FOX: U.S. Born Terror Boss Anwar Al-Awlaki Killed

[Predicto]

Predicto, you said you question the JFK story. You've mocked people who "question" things, yet there you are "questioning" the official story of the JFK assassination. Are you a JFK troofer?

I guess I'll quote myself from that old thread.

I hate most conspiracy theories more than almost anyone you have ever met, but I too question the JFK thing. Not the "magic bullet" nonsense - I am certain that Oswald was the only shooter and Oliver Stone should be ashamed of himself. But whether someone put Oswald up to it, be it the Soviets or the Mafia... that I'm not so sure about.

However, then I talk to a conspiracy nut, and find out that he believes in 9/11 truther stuff, and also believes Obama birther stuff, and also believes in chemtrails, and in FEMA camps and black helicopters, and that global warming is a hoax, and the moon landing never happened, and the North America Union and the Amero, and the Illuminati and the New World Order, and that AIDS was created in a CIA lab for population control, and Roswell has a flying saucer and dead aliens, and that flouride is used for mind control, and that the government uses HAARP to cause earthquakes, and the Philadelphia Experiment teleported a battleship, and that the CIA was running drugs on Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, and that Princess Diana was murdered by the Queen, and that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance, and that Paul is Dead while Elvis and Hitler are both Alive ....

AND then they buy into the JFK conspiracy theories too...

Well, that just makes me embrace every page of the Warren Commission Report.

Does that make sense? It's the difference between having an open mind ... or a mind so open that your brain falls out.

Also, nutty websites in regards to the global warming emails, like the Wall Street Journal, LA Times, The Telegraph UK