva convention , protocol 1, section 35...)

    It's obvious we were targeting the vehicle, uniforms, weapons, communications equipment etc (a legal use vs military material) and the individuals where just colateral damage...

    enough said... lets get back to preppin...
     
    Alpha Dog likes this.
  6. Pyrrhus

    Pyrrhus Monkey+++

    This is a common misconception, but a misconception nonetheless. You can use a Hellfire missile, a .50 cal, or a nuclear bomb but you can't use hollow points.
     
  7. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    :lol: Yeah, this thing seems to have a life of it's own here, even if the MSM has dropped it.

    Still, monkeys have a real interest in the Constitution and all the perversions created over the years by administrations past and present, thus I'll prolong the agony.

    <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> So it’s boiled down to one question:
    -Do enemy combatants that happen to be citizens have the same rights and privileges as ordinary citizens, or only those that are afforded enemy soldiers in action?

    Depending on the answer to that, comes more questions.
    -Does it make any difference where the traitor is when either killed or captured? (Home soil or foreign soil? In an active combat zone or rear echelon?)
    -Why did POTUS think he needed to issue a kill order for this particular individual? (Or did he simply authorize a mission out of a combat zone on other sovereign soil, well within his purview as CiC.)

    And related questions:
    -Why not the same fuss about Samir Khan, another American who happened to be in the vehicle with Aldips**t, equally treasonous and equally dead? (Regard as collateral damage or a friendly fire incident?)
    -Clearly there were others in the vehicles that died in the strike. Were they collateral damage, or combatants?
    -Why is the secret memo alluded to in the Washington Times still secret? To whom was the memo addressed, and who signed it?
    -Clearly, the DOJ gets to frame the legal questions, but it also gets to interpret the law to suit the questioner’s preferences. Equally clearly, someone had to ask the DOJ for an opinion. Who asked, POTUS, DoD, or CIA? (The fact that the question was asked at all tells me someone was nervous.)


    What's that in the back row? Somebody said, "Ghrit, siddown and shuddup?" Well, OK, for now --
     
  8. Avarice

    Avarice California Health Junkie

    I'm going to start not posting on Sundays, one day and this discussion just got way out in front of me.
     
  9. Avarice

    Avarice California Health Junkie

    Something I find interesting. God gave everyone unalienable rights. It wasn't just Americans who got these rights, everywhere else it is just denied to them by men from their own Govs and in this case, American Gov, but not by The Almighty! Even if he did denounce his citizenship, he should have the rights in theory, if not in practice. I know that would be very idealistic and completely impractical, but it should come into consideration when you make one man an exception.

    Something about Practicality. Rights, in the eyes of Governments, are never practical.
     
  10. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member


    Let me see if I can address a few of these questions.
    (Can't let a good thread die)


     
  11. Tikka

    Tikka Monkey+++

    FYI:

    [/FONT]
     
    Guit_fishN and Sapper John like this.
  12. wideym

    wideym Monkey+++

    Here's were immigration laws need to be changed, both his parents were Yemini nationals going to college in America, neither were American citizens when he was born and that needs to be addressed. Also the fact that many foreigners carry dual citizenship. After turning 18 they need to choose: America or a different country to be a citizen of, not whichever is of the most benifit at the moment.

    His citizenship was Yemini by his statements and even more importantly his actions. He may not have renounced his citizenship offically, but his speeches and actions did.

    In this particular action, I remember the old saying "He just needed killing." and let it go at that.
     
    Sapper John and tacmotusn like this.
  13. Tikka

    Tikka Monkey+++

    As he was well qualified under 1-4; he got what he deserved.
     
    Sapper John and Alpha Dog like this.
  14. Alpha Dog

    Alpha Dog survival of the breed

    I just believe that we are at war with terrorist weather they be US born or from another Country. When at war I don't think that any of them should be given right's because don't let it cross your mind that he would have shown any of us any form of compassion or gave us any rights. He would have had us on a camera sawing our head off with a knife not a sword, for what he believed.
     
