Taliban Muslims execute 13 Americans, Afghan Policemen and a civilian

[jimnyc]

American troops were just driving down the road, not harming anyone, when an attacker drove a van into them an executed them. They also executed 3 Afghan civilians and one policemen. 2 Children were among the survivors that this Taliban Muslims tried to execute.

While it's one thing to go after peaceful military not harming a single soul, it's horrific that they decided to execute the 3 civilians and policemen for no reason either.


KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A Taliban suicide bomber rammed a van into an armored NATO bus Saturday in Kabul, killing 13 American troops and four Afghans, U.S. and Afghan officials said, in the deadliest attack on coalition forces in more than two months.

The explosion, which occurred as the convoy was passing the American University, sparked a fireball and littered the street with shrapnel. Heavy black smoke poured from burning wreckage at the site.

The armored personnel carrier, known as a Rhino was sandwiched between of a convoy of mine-resistant military vehicles traveling on a four-lane highway frequently used by NATO forces in a southwestern section of the city.

NATO said 13 service members were killed, but a U.S. official confirmed they were all Americans. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

The Afghan Ministry of Interior said three Afghan civilians and one policeman also died in the attack. Eight other Afghans, including two children and four other civilians, were wounded, said Kabir Amiri, head of Kabul hospitals.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-official-13-americans-killed-afghan-bombing-132131947.html

[ConHog]

American troops were just driving down the road, not harming anyone, when an attacker drove a van into them an executed them. They also executed 3 Afghan civilians and one policemen. 2 Children were among the survivors that this Taliban Muslims tried to execute.

While it's one thing to go after peaceful military not harming a single soul, it's horrific that they decided to execute the 3 civilians and policemen for no reason either.



http://news.yahoo.com/us-official-13-americans-killed-afghan-bombing-132131947.html

I do not care that Muslims did such things.

Just thought I'd save Abso a post.

[jimnyc]

I wonder why Revelarts was so up in arms over the execution of someone traveling with a known terrorist leader but apparently doesn't give a damn when Afghan civilians, police AND American soldiers are executed by the taliban, who I might remind you were the government of Afghanistan and still think they are fighting for that government. I guess these people don't rank as high for some.

[red states rule]

I wonder why Revelarts was so up in arms over the execution of someone traveling with a known terrorist leader but apparently doesn't give a damn when Afghan civilians, police AND American soldiers are executed by the taliban, who I might remind you were the government of Afghanistan and still think they are fighting for that government. I guess these people don't rank as high for some.

Of course not. He does not have a chance to slime America or the US troops if he does. People like R go thru life looking fo things to be offended over when it comes to America and the US military

But you are right, he does give a damn when others do the same thing he bitches about us doing

[ConHog]

I wonder why Revelarts was so up in arms over the execution of someone traveling with a known terrorist leader but apparently doesn't give a damn when Afghan civilians, police AND American soldiers are executed by the taliban, who I might remind you were the government of Afghanistan and still think they are fighting for that government. I guess these people don't rank as high for some.


I've figured Rev out. He's a US apologist and nothing more. Not even worth worrying about what he does.

[red states rule]

I've figured Rev out. He's a US apologist and nothing more. Not even worth worrying about what he does.

Does Hallmark make a card Rev can send out?

[jimnyc]

Of course not. He does not have a chance to slime America or the US troops if he does. People like R go thru life looking fo things to be offended over when it comes to America and the US military

But you are right, he does give a damn when others do the same thing he bitches about us doing


I've figured Rev out. He's a US apologist and nothing more. Not even worth worrying about what he does.

Yep, and I find it offensive that he shits on his own country left and right and demands rights for terrorists like when Awlaki was killed, but not a fucking peep when it's US troops, Afghan civilians and a police officer killed. He's like a cheerleader for the enemy. I don't know if I find it sad, pathetic or disgusting.

[ConHog]

Yep, and I find it offensive that he shits on his own country left and right and demands rights for terrorists like when Awlaki was killed, but not a fucking peep when it's US troops, Afghan civilians and a police officer killed. He's like a cheerleader for the enemy. I don't know if I find it sad, pathetic or disgusting.

Jim, he isn't worth getting mad over. Seriously, who gives a shit what he thinks? Him and that Abso retard who thinks he's fooling anyone with his "i don't condone killing innocents" remarks. Yeah well as I said that's easy to say when you don't think anyone is innocent.

[jimnyc]

Jim, he isn't worth getting mad over. Seriously, who gives a shit what he thinks? Him and that Abso retard who thinks he's fooling anyone with his "i don't condone killing innocents" remarks. Yeah well as I said that's easy to say when you don't think anyone is innocent.

Don't you find it sickening though that he jumps to the defense of a terrorist, but not a peep out of his conspiracy ridden mouth when it's Americans or Afghan police? I'm not mad, but it's a sign of what so many shitheads in this country have become, and yet another reason why society as of late is going down the shitter.

[Abbey Marie]

Don't you find it sickening though that he jumps to the defense of a terrorist, but not a peep out of his conspiracy ridden mouth when it's Americans or Afghan police? I'm not mad, but it's a sign of what so many shitheads in this country have become, and yet another reason why society as of late is going down the shitter.

I do.

[ConHog]

Does Hallmark make a card Rev can send out?

Revfarts,

Because he cares enough (about the Muzzies)

to insult the very best (military in the world)

about fits.

[Abbey Marie]

Revfarts,

Because he cares enough (about the Muzzies)

to insult the very best (military in the world)

about fits.

Lol, I like it.

[fj1200]

Of course not. He does not have a chance to slime America or the US troops if he does. People like R go thru life looking fo things to be offended over when it comes to America and the US military

But you are right, he does give a damn when others do the same thing he bitches about us doing

Or... he's just trying to hold the US to a higher standard.

[ConHog]

Or... he's just trying to hold the US to a higher standard.

No he's not.


FACT: The US military guards civilian lives, even those of the enemy, closer than ANY military in the history of man. PERIOD.

[Nukeman]

Or... he's just trying to hold the US to a higher standard.You know there are times I wish WE weren't held to a higher standard. Sometimes all someone understands is a strong fist.. Simple as that... You can't always take the high road and expect others to commend you for it, especially when the lowlifes keep getting the better of you in small ways.

The rest of the world already thinks we are a bunch of bullies and thugs, SOMETIMES I would like to live up to that and actually KICK THE CRAP out of those morons with NO MERCY!!!

[ConHog]

You know there are times I wish WE weren't held to a higher standard. Sometimes all someone understands is a strong fist.. Simple as that... You can't always take the high road and expect others to commend you for it, especially when the lowlifes keep getting the better of you in small ways.

The rest of the world already thinks we are a bunch of bullies and thugs, SOMETIMES I would like to live up to that and actually KICK THE CRAP out of those morons with NO MERCY!!!

No shit right. We have fought every war since WWII with one hand tied behind our back , trying to be "the good guy" .

