Ha I noticed that too, I swear it wasn't me, but apparently my computer at work has a thing for him. Watch your back PP92, my computer is Jones'n for you......

 

 

:lol::lol:

 

I was wondering. I was coming up with replies the first couple of times nad then I was like...why am in this fight.....:lol:

 

I guess your computer has the Patriot Act on me.

The points being debated here are valid, but not in reference to this case. When you have someone who has very publicly declared himself at war with the US, then there is nothing subjective about whether he is an enemy or should be a target.

 

 

:thumb::thumb:

Yea right we should all be jealous, he has 40 virgins now. I know I'm ticked.....

 

I never did understand the fascination with virgins. Maybe it's just me.

My first thought I'm in the killing twice crowd, but the more I thin about it I'm not positive where I fall. I'm definitely going to have to think about this one longer.

 

I'm with you (I know - alert the presses). First the knee-jerk reaction; then some heavy contemplation.

The points being debated here are valid, but not in reference to this case. When you have someone who has very publicly declared himself at war with the US, then there is nothing subjective about whether he is an enemy or should be a target.

 

:thumb:

I watched a documentary about Awlaki around september 11th.

 

He was an extreme danger to the US and I am glad he is out.

 

If we gave him the same rights as a US citizen which by definition of citizenship is where an individual's or a group's relationship to the state; those who are citizens swear allegiance to that state, and that state in return is obligated to provide rights to those individuals or the members of that group.

 

He didn't swear allegiance to the US and helped gain members for terrorist groups. IMO and by definition, the US had no obligation to treat him as a citizen or give him citizen rights.

Sure and not killing him could deminish their authority and paint a bigger target of we're too French to do some thing about any thing. And yes I'm being about as offensive as I possibly can with this post because I think the whole topic is just dumb.

 

Diminish, isn't it?

Related from Reuters:

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005

 

So much for due process and those other constitutional safeguards for citizens.

I watched a documentary about Awlaki around september 11th.

 

He was an extreme danger to the US and I am glad he is out.

 

If we gave him the same rights as a US citizen which by definition of citizenship is where an individual's or a group's relationship to the state; those who are citizens swear allegiance to that state, and that state in return is obligated to provide rights to those individuals or the members of that group.

 

He didn't swear allegiance to the US and helped gain members for terrorist groups. IMO and by definition, the US had no obligation to treat him as a citizen or give him citizen rights.

 

So the pledge to act against the US and to encourage others to do so costs you your rights but if you actually bomb a US Govt building and kill people you get to retain your rights?

I watched a documentary about Awlaki around september 11th.

 

He was an extreme danger to the US and I am glad he is out.

 

If we gave him the same rights as a US citizen which by definition of citizenship is where an individual's or a group's relationship to the state; those who are citizens swear allegiance to that state, and that state in return is obligated to provide rights to those individuals or the members of that group.

 

He didn't swear allegiance to the US and helped gain members for terrorist groups. IMO and by definition, the US had no obligation to treat him as a citizen or give him citizen rights.

 

Perhaps I've missed it, did Awlaki formally renounce his citizenship or did the Department of State officially determine that he was no longer a citizen of the US? If neither of the above, while I'm no expert on citizenship law, I'd think Awlaki was still a US citizen at the time he was executed.

 

It's a very dangerous and slippery slope if the Executive Branch on its own gets to decide when a US citizen has taken actions that justify execution without legal process. If I hold a rally on Fountain Square and encourage people to revolt against our Govt to the point of calling for people to assasinate the the President, should the President be able to have me executed without a trial? Lordy, I hope not.

 

There is no doubt that I'm glad this guy is no longer breathing; but add me to the list of people that feels very, very uncomfortable about it. It's one thing to wrongly wiretap a US citizen's phone; review their e mails; and otherwise invade their privacy rights without due process. It's something quite different to execute a US citizen without a trial. Members of the far left that were incensed by Bush and the Patriot Act have to be totally livid that the candidate they supported for President has gone much further than Bush did while President. I'd think even moderates are troubled by this too.

I support Obama. I call myself a liberal. I am glad we(USA) killed him. We can go kill McVeigh too. You harm innocent Americans in a form of terrorism(domestic or foreign) then you die. That's my due process.

I support Obama. I call myself a liberal. I am glad we(USA) killed him. We can go kill McVeigh too. You harm innocent Americans in a form of terrorism(domestic or foreign) then you die. That's my due process.

 

Wow. For a strong proponent of civil rights, I find your position very surprising.

I support Obama. I call myself a liberal. I am glad we(USA) killed him. We can go kill McVeigh too. You harm innocent Americans in a form of terrorism(domestic or foreign) then you die. That's my due process.

 

So just as an example, say a person held a rally like the one LN described above, and said that the President is evil and needs to be removed by any means necessary, you'd be okay with the government ordering a sniper to take them out?

So just as an example, say a person held a rally like the one LN described above, and said that the President is evil and needs to be removed by any means necessary, you'd be okay with the government ordering a sniper to take them out?

 

I think PP92 would be okay with a sniper taking me out because I failed to stop completely at a stop sign.

Looking deeper into his past he may or may not have still been a US citizen. He was born in New Mexico to parents who were here on visa's. Some argue that being born in the US borders makes you a life-long citizen and some do not. His family returned to Yemen when he was 7. He returned to the US on foreign student visa and as a citizen of Yemen. Yemen does not recognize dual citizenship. So even before taking up arms against the US from outside our borders his actions were consistent with someone who did not consider himself a state citizen.

 

Citizen, no-citizen, regardless. By splashing his demise on the front page it becomes open to debate. It is one thing to do technically illegal killings clandestinely and not as a matter of open policy - hence the operations of the CIA outside the borders. But his killing was announced by our government in the open, publicly. So now the question is - under what legal policy - US or international does the government have the right to target individuals - US Citizens and non-US Citizens.

 

If they had done this and kept their mouths shut and let it leak out after a few weeks this may not be a debate. But since it is 'policy' its fair game. What is the 'policy'?