  15. Minuteman

    Minuteman Chaplain Moderator Founding Member

    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]This is the crux of the argument. We are in a very different kind of war, facing a very different kind of enemy. We need to clarify and codify new rules that are within the constitutional framework and that specifically spell out the procedures for dealing with these types pf decisions. To just say "Well he was a bad guy and it's OK for the president alone to decide to put him on a "Kill" sheet". That is where the problem and the inherent danger lies. I would hope that this would serve to open a dialogue that would address these issues. We have been dealing with these types pf issues for a decade now. Was it legal for President Bush to order water boarding of detainees? The DOJ rendered a decision that said it was. And the left and the Dems cried foul and that the DOJ is only a yes man to the President, yada,yada,yada. So now we have a Democrat president that gets a DOJ sanctioned decision to hunt down and kill American citizens. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here? Where is the outrage from those that so vocally called for criminal charges to be brought against the last administration for torturing captured foreign enemies but have no problem with this administration killing American people?



    Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

    1. Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

    He was a "naturalized" American.

    2. Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

    He was an outlaw in Yemen with no affiliation to a "state".

    3. Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

    Again. no "foreign state". terrorist groups are not a recognized "state". This needs to be addressed.

    4. Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

    Here is the problem. A loose, ragtag organization like al-queda is not a foreign state. This wording needs to be changed to deal with the current world situation.

    5. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

    Never did this.

    6. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

    Or this

    7. Conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).

    This is the one here that would solve this dilemma. He has been on "the list" for two years now. Plenty of time to present evidence of his treason and rebellion to an oversight body. Judicial,military or congressional and get a ruling. That's all that is lacking here. I don't give a rats back end about this scumbag. But I do give one about a process that allows the president to arbitrarily decide, without presenting any evidence, without having any independent review, that someone should be killed.
    [/FONT]


    The country needs this debate and we need to get our representatives together and clarify, within the confines of the constitution, how we are to deal with these types of enemy combatants. Not rely on outdated, WW2 methods, decisions and verdicts.


     
  16. dystopia

    dystopia Monkey+

    My concern and maybe it was voiced already, there is a lot of comments, is how long before American citizens opposed to our U.S.A. are eliminated just like whacky al, only this time within our borders. They explained whacky al away, how far can they go?
     
  17. CATO

    CATO Monkey+++

    If you follow the ideology of Carl von Clausewitz, "War is the continuation of policy by other means." There's a big difference between Freedom of Speech--think Ward Churchill, and Freedom of Action--this guy's behavior.

    You can talk about how bad this country is all you want, however, the difference here is this went and did something about it. This action revoked his citizenship, making this military operation no different than any of the other hits on strategic targets.

    "How far can they go?" you ask. All the way....go ask Vince Foster.
     
  18. ghrit

    ghrit Bad company Administrator Founding Member

    [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]This is the crux of the argument. We are in a very different kind of war, facing a very different kind of enemy.
    It is still war, regardless of the type of enemy. He and we have capabilities that didn't exist in the last Big One, and adaptation remains key. The war gamers see to that part of the needs. (We hope.)
    We need to clarify and codify new rules that are within the constitutional framework and that specifically spell out the procedures for dealing with these types pf decisions.
    [/FONT]
    I'll grant the need for some clarification and updating, but the deer crossed the opening in the trees, and time to count points didn't exist.[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]
    To just say "Well he was a bad guy and it's OK for the president alone to decide to put him on a "Kill" sheet".
    Here, we differ a bit. Hate to admit that zero may not have signed off on a kill or capture order, but absent other evidence than what shows up in the media, I have to. I strongly suggest that aldip***t's actions established which side he chose, and that alone put him in the category of enemy; thus a military matter not needing POTUS involvement in the tactical aspects. Now, POTUS had to get involved in the matter simply because of where the action was to take place, regardless of the target's importance. With the action planned for an area not otherwise involved in the war, that nation has to be in the loop, thus DoJ and DoS had to be involved..
    That is where the problem and the inherent danger lies.
    Nibbling around the idea of a "kill sheet" listing citizens to be terminated while on or off US soil (absent action clearly military in nature) disgusts me as it does you. A selective killing of citizens on US soil would trigger outrage as it should (and has, if you draw a parallel on Weaver and Waco. Enough pee-pees got slapped over those, but justice has not yet been served for either case. Frankly, I doubt that a kill order was issued for either case; both are evidence of a plan that didn't work as planned. Ask any grunt sergeant about that inevitability.)
    I would hope that this would serve to open a dialogue that would address these issues. We have been dealing with these types pf issues for a decade now. Was it legal for President Bush to order water boarding of detainees? The DOJ rendered a decision that said it was. And the left and the Dems cried foul and that the DOJ is only a yes man to the President, yada,yada,yada. So now we have a Democrat president that gets a DOJ sanctioned decision to hunt down and kill American citizens. Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here?
    DoJ and all the rest of the Ds serve at the pleasure of POTUS, and know which side of the bread to find the butter. I see politics, questionable honor and ethics, perhaps, but not a whiff of hypocrisy. Bush's and zero's DOJs did and are doing their jobs rightly or wrongly. If dialog is needed, it would be appropriate to find a way to allow the checks and balances to operate much more rapidly than possible now. SCOTUS and Congress are far too ponderous to operate as a check on the Executive. (In that, one could draw a parallel with cops, they get there too late.) That timeliness of action has to be addressed, not to impose another roadblock on the military..
    Where is the outrage from those that so vocally called for criminal charges to be brought against the last administration for torturing captured foreign enemies but have no problem with this administration killing American people?
    An excellent question. As a guess, they got the president they wanted and are suddenly aware of the attention they can get if they speak up. (Insert Nazi Germany parallel here.) Or, as seems more likely to me, they see all the promises made go south and this is just one more twig on the camel's back.

    Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481), as amended, states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. Briefly stated, these acts include:

    1. Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

    He was a "naturalized" American.
    OK.

    2. Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

    He was an outlaw in Yemen with no affiliation to a "state".
    OK, but ---

    3. Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

    Again. no "foreign state". terrorist groups are not a recognized "state". This needs to be addressed.
    Partial agree. Based on the assumption of "state" being defined by land and culture, that would be correct. Based on the defacto war we are engaged in with AQ, I'd say that the state is defined by its enmity to us. It is a stretch to extend an idea of "state" to a loose federation of landless ideologues regardless of who is hosting them, but it's been done before. (We were not at war with the German people or land, we were at war with Nazism. Discuss among yourselves.)

    4. Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

    Here is the problem. A loose, ragtag organization like al-queda is not a foreign state. This wording needs to be changed to deal with the current world situation.
    Agree. But in the meantime, I'm willing to accept actions as declarations. Thin ice, I know ---

    5. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

    Never did this.
    OK.

    6. Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

    Or this
    OK.

    7. Conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
    OK. But I contend that as soon as he got into the operational aspects of AQ as vs. spreading the ideological word, he moved himself into the warrior's role and became a military problem dealt with appropriately.

    This is the one here that would solve this dilemma. He has been on "the list" for two years now. Plenty of time to present evidence of his treason and rebellion to an oversight body. Judicial,military or congressional and get a ruling. That's all that is lacking here. I don't give a rats back end about this scumbag. But I do give one about a process that allows the president to arbitrarily decide, without presenting any evidence, without having any independent review, that someone should be killed.
    [/FONT]
    Perhaps trivializing it a bit, but if I caught my kid's hands in the cookie jar, the evidence didn't need much presentation to establish guilt. The action alone spoke.

    The country needs this debate and we need to get our representatives together and clarify, within the confines of the constitution, how we are to deal with these types of enemy combatants. Not rely on outdated, WW2 methods, decisions and verdicts.
    Partial agreement. Precedent is everything in litigation, and until the laws upon which the precedents were established are either clarified or overturned they stand. I'll grant the need for some updates and clarifications; but again, the deer crossed the opening in the trees, and time to count points didn't exist. DoJ, rightly or wrongly, passed on the legality, so follow the law at the time.

    Added thought. bin Laden effectively declared war on the US, did he not? And there is evidence that aldips**t bore allegiance to bL (himself effectively stateless since SA repudiated him IIRC) is there not? If so, then aDip effectively did what 349.a.2 requires.
     
  19. tacmotusn

    tacmotusn RIP 1/13/21

  20. BTPost

    BTPost Stumpy Old Fart,Deadman Walking, Snow Monkey Moderator

    Yea, I was going to post that article on Friday, but got busy elsewhere. I appreciate you finding it and posting it.... Seems like if Obummer can get the DOJ, to write something to justify something, and then classify it as Secret, then he can just do what he wants, even without a Judicial Review.... Someone should Sue his A**, in Federal Court, and make him justify his BS.....
     
    Pax Mentis and tacmotusn like this.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary
17282WuJHksJ9798f34razfKbPATqTq9E7