Let's look back in history and realize that the Muslims hated the Soviets worse than they EVER hated us, and at least as much as they hate the Israelis; but can anyone think of a single terrorist attack committed against the Soviet Union? Nope, why? Because even the crazy Muslims knew that the Soviets would pay them back times ten with NO mercy. The Israelis would do the same if the US didn't restrain them.

[jimnyc]

Or... he's just trying to hold the US to a higher standard.

By condemning every last move by the US, and giving a free pass to terrorists? It would be one thing if he judged fairly and expected more of the US - but he doesn't make a peep when terrorists do one thing but cries bloody murder when Americans kill a terrorist! That's NO STANDARD towards terrorists but condemnation of our own country.

How can it be an "execution" when an innocent is killed while the US is trying to kill a terrorist - but when THIRTEEN Americans are killed he stays silent.

Sounds to me like the higher standard AND respect is given to the enemy. Doesn't even matter to him who the enemy is, so long as he can bash the military, government, cia...

[fj1200]

No he's not.

FACT: The US military guards civilian lives, even those of the enemy, closer than ANY military in the history of man. PERIOD.

Then you're not paying much attention to the totality of his posts IMO. And who is disputing your facts?


You know there are times I wish WE weren't held to a higher standard.

...SOMETIMES I would like to live up to that and actually KICK THE CRAP out of those morons with NO MERCY!!!

I'm actually happy that we have a higher standard than the rest of the world. Besides our "mercy" that we show still "kicks the crap" out of anyone that we go up against. We should have an internal check when we hold such a large advantage militarily.


By condemning every last move by the US, and giving a free pass to terrorists? It would be one thing if he judged fairly and expected more of the US - but he doesn't make a peep when terrorists do one thing but cries bloody murder when Americans kill a terrorist! That's NO STANDARD towards terrorists but condemnation of our own country.

How can it be an "execution" when an innocent is killed while the US is trying to kill a terrorist - but when THIRTEEN Americans are killed he stays silent.

Sounds to me like the higher standard AND respect is given to the enemy. Doesn't even matter to him who the enemy is, so long as he can bash the military, government, cia...

You honestly don't think he's outraged by that? If you're going to be outraged by everything that happens in those countries, and bother to post about it, you won't be able to live your life. From the way I read it, he's outraged by our actions that are contrary to the ideal he feels we should be living up to. Do I agree with every thing he says? No, but I try not to understand where he's coming from.

[jimnyc]

You honestly don't think he's outraged by that? If you're going to be outraged by everything that happens in those countries, and bother to post about it, you won't be able to live your life. From the way I read it, he's outraged by our actions that are contrary to the ideal he feels we should be living up to. Do I agree with every thing he says? No, but I try not to understand where he's coming from.

Are you now speaking for him? Did something happen that I am unaware of that keeps him from responding?

And no, I don't think he's outraged. He starts a thread and argues forever WHEN ONE TERRORIST is killed, but when THIRTEEN AMERICANS are killed in similar fashion, he zips the lips, even when called out. If he was outraged he would speak up, or are you doing that for him right now?

He starts thread after thread after thread which are anti-government and tons of threads about how we treat terrorists and similar. Hell, he was happy about the death of OBL until he found out we possibly used waterboarding to garner info to find him. Now - show me JUST 2 THREADS that he started where he saw Americans or American troops killed, where he was outraged at terrorists or similar.

[fj1200]

Are you now speaking for him? Did something happen that I am unaware of that keeps him from responding?

Nope, hence...

From the way I read it...


And no, I don't think he's outraged. He starts a thread and argues forever WHEN ONE TERRORIST is killed, but when THIRTEEN AMERICANS are killed in similar fashion, he zips the lips, even when called out. If he was outraged he would speak up, or are you doing that for him right now?

He starts thread after thread after thread which are anti-government and tons of threads about how we treat terrorists and similar. Hell, he was happy about the death of OBL until he found out we possibly used waterboarding to garner info to find him. Now - show me JUST 2 THREADS that he started where he saw Americans or American troops killed, where he was outraged at terrorists or similar.

We can disagree on that until either one of us comes up with a quote proving one way or the other but two of the threads I recall specifically concerned American citizens who were killed by American strikes. He can argue his use of wording and the situation regarding Awlaki's son but shouldn't we be concerned when a US citizen (Awlaki) is targeted by his own country with questionable circumstances surrounding his "trial"?

I've had plenty of threads where I've countered rev and he hasn't responded but I leave it at that. I just chalk it up to my brilliantly thought out responses with impeccable logic that gives him no other recourse... but that's me. :cool:

[jimnyc]

We can disagree on that until either one of us comes up with a quote proving one way or the other but two of the threads I recall specifically concerned American citizens who were killed by American strikes. He can argue his use of wording and the situation regarding Awlaki's son but shouldn't we be concerned when a US citizen (Awlaki) is targeted by his own country with questionable circumstances surrounding his "trial"?

Let me start with Awlaki's son... He wasn't targeted, yet Rev's stance is that we executed him. Allow me to repeat myself, nothing suggests Awlaki's son was a target anywhere. Yet the thread appeared, and the defense began.

We saw similar with Awlaki himself, but granted he was in fact targeted. Still odd though, that one would defend the rights of one American, who was a known terrorist, but the examples of him starting threads to defend American troops or non-terrorists seem to be lacking and/or non-existent.


I've had plenty of threads where I've countered rev and he hasn't responded but I leave it at that. I just chalk it up to my brilliantly thought out responses with impeccable logic that gives him no other recourse... but that's me. :cool:

I'm a bit more blunt. I chalk it up to someone having their beliefs or stances a bit fucked up and warped. Or someone who can't backup the tripe they type. Either way, I like to call them out and make them look stupid. It's fun. Sure me if you think I'm wrong. :coffee:

[ConHog]

First Abso, now Revfarts. Man, FJ sure doesn't like it when someone calls someone out for trashing the US military.

[fj1200]

Let me start with Awlaki's son... He wasn't targeted, yet Rev's stance is that we executed him. Allow me to repeat myself, nothing suggests Awlaki's son was a target anywhere. Yet the thread appeared, and the defense began.

We saw similar with Awlaki himself, but granted he was in fact targeted. Still odd though, that one would defend the rights of one American, who was a known terrorist, but the examples of him starting threads to defend American troops or non-terrorists seem to be lacking and/or non-existent.

Didn't say he was; Dad should have told him to duck... or not hang out with Dad's friends.

Would you agree that there are legal issues with Awlaki?

[fj1200]

First Abso, now Revfarts. Man, FJ sure doesn't like it when someone calls someone out for trashing the US military.

Still think it's about the US military huh? :rolleyes:

[ConHog]

Still think it's about the US military huh? :rolleyes:

Ummm yes, when someone says something negative about the us military, it is in fact about the us military.

[fj1200]

Ummm yes, when someone says something negative about the us military, it is in fact about the us military.

Who said that?

