Is the United States safer now that we have assassinated a citizen?

We shoot guys in clock towers all the time -- even Americans! It's kind of our rule of thumb.

What would your solution been to this enemy of the USA? He would have slit you from ear to ear Habib if he had gotten a chance. Yes he was a great citizen of our beloved country.

 

I think what Habib is saying is, are we going to now be seen as not just picking on middle-easteners, but willing to stop terrorists that are our own citizens, no matter where they are. Which, hypothetically takes the winds out of the sails of the Al-Quaida propoganda.

What would your solution been to this enemy of the USA? He would have slit you from ear to ear Habib if he had gotten a chance. Yes he was a great citizen of our beloved country.

 

I may be way off here, but I believe Habib's point is that when did we become a country that executed our own citizens? As horrible and inhumane and disgusting as his actions may be, shouldn't he have been afforded the same rights, if possible, as other mass murderers in our country? Shouldn't a capture and trial have been the objective to accomplish the American form of justice? :idunno:

When he became what he did, IMO he stopped being a citizen of the US.

 

A trial would be a mockery and cost millions and only bring attention to his cause.

When he became what he did, IMO he stopped being a citizen of the US.

 

A trial would be a mockery and cost millions and only bring attention to his cause.

 

But it's okay for people like Timothy McVeigh to have a trial? Or other mass-murders?

 

The only difference between this guy and them is that he became a Muslim. So basically you're saying when you become a Muslim you stop being an American citizen?

But it's okay for people like Timothy McVeigh to have a trial? Or other mass-murders?

 

The only difference between this guy and them is that he became a Muslim. So basically you're saying when you become a Muslim you stop being an American citizen?

 

HAHAHAHA

 

T. McVeigh was a lone person with his own agenda, he was not leading thousands like Anwar al-Awlaki was.

 

And not because he was Muslim. Now that was a typical response I expected from you. I try to be sensible and get smark remarks back. Why should I ever try.

For the sake of being contradictory: Is the United States safer now that we have assassinated a citizen?

 

This is a reasonable question. Very reasonable.

 

Awlaki was an American citizen. Had he been killed in normal field operations acting as an enemy combatant directly against US military forces he would have been more than fair game. But that is not the case. He was specifically targeted for assassination. Not capture, not trial. He was given a death sentence without a trial, without a conviction - nothing in a US court. He was just labeled a terrorist and targeted.

 

Had the US revoked Awlaki's citizenship this may have been legal. Had the US held a trial and convicted Awlaki of terrorism and sentenced him to death this may have been legal.

 

But all they did was put a label on him and killed him with no formal due process what so ever - an American Citizen.

 

I am not saying Awlaki did not get what he deserves but the method and lack of process should make every US citizen shutter. This is a dangerous precedent.

 

Additional by MSM:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-us-case-against-awlaki/

But it's okay for people like Timothy McVeigh to have a trial? Or other mass-murders?

 

The only difference between this guy and them is that he became a Muslim. So basically you're saying when you become a Muslim you stop being an American citizen?

When you become an imminent threat to innocent lives, you must be taken out immediately. As I said before, we have done that for our citizens from day one. As for him being a"citizen," the day he renounced his American citizenship and took up arms against this country, he became an enemy combatant. It was his choice, not ours.

HAHAHAHA

 

T. McVeigh was a lone person with his own agenda, he was not leading thousands like Anwar al-Awlaki was.

 

And not because he was Muslim. Now that was a typical response I expected from you. I try to be sensible and get smark remarks back. Why should I ever try.

 

Timothy McVeigh was a terrorist, this guy was a terrorist. Just because he had people following him, doesn't make them any different.

What would your solution been to this enemy of the USA? He would have slit you from ear to ear Habib if he had gotten a chance. Yes he was a great citizen of our beloved country.

 

Trial in abstention or revoke of his US citizenship can and should have been done.

This is a reasonable question. Very reasonable.

 

Awlaki was an American citizen. Had he been killed in normal field operations acting as an enemy combatant directly against US military forces he would have been more than fair game. But that is not the case. He was specifically targeted for assassination. Not capture, not trial. He was given a death sentence without a trial, without a conviction - nothing in a US court. He was just labeled a terrorist and targeted.

 

Had the US revoked Awlaki's citizenship this may have been legal. Had the US held a trial and convicted Awlaki of terrorism and sentenced him to death this may have been legal.

 

But all they did was put a label on him and killed him with no formal due process what so ever - an American Citizen.

 

I am not saying Awlaki did not get what he deserves but the method and lack of process should make every US citizen shutter. This is a dangerous precedent.

 

Additional by MSM:

 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/the-us-case-against-awlaki/

 

Thank you. You more eloquently stated what I was trying to say. :thumb:

 

It definitely causes me to take a moment of pause. A very slippery slope IMO.

When you become an imminent threat to innocent lives, you must be taken out immediately. As I said before, we have done that for our citizens from day one.

 

Why was Timothy McVeigh given a trial then? Using that logic, shouldn't they have just put a bullet between his eyes when they arrested him?

Thank you. You more eloquently stated what I was trying to say. :thumb:

 

It definitely causes me to take a moment of pause. A very slippery slope IMO.

 

Don't be a Tea Party member and labeled a 'terrorist' (remember that label being tossed around cavalierly a few months ago)...you may get a drone missile through front door. No trial, no process!

I think one big difference between the two is the time. McVeigh's trial occurred prior to 9/11, prior to the United States declaring war on terror. Things have changed dramatically over the last 10 years. I think a better barometer would be to see how a McVeigh situation would be handled today.

 

I agree it is a dangerous precedent. It also leads me to another question. Can we declare war on an idea? We call it the War on Terror. So basically anyone who is viewed as a terrorist is an enemy combatant? So, what defines whether a person is a terrorist, and thus an enemy combatant? How do you prosecute a war against terror? How far does it go? Is it just Islamic terrorists or anyone who is a terrorist?

Many have had troubles with rights of citizens being thrown out simply in the name of "fighting terrorism."

 

Why are some just now becoming bothered? I've seen the term "slippery slope" used. The slope has been slippery for quite some time.