[jimnyc]

Didn't say he was; Dad should have told him to duck... or not hang out with Dad's friends.

Would you agree that there are legal issues with Awlaki?

No, it was Rev who stated that Awlaki's son was a target. Surely you can't execute someone unless you're targeting them. Anyway, that's my point, that he blames the US for an execution, but not a peep when it's 13 American troops.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I judge cases at the Supreme Court level, so I'll wait and see if they ever chime in. My personal belief? I think if you become a traitor to your nation and are actively seeking to have innocent Americans killed, you become a fair target. Don't give yourself up when you're listed as a wanted man, then you may pay a sacrifice if it's necessary to hunt you down like the dog you are.

[fj1200]

I think if you become a traitor to your nation and are actively seeking to have innocent Americans killed...

Has he been convicted of treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason)?

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

[ConHog]

Has he been convicted of treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason)?



In the court of public and opinion, as well as common sense? You bet.

Are you seriously suggesting that our military should arrest all enemy combatants and try them, rather than dispose of them like the garbage they are.

[fj1200]

In the court of public and opinion, as well as common sense? You bet.

So screw the constitution and the rule of law? Why am I not surprised.


Are you seriously suggesting that our military should arrest all enemy combatants and try them, rather than dispose of them like the garbage they are.

Why do you feel the need to bring up irrelevant information?

[jimnyc]

Has he been convicted of treason (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treason)?

The second half of my sentence, which you ignored, made it necessary to stop him with any means possible, even if that means killing him.

But this thread is about the execution of Americans in Afghanistan - which oddly enough has turned into the defense of a terrorist wanting to kill Americans. Rev is probably sending you rep!

[jimnyc]

Why do you feel the need to bring up irrelevant information?

No irrelevant at all. You insinuated that the terrorist had rights and deserved a trial. This would mean capturing him on the battlefield and dragging him to a trial, as opposed to what we do to other enemies on the battlefield.

[logroller]

No he's not.


FACT: The US military guards civilian lives, even those of the enemy, closer than ANY military in the history of man. PERIOD.

I think you meant the lives of foreign nations, not the enemy.

One might, and sincerely should, question the legitimate authority of our military to protect foreign nations, civilian or otherwise. Is it your position that America should be the World Police? -- That's a pretty liberal policy, one that does represent a high standard, but some could claim violates the oath of allegiance which, among 4 other tenets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_States)), requires one to defend the Constitution. Now, as ever, the Constitution is open to interpretation. Following Doe v Bush, the power to 'declare war' has been extended to include any military action authorized by Congress according the War Powers Act (1973). I think Rev disagrees with this interpretation, but dissent is an indispensable freedom; a freedom many in this thread have taken beyond mere criticism, and engaged in flaming -- which has a place on this site, just not here. :salute:

[fj1200]

The second half of my sentence, which you ignored, made it necessary to stop him with any means possible, even if that means killing him.

I didn't ignore it, him being a traitor was the basis for your comment; Has be convicted of treason?


But this thread is about the execution of Americans in Afghanistan - which oddly enough has turned into the defense of a terrorist wanting to kill Americans. Rev is probably sending you rep!

I know you need it to be about defending a terrorist but it's not; it's about defending US values and the rule of law.

[logroller]

I didn't ignore it, him being a traitor was the basis for your comment; Has be convicted of treason?



I know you need it to be about defending a terrorist but it's not; it's about defending US values and the rule of law.

Is the military, in defense of the Constitution, required to operate under the same rule of law in foreign matters as domestic?

[fj1200]

No irrelevant at all. You insinuated that the terrorist had rights and deserved a trial. This would mean capturing him on the battlefield and dragging him to a trial, as opposed to what we do to other enemies on the battlefield.

It's completely irrelevant, this is about a US citizen not a run of the mill terrorist. And if you want to start a thread about battlefield terrorists then I'm sure I will throw in.

[fj1200]

Is the military, in defense of the Constitution, required to operate under the same rule of law in foreign matters as domestic?

If I'm understanding your question correctly, no, they don't deal with US citizens. They fight wars as, hopefully, declared by Congress.

[ConHog]

So screw the constitution and the rule of law? Why am I not surprised.



Why do you feel the need to bring up irrelevant information?

So what do you suggest? We should have sent him a nice letter

"Dear Sir,

On the night of August 11th, 2011 we shall request that you turn yourself into the nearest US embassy so that we may try you for high crimes. Failing to do that will cause us to do , well nothing because we have no authority in Yemen

Yours truly,

USG"

oh and it isn't irrelevant. I've already said it would be nice if we could treat each case the same , but we can't. You don't seem to understand that we are at war.

[logroller]

If I'm understanding your question correctly, no, they don't deal with US citizens. They fight wars as, hopefully, declared by Congress.
Of course, but to what extant is the military required to protect citizens, US or otherwise, who may or may not be involved with the enemy?

It's a common criticism of war that 'innocents' are killed; but isn't this just an unfortunate consequence of engaging an entrenched enemy; just as friendly fire causes great loss of life?

If there's an American who wants to go to Yemen or Syria or Libya-- to what extent is the US required to protect them? The State Dept clearly tells you not to, it's a bad idea-- in so doing, hasn't the person* shown a general disregard for their safety and the protections afforded them by the US Constitution and its delegates? (*who've done so freely, I must add-- the whole 'it's a volunteer military' thing is BS-- once you sign up, you can't refuse an order)

In other words, to what extent is the govt obliged to protect individual rights, when the rule of law itself, the endeavor to protect freedom, is threatened? Freedom is sustained by justice; and justice, like a double-edged sword, can be positive or negative, you know what I mean?

[logroller]

So what do you suggest? We should have sent him a nice letter

"Dear Sir,

On the night of August 11th, 2011 we shall request that you turn yourself into the nearest US embassy so that we may try you for high crimes. Failing to do that will cause us to do , well nothing because we have no authority in Yemen

Yours truly,

USG"

oh and it isn't irrelevant. I've already said it would be nice if we could treat each case the same , but we can't. You don't seem to understand that we are at war.

Dear USG, in response to your letter dated August 11, 2011....
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/396/223/Afghanistannatoattack.jpg

[jimnyc]

I didn't ignore it, him being a traitor was the basis for your comment; Has be convicted of treason?

No, it was 2 different reasons, and IMO, the most important is that he is a terrorist declaring war against the US and seeking to have innocent Americans killed. If you guys truly believe we should hunt people like this down and try and handcuff them - then so be it. But this isn't a "police matter", this is a war and Awlaki decided to remain on the "battlefield". If he wanted any "rights", he should have given himself up. If you lift up your ammunition and declare war against innocent civilians, the police aren't going to calmly approach you and try and handcuff you. Due to his own actions, those in charge did what was best, eliminate the target without putting any more American lives on the line.


I know you need it to be about defending a terrorist but it's not; it's about defending US values and the rule of law.

This is absolutely brand new territory we are venturing into. I highly doubt our founding fathers and those who molded our laws over a couple hundred years - did so to protect the rights of an American citizen that went to another country and took up arms against the US, and vowed to kill innocents - right in the midst of a war.

Rev's refusal to speak up shows me he is only interested in throwing jabs at our military and government at HIS perception of wrong doing, and has very little to no interest at all in Americans killed by the type of people he "defends".

[jimnyc]

Is the military, in defense of the Constitution, required to operate under the same rule of law in foreign matters as domestic?

I would love to see this "case" end up before the supreme court, and see someone defending Awlaki and his rights as an American. Every "alleged" law breaker in the US is innocent until proven guilty, but see how far that gets you when you lift a weapon to law enforcement. I would argue that a known terrorist is more dangerous, by far, than your every day criminal with a .38 in his pocket.

[jimnyc]

Dear USG, in response to your letter dated August 11, 2011....
http://a57.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/World/396/223/Afghanistannatoattack.jpg

And that's likely what our military and/or intel agencies would receive if they went to "apprehend" a known terrorist in a foreign country littered with terrorism.

[fj1200]

oh and it isn't irrelevant. I've already said it would be nice if we could treat each case the same , but we can't. You don't seem to understand that we are at war.

Thank you for stating your presumption; As wrong as it is.

[fj1200]

Of course, but to what extant is the military required to protect citizens, US or otherwise, who may or may not be involved with the enemy?

It's a common criticism of war that 'innocents' are killed; but isn't this just an unfortunate consequence of engaging an entrenched enemy; just as friendly fire causes great loss of life?

If there's an American who wants to go to Yemen or Syria or Libya-- to what extent is the US required to protect them? The State Dept clearly tells you not to, it's a bad idea-- in so doing, hasn't the person* shown a general disregard for their safety and the protections afforded them by the US Constitution and its delegates? (*who've done so freely, I must add-- the whole 'it's a volunteer military' thing is BS-- once you sign up, you can't refuse an order)

In other words, to what extent is the govt obliged to protect individual rights, when the rule of law itself, the endeavor to protect freedom, is threatened? Freedom is sustained by justice; and justice, like a double-edged sword, can be positive or negative, you know what I mean?

I know what you mean but we're talking about a citizen being targeted not a citizen, or civilian, who happens to be in the way; i.e. the son of the aforementioned citizen.

I don't think we owe the generic citizen who chooses to go to/stay in a warzone any special consideration other than what CH will point out that we do anyway.

[fj1200]

No, it was 2 different reasons, and IMO, the most important is that he is a terrorist declaring war against the US and seeking to have innocent Americans killed. If you guys truly believe we should hunt people like this down and try and handcuff them - then so be it. But this isn't a "police matter", this is a war and Awlaki decided to remain on the "battlefield". If he wanted any "rights", he should have given himself up. If you lift up your ammunition and declare war against innocent civilians, the police aren't going to calmly approach you and try and handcuff you. Due to his own actions, those in charge did what was best, eliminate the target without putting any more American lives on the line.

Then don't bring up that he's a traitor and don't list it first in order of offense. I wonder how many other citizens could be put into the same category that you've just created and when you would start to become concerned that the USG has granted itself the power the power of judge/jury/executioner. What is the stopping point for you?


This is absolutely brand new territory we are venturing into. I highly doubt our founding fathers and those who molded our laws over a couple hundred years - did so to protect the rights of an American citizen that went to another country and took up arms against the US, and vowed to kill innocents - right in the midst of a war.

Rev's refusal to speak up shows me he is only interested in throwing jabs at our military and government at HIS perception of wrong doing, and has very little to no interest at all in Americans killed by the type of people he "defends".

Our FF's specifically inserted treason into the Constitution, not murder, not kidnapping, not bank robbery, but treason. Do you think it's something that they thought great enough that it should have its own definition? Also being in Article III do you think it should be something governed by an Article III court and not an executive branch committee?

[jimnyc]

Then don't bring up that he's a traitor and don't list it first in order of offense. I wonder how many other citizens could be put into the same category that you've just created and when you would start to become concerned that the USG has granted itself the power the power of judge/jury/executioner. What is the stopping point for you?

Our FF's specifically inserted treason into the Constitution, not murder, not kidnapping, not bank robbery, but treason. Do you think it's something that they thought great enough that it should have its own definition? Also being in Article III do you think it should be something governed by an Article III court and not an executive branch committee?

Name some American citizens, living in a foreign country, that have declared war against us, who are a known terrorist leader trying to kill innocent Americans... I can't think of a current person at this point. Can you? So your wonder of how many other citizens boil down to most likely Awlaki. And if there is another terrorist on foreign soil declaring war against us, hopefully, and likely, he would be eliminated as well.

As for the constitution, I think I made myself abundantly clear. It would be up to you, or someone else addressing the court, to prove that his rights were violated. I'd be happy to bet ANY amount you and Rev can put together that if it does ever reach the SC, the ruling will come down against an American citizen, on foreign soil, declaring war against our nation. Short of that ruling, the rest is guessing and opinions.

[jimnyc]

I found an article which brings up a few good points, specifically from the 5th amendment:


Let’s turn our attention to the US Constitution, specifically the 5th amendment (http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am5). Among other things, it clearly states, “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;….” Does “in time of War or public danger” apply to al-Awlaki? Apparently civil liberty groups don’t think so.

I think it's easy to show that we are/were in a time of war - and Awlaki's own threats placed the public in danger.

Furthermore:


But Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University’s Washington College of Law, said US citizens who take up arms with an enemy force have been considered legitimate targets through two world wars, even if they are outside what is traditionally considered the battlefield.

Sounds like throughout 2 world wars we have precedent as well.

http://conservativedailynews.com/2011/09/anwar-al-awlaki-killed-were-his-civil-liberties-violated/

[ConHog]

I think you meant the lives of foreign nations, not the enemy.

One might, and sincerely should, question the legitimate authority of our military to protect foreign nations, civilian or otherwise. Is it your position that America should be the World Police? -- That's a pretty liberal policy, one that does represent a high standard, but some could claim violates the oath of allegiance which, among 4 other tenets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_States)), requires one to defend the Constitution. Now, as ever, the Constitution is open to interpretation. Following Doe v Bush, the power to 'declare war' has been extended to include any military action authorized by Congress according the War Powers Act (1973). I think Rev disagrees with this interpretation, but dissent is an indispensable freedom; a freedom many in this thread have taken beyond mere criticism, and engaged in flaming -- which has a place on this site, just not here. :salute:

actually i meant the lives of foreign nationals who live in nations we happen to be fighting a war in as well as civilians who happen to sympathize with our sworn enemies. Obviously not every person fits into either one or the other of those categories. But we try our damnest to win hearts and minds and not just kill to be killing.

As for the world police. No in fact I believe we should shut down every foreign base and bring home every single troop UNLESS the host country is willing to for our services. AND that our foreign policy should be "Leave us alone, and we'll mind our own business, but if you fuck with us, God have mercy on your soul because we won't."

[ConHog]

I know what you mean but we're talking about a citizen being targeted not a citizen, or civilian, who happens to be in the way; i.e. the son of the aforementioned citizen.

I don't think we owe the generic citizen who chooses to go to/stay in a warzone any special consideration other than what CH will point out that we do anyway.

So you believe a US citizen should be able to plot terrorist acts against our government and our people while hiding in some cave in a country which knowingly hides terrorists and that our response should be either A) apprehend him or B) just let him be?

In the name of all the blood that I and my brothers and sisters have given fighting this war fuck you. That scumbag got what he deserves plain and simple. You grab a ruck and a pair of handcuffs and go arrest one of them, See how your mind changes then. fucking monday morning quarterbacks who never laced up a boot piss me off.

[logroller]

It seems we are talking about two different threads here. As abhorrent as it is, the OP attack was within the rules of war. It was a targeted attack of a military convoy; wasn't it?

Is the attack of a US citizen abroad, who had made threats against the US within the rules of war-- that's the question posed in another thread.

As to rather we are at war-- we are, Congress approved it, and it was upheld by SCOTUS-- does that operation extend beyond the borders of Afghanistan and IRaq, to Pakistan,Yemen and wherever else there are terrorists... that begs further consideration. If we are to accept we are at war with every enemy, everywhere--then-- documents have linked enemy operatives receiving assistance from Ghadaffi; therefore the prez was justified in bombing Libya. Which, as I recall, many here opposed-- including Rev, I might add. You may disagree with him, but at least he's consistent.

[jimnyc]

Which, as I recall, many here opposed-- including Rev, I might add. You may disagree with him, but at least he's consistent.

Yes, he consistently voices his complaints about the US government, our military and our intel agencies. He consistently defends the rights of terrorists, or the treatment they receive. He consistently falls silent when it comes to the same happening to Americans, or other atrocities befalling our military. If it were BOTH ways I could see him as holding us to a higher standard argument, but it's become obvious over time that anything bad happening to our troops from the terrorists does not interest him much.

[ConHog]

It seems we are talking about two different threads here. As abhorrent as it is, the OP attack was within the rules of war. It was a targeted attack of a military convoy; wasn't it?

Is the attack of a US citizen abroad, who had made threats against the US within the rules of war-- that's the question posed in another thread.

As to rather we are at war-- we are, Congress approved it, and it was upheld by SCOTUS-- does that operation extend beyond the borders of Afghanistan and IRaq, to Pakistan,Yemen and wherever else there are terrorists... that begs further consideration. If we are to accept we are at war with every enemy, everywhere--then-- documents have linked enemy operatives receiving assistance from Ghadaffi; therefore the prez was justified in bombing Libya. Which, as I recall, many here opposed-- including Rev, I might add. You may disagree with him, but at least he's consistent.

I am for bombing the shit out of anyone who we have credible evidence is an enemy of our country. If that cave happens to contain a a traitor, too bad, He took his chances. And yes I 100% stand behind Obama's decision to bomb the cock roach in Libya.

[fj1200]

So you believe a US citizen should be able to plot terrorist acts against our government and our people while hiding in some cave in a country which knowingly hides terrorists and that our response should be either A) apprehend him or B) just let him be?

Nope, I just don't want some unaccountable committee making these grand determinations.


In the name of all the blood that I and my brothers and sisters have given fighting this war fuck you. That scumbag got what he deserves plain and simple. You grab a ruck and a pair of handcuffs and go arrest one of them, See how your mind changes then. fucking monday morning quarterbacks who never laced up a boot piss me off.

Thank you for that well reasoned out position. Whenever the expansion of the police state is in the offing I know where you stand.

[logroller]

I am for bombing the shit out of anyone who we have credible evidence is an enemy of our country. If that cave happens to contain a a traitor, too bad, He took his chances. And yes I 100% stand behind Obama's decision to bomb the cock roach in Libya.

There's an expression I'd like you to mull over, "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

[ConHog]

There's an expression I'd like you to mull over, "when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Sometimes the hammer is the only thing the nail fears.

[logroller]

Sometimes the hammer is the only thing the nail fears.

:laugh2: You proved my point.

[fj1200]

Name some American citizens, living in a foreign country, that have declared war against us, who are a known terrorist leader trying to kill innocent Americans... I can't think of a current person at this point. Can you? So your wonder of how many other citizens boil down to most likely Awlaki. And if there is another terrorist on foreign soil declaring war against us, hopefully, and likely, he would be eliminated as well.

I'll just whip out my copy of the Presidential Daily Briefing and tick off a few. :rolleyes: But I suppose you could be right, it's only one this time and it only took months of deliberation and a 50 page memo for someone in a position of authority to give the go-ahead. So it was an easy decision.


As for the constitution, I think I made myself abundantly clear. It would be up to you, or someone else addressing the court, to prove that his rights were violated. I'd be happy to bet ANY amount you and Rev can put together that if it does ever reach the SC, the ruling will come down against an American citizen, on foreign soil, declaring war against our nation. Short of that ruling, the rest is guessing and opinions.

Do you really think so? Someone would have to prove their case in an actual court of law? With recourse and appeal and rights being affirmed? The F' you say!

[abso]

No he's not.


FACT: The US military guards civilian lives, even those of the enemy, closer than ANY military in the history of man. PERIOD.

yeah, he really did that in Japan in WWII :rolleyes:, and also closer than ANY military in the history of mankind. :salute:

[jimnyc]

yeah, he really did that in Japan in WWII :rolleyes:, and also closer than ANY military in the history of mankind. :salute:

I suppose its better than cutting peoples heads off for the hell of it, but Muslims do that outside of war, so I guess to do it during wartime is normal for you guys.

[jimnyc]

I'll just whip out my copy of the Presidential Daily Briefing and tick off a few. :rolleyes: But I suppose you could be right, it's only one this time and it only took months of deliberation and a 50 page memo for someone in a position of authority to give the go-ahead. So it was an easy decision.



Do you really think so? Someone would have to prove their case in an actual court of law? With recourse and appeal and rights being affirmed? The F' you say!

I know so. You don't just get to cry "human rights violated" and it becomes so. It would take a courts decision, and under these circumstances, no US court will side with a terrorist on foreign soil who has already carried out attacks against Americans and is seeking to kill more innocents.

[logroller]

I know so. You don't just get to cry "human rights violated" and it becomes so. It would take a courts decision, and under these circumstances, no US court will side with a terrorist on foreign soil who has already carried out attacks against Americans and is seeking to kill more innocents.

I'm not against bombing the shit out terrorists, especially on foreign soil (it's better than having it here); but I can't claim our system of justice extends beyond 'we're bigger, stronger and more capable' into we're right too. I think we are, but it's the fact we back it up that makes it so-- even in violation of our own domestic law. The war on terror has become a carte blanche. Once we believe someone to be a terrorist, they're fucked, one way or the other.

[fj1200]

I know so. You don't just get to cry "human rights violated" and it becomes so. It would take a courts decision, and under these circumstances, no US court will side with a terrorist on foreign soil who has already carried out attacks against Americans and is seeking to kill more innocents.

Did you really miss my point wrapped up in sarcasm? Nevertheless at least your willing to have judicial review after even though you apparently are OK with the executive branch being able to "convict" a traitor without trial, hearing, or appeal. Hell, a 50 page memo means they took it seriously at least.

[jimnyc]

Did you really miss my point wrapped up in sarcasm? Nevertheless at least your willing to have judicial review after even though you apparently are OK with the executive branch being able to "convict" a traitor without trial, hearing, or appeal. Hell, a 50 page memo means they took it seriously at least.

And did you miss where I posted the 5th amendment which covers the bases and precedent on this issue? Of course you didn't, you just don't want to acknowledge it as it doesn't suit your argument.

To think we should have a court hearing before we go after a known terrorist on foreign soil is ridiculous. Precedent and the 5th amendment is good enough for me. Hell, the fact that he is responsible for American deaths and vowed to have more killed, and is an enemy combatant, is good enough for me. But again, you keep going on about memos when there is precedent on this issue and not to mention the 5th amendment took away any rights he may have had.

[jimnyc]

I'm not against bombing the shit out terrorists, especially on foreign soil (it's better than having it here); but I can't claim our system of justice extends beyond 'we're bigger, stronger and more capable' into we're right too. I think we are, but it's the fact we back it up that makes it so-- even in violation of our own domestic law. The war on terror has become a carte blanche. Once we believe someone to be a terrorist, they're fucked, one way or the other.

Once we believe? Wasn't his videos enough proof? LOL He was an admitted terrorist already responsible for attacks on Americans. He's given video and written proof of his desire to attack Americans wherever they may be. No, sorry, we didn't just believe he was a terrorist, he WAS a terrorist.

[ConHog]

yeah, he really did that in Japan in WWII :rolleyes:, and also closer than ANY military in the history of mankind. :salute:

Hello dipshit. Let's try this again. Near the end of WWII it was determined that it would cost 500K Allied lives and 1M Japanese lives to invade Japan. Now unless you truly believe that Japan had 1M men in uniform ready to fight of an invasion you have to accept that part of those 1M were civilians. In fact that is true, the Allies estimated that at least 250K Japanese civilians would die in any attempted invasion of Japan. Therefor the bombs saved Japanese civilian lives. PERIOD.

And NO ONE is saying the bombs weren't horrible. They were.

[ConHog]

I'm not against bombing the shit out terrorists, especially on foreign soil (it's better than having it here); but I can't claim our system of justice extends beyond 'we're bigger, stronger and more capable' into we're right too. I think we are, but it's the fact we back it up that makes it so-- even in violation of our own domestic law. The war on terror has become a carte blanche. Once we believe someone to be a terrorist, they're fucked, one way or the other.

That simply isn't true. They had way more than adequate proof that this guy was ACTIVELY plotting against us before they acted. Now I agree that there is a line where we should say "look we don't know that this guy is an enemy" and that line should be hard and fast. Certainly the President shouldn't be able to just eliminate whomever he wants without a pretty high standard of evidence to support his reasoning.

This guy was scum. On that we're agreed, yes? He was outside of our jurisdiction? He was in a country identified as a supporter of terrorism?
There is only so many options available to us. Three in fact.

1. Send in a SF team to "arrest" him
2. Take his ass out
3. Ignore him

Now the question is which of those three options is the best option? I say option 2. Surely you don't say option 3?

[fj1200]

And did you miss where I posted the 5th amendment which covers the bases and precedent on this issue? Of course you didn't, you just don't want to acknowledge it as it doesn't suit your argument.

I read your link, pretty thin if you ask me but would you be swayed by all of the precedent that would go the other way? Doubtful. But I know your content that the precedent that's out there is specific to this instance. :rolleyes: If it was then there really wouldn't be much debate would there?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/justifying-the-killing-of-an-american.html?_r=2&hp


To think we should have a court hearing before we go after a known terrorist on foreign soil is ridiculous. Precedent and the 5th amendment is good enough for me. Hell, the fact that he is responsible for American deaths and vowed to have more killed, and is an enemy combatant, is good enough for me. But again, you keep going on about memos when there is precedent on this issue and not to mention the 5th amendment took away any rights he may have had.

Keep leaving out that he's a US citizen and subject to certain protections but nevertheless, you're the one who called him a traitor which is specifically defined in the constitution. Have we met the treason standard? I don't know, you haven't answered me.

A bill of right took away his rights. :laugh:

except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
Are you claiming that he is the service of the US "land or naval forces, or in the Militia"?

[fj1200]

Now I agree that there is a line where we should say "look we don't know that this guy is an enemy" and that line should be hard and fast. Certainly the President shouldn't be able to just eliminate whomever he wants without a pretty high standard of evidence to support his reasoning.

Well, F' me! After all of this you agree with my position.


There is only so many options available to us. Three in fact.

Nope, how about four.

Develop an unassailable process that affords protections to US citizens accused of crimes against its citizens while determining guilt or innocence.

And then your options become valid.

[ConHog]

I read your link, pretty thin if you ask me but would you be swayed by all of the precedent that would go the other way? Doubtful. But I know your content that the precedent that's out there is specific to this instance. :rolleyes: If it was then there really wouldn't be much debate would there?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/justifying-the-killing-of-an-american.html?_r=2&hp



Keep leaving out that he's a US citizen and subject to certain protections but nevertheless, you're the one who called him a traitor which is specifically defined in the constitution. Have we met the treason standard? I don't know, you haven't answered me.

A bill of right took away his rights. :laugh:

Are you claiming that he is the service of the US "land or naval forces, or in the Militia"?


FJ, let's say you're right and that he should be tried . We COULD try him in absentia (unless you'd argue that was unconstitutional as well) , but what would that gain? Would it THEN be alright to take his ass out with a Predator? Or would we then have to hope he surrendered for sentencing, or invade a foreign nation to affect an arrest, or just forget about him?

[jimnyc]

I read your link, pretty thin if you ask me but would you be swayed by all of the precedent that would go the other way? Doubtful. But I know your content that the precedent that's out there is specific to this instance. :rolleyes: If it was then there really wouldn't be much debate would there?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/12/opinion/justifying-the-killing-of-an-american.html?_r=2&hp



Keep leaving out that he's a US citizen and subject to certain protections but nevertheless, you're the one who called him a traitor which is specifically defined in the constitution. Have we met the treason standard? I don't know, you haven't answered me.

A bill of right took away his rights. :laugh:

Are you claiming that he is the service of the US "land or naval forces, or in the Militia"?

You're not going to change your mind, and you've given me no reason whatsoever to change mind. But what it boils down to is whether targeting an American terrorist on foreign soil, during wartime, is unconstitutional. One cannot simply declare something to be unconstitutional. Like I said before, it will require a court decision, and I'm still willing to bet that no court in the land will look at these facts and side with a terrorist, American or not. Outside of that all we have is a bunch of opinions.

[fj1200]

FJ, let's say you're right and that he should be tried . We COULD try him in absentia (unless you'd argue that was unconstitutional as well) , but what would that gain? Would it THEN be alright to take his ass out with a Predator? Or would we then have to hope he surrendered for sentencing, or invade a foreign nation to affect an arrest, or just forget about him?

Light him up. I have no love lost for a terrorist mastermind I just think we need checks on government action, especially where it concerns a US citizen, just like government should have a check on everything it does. Of course we could try to arrest first like OBL and that also assumes we have that option depending on the foreign country and its policies. Are you claiming that we should invade, say China, if Awlaki was living there?

[fj1200]

You're not going to change your mind, and you've given me no reason whatsoever to change mind. But what it boils down to is whether targeting an American terrorist on foreign soil, during wartime, is unconstitutional. One cannot simply declare something to be unconstitutional. Like I said before, it will require a court decision, and I'm still willing to bet that no court in the land will look at these facts and side with a terrorist, American or not. Outside of that all we have is a bunch of opinions.

When a citizen is denied due process... it's pretty clear. Are you now avoiding acknowledging points that don't suit your argument?

[jimnyc]

When a citizen is denied due process... it's pretty clear. Are you now avoiding acknowledging points that don't suit your argument?

Nope, just refuse to debate something forever when its obvious neither is being swayed. Like I've stated, I've seen nothing posted by yourself that would change my mind. The ONLY way for the debate to cease is going to be a court decision, IF it goes that far. While I'm not going to debate for 50 pages at a clip, I'm more than willing to bet on the outcome of any specific case against Awlaki. The constitutionality is what is in question here, and we at this board cannot determine that, only a court can.

[ConHog]

Light him up. I have no love lost for a terrorist mastermind I just think we need checks on government action, especially where it concerns a US citizen, just like government should have a check on everything it does. Of course we could try to arrest first like OBL and that also assumes we have that option depending on the foreign country and its policies. Are you claiming that we should invade, say China, if Awlaki was living there?

I think we both know we're not going to be launching any missiles into China anytime soon.


Now, you didn't answer as to how you feel about a trial in abesntia. Is that legal? Does lighting the fucker up with a cruise missile constitute cruel and unusual punishment? Is it a fair trial if he didn't have a chance to cross examine his accusers? etc etc.

I mean surely you can see why this is at best a touch subject (and to be fair Jim automatically saying this is constitutional is bogus as well, it's not clear at all)

The ONLY real question here is are we as a people willing to bypass constitutional rights for people who are actively engaged in war with our country? I think EVERYONE is to one degree or another. Well, revfarts probably isn't. He'd probably prefer that a soldier be executed in the terrorists place; but sane people realize that we can't just ignore a person who is involved with AQ just because he's living in a hostile country even though he's an American citizen. The only debate really is, to what degree do we limit those rights. Some think a trial is good enough if found guilty go ahead and cruise missile his ass (that would still be questionably unconstitutional, some believe common sense looking at the evidence is enough no need to go to trial just blast him) but very few believe that we should actually go try to arrest the guy and that would clearly be the only constitutional thing to do.

Of course the whole situation could be remedied by amending the Constitution to read that the USG is only bound to protect the rights of its citizens within her own borders. And how far fetched is that really? I mean does anyone go to Yeman and start screaming for the USG to protect their right to free speech , for instance? Of course not.

[ConHog]

Nope, just refuse to debate something forever when its obvious neither is being swayed. Like I've stated, I've seen nothing posted by yourself that would change my mind. The ONLY way for the debate to cease is going to be a court decision, IF it goes that far. While I'm not going to debate for 50 pages at a clip, I'm more than willing to bet on the outcome of any specific case against Awlaki. The constitutionality is what is in question here, and we at this board cannot determine that, only a court can.

I wouldn't be so fast there Jim, my wife is of the opinion that there are MANY constitutional issues at play in this case. Not just due process, but also cruel and unusual punishment. I wouldn't bet against the Court ruling against the government in this case, and I'm not sure they shouldn't if it went to court to be honest.

[jimnyc]

I wouldn't be so fast there Jim, my wife is of the opinion that there are MANY constitutional issues at play in this case. Not just due process, but also cruel and unusual punishment. I wouldn't bet against the Court ruling against the government in this case, and I'm not sure they shouldn't if it went to court to be honest.

Quite a few at play, agreed, but I still don't see any court in the land siding with the rights of a terrorist, fighting against Americans, while on foreign soil. And like you alluded to, if pushed, they will just have a quickie hush hush trial in absentia, find him guilty, and avoid the monday morning QB'ing. They're certainly not going to have a 5 year drawn out trial with appeals while a terrorist runs around the world looking to recruit terrorists and try and find ways to kill Americans. Either way, terrorists acting against America will be killed.

[jimnyc]

Here's a good article probably in line with what the governments take would be should this ever reach a court:


President Obama’s targeted killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and died in Yemen fighting for al Qaeda, is a victory for America and for common sense.

For the first time since the days of Abraham Lincoln, an American president has ordered the killing of a U.S. citizen, far from any battlefield or courtroom.

And like Abraham Lincoln, Obama has saved the constitution and the country by defending it against a nihilistic and narrow reading of the constitution that would prevent the country from protecting itself.

This has shocked the American Civil Liberties Union, Ron Paul, legal scholars, and libertarians, who have long argued that the constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which says that no citizen shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” means that the constitution bars killing non-combatants without a trial. Since Awlaki had not been convicted in a proper court or hasn’t been killed while shooting at American soldiers, they contend, his killing is unconstitutional. A side argument, beloved by the ACLU, is that the method of deciding who goes on the CIA target list is secret and therefore an illegal violation of due process.

These are clever arguments, but wrong. Federal courts have rejected the ACLU’s view when it brought a case seeking to bar the listing of U.S. citizens on the CIA’s terrorist hit list. Awlaki’s own father made a similar argument in another court and it too was rejected.

In the first year of the Obama administration, an intense legal and ethical debate raged behind closed doors. Ultimately, the president himself had to decide. A former constitutional law lecturer, Obama knew the stakes. Wars usually tempt presidents into stretching constitutional limits and, initially, he seemed skeptical of targeting U.S. citizens.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and then-CIA director Leon Panetta, according to one account related to me, were the “war wing.” They took the hardline view that Americans who seek to kill other Americans can themselves be killed to save lives. After all, it is war. And, the Fifth Amendment was never successfully used in court to limit a president’s war-fighting powers.

Attorney General Eric Holder and other lawyers close to the president took a view similar to the ACLU’s. Congress authorized war in Afghanistan, they said, not Yemen. So the “battlefield exception” does not apply. And killing a U.S. citizen was simply wrong.

After much debate, the president came to a surprisingly balanced legal decision. Awlaki was an “imminent threat” to the lives of Americans and our allies. Based on Awlaki’s links to two 9/11 hijackers, to the leadership of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (a branch of bin Laden’s outfit), and his key role in propagandizing non-Arabic speakers to join the jihad against America, there is no doubt that he posed a continuing and urgent threat. As evidence accumulated of Awlaki’s links to Major Nidal Hasan (the Fort Hood shooter) and Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab, the so-called underpants bomber who planned to down a Detroit-bound jet on Christmas day, and the Times Square bomber, these developments only confirmed Obama’s view that Awlaki was a clear and present danger.

Rest here - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/30/anwar-al-awlaki-and-why-president-barack-obama-is-right-to-kill-u-s-citizens.html

[fj1200]

I think we both know we're not going to be launching any missiles into China anytime soon.

Now, you didn't answer as to how you feel about a trial in abesntia. Is that legal? Does lighting the fucker up with a cruise missile constitute cruel and unusual punishment? Is it a fair trial if he didn't have a chance to cross examine his accusers? etc etc.

I mean surely you can see why this is at best a touch subject (and to be fair Jim automatically saying this is constitutional is bogus as well, it's not clear at all)

I'm not sure why you brought it up then because there are clearly other contingencies that need to be considered. As far as trials in absentia, I know of no constitutional issues but here is an opinion from a Conservative regarding that and the Awlaki thing in general; he also addresses the due process problems.

Given that set of facts and circumstances, what is a conservative to do? The problem is a practical one: the ludicrous spectacle of trials in absentia has undermined the moral authority of many a court, and we would do ourselves no favors by adopting such a procedure here.
I believe the answer lies in the creation of a new protocol empowering the courts to strip an individual of his citizenship on clearly specified grounds, including proven or admitted involvement in the planning and execution of terrorist activities. Such a process could legitimately be conducted in the absence of the accused, provided a court-appointed attorney was made available to challenge the State's case for revocation. Only if and when the case for revocation was accepted by the court (or jury) could an individual be stripped of his citizenship and the constitutional protection of the Fifth Amendment.Such a procedure would be seen to be in full accordance with the concept of due process envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, but without the awkward artificiality and impracticality of a trial in absentia, or worse, the constitutional illegality of a death warrant issued by government fiat.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/10/the_killing_of_al-awlaki_and_the_death_of_the_fifth_amendment.html#i xzz1clqcm6Y8


The ONLY real question here is are we as a people willing to bypass constitutional rights for people who are actively engaged in war with our country? I think EVERYONE is to one degree or another. Well, revfarts probably isn't. He'd probably prefer that a soldier be executed in the terrorists place; but sane people realize that we can't just ignore a person who is involved with AQ just because he's living in a hostile country even though he's an American citizen. The only debate really is, to what degree do we limit those rights. Some think a trial is good enough if found guilty go ahead and cruise missile his ass (that would still be questionably unconstitutional, some believe common sense looking at the evidence is enough no need to go to trial just blast him) but very few believe that we should actually go try to arrest the guy and that would clearly be the only constitutional thing to do.

Of course the whole situation could be remedied by amending the Constitution to read that the USG is only bound to protect the rights of its citizens within her own borders. And how far fetched is that really? I mean does anyone go to Yeman and start screaming for the USG to protect their right to free speech , for instance? Of course not.

That's unnecessary and overboard. Treason is covered as is due process. No need to amend anything for the occasional Awlaki just a defined process. But it's not the only question as there are different circumstances; citizens both foreign and domestic residing, Gitmo detainees, etc. There is no reason to toss out our values and constitution for some perceived safety.

[fj1200]

Nope, just refuse to debate... The constitutionality is what is in question here, and we at this board cannot determine that, only a court can.

So you get sore when I don't respond to your issues but you'll refuse to debate when I post something that counters... OK.

Also, for the third time, right only a court can determine constitutional but we can certainly have an opinion especially as it regards what you're willing to accept for "safety."

[fj1200]

... Obama has saved the constitution and the country...
A former constitutional law lecturer, Obama knew the stakes.
... the president came to a surprisingly balanced legal decision.
Rest here - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/09/30/anwar-al-awlaki-and-why-president-barack-obama-is-right-to-kill-u-s-citizens.html

Oh brother, you don't like BO that much.

[jimnyc]

So you get sore when I don't respond to your issues but you'll refuse to debate when I post something that counters... OK.

Also, for the third time, right only a court can determine constitutional but we can certainly have an opinion especially as it regards what you're willing to accept for "safety."

We are on page 5 of this thread. I'm pretty much the only one until CH chimed in that took this stance. I've addressed every last issue and then some. I need not continue indefinitely. I never saw a point in the 200 page threads of back and forth and back and forth. I've refused absolutely nothing and you saying so after 5 pages only makes you look like a dolt. And I never said you couldn't have an opinion, just that I disagreed with it.

[jimnyc]

Oh brother, you don't like BO that much.

Can't stand him. But he's right in taking out a danger to our country.

Had the EXACT same scenario been true, and let's assume for a second that OBL was an American - and we had a chance to kill him - can you imagine the outcry over "allowing" him to take out the towers? Too many idiots already think the government should have done more to protect us from terrorism on that day. Maybe they should have sent the NYC police to Afghanistan prior to try and arrest a few people! :laugh2:

[fj1200]

We are on page 5 of this thread. I'm pretty much the only one until CH chimed in that took this stance. I've addressed every last issue and then some. I need not continue indefinitely. I never saw a point in the 200 page threads of back and forth and back and forth. I've refused absolutely nothing and you saying so after 5 pages only makes you look like a dolt. And I never said you couldn't have an opinion, just that I disagreed with it.

You may choose to think that but you can also choose to be wrong.

[fj1200]

Can't stand him. But he's right in taking out a danger to our country.

Had the EXACT same scenario been true, and let's assume for a second that OBL was an American - and we had a chance to kill him - can you imagine the outcry over "allowing" him to take out the towers? Too many idiots already think the government should have done more to protect us from terrorism on that day. Maybe they should have sent the NYC police to Afghanistan prior to try and arrest a few people! :laugh2:

I certainly can't stop you from creating scenarios that make you think you have a stronger position than you have... so have at it.

[jimnyc]

You may choose to think that but you can also choose to be wrong.


I certainly can't stop you from creating scenarios that make you think you have a stronger position than you have... so have at it.

Whatever. I'm not going to play your little games.

[fj1200]

Right, you'll play your's.

[jimnyc]

Right, you'll play your's.

Sure, conceding that neither is going to change their stance and further debate is futile, means I am playing a game. That makes no sense.

[fj1200]

Creating a strawman, ensuring that you get the last word, saying someone else looks foolish for doing the same thing you do, your attempt to take the high road, etc. That is playing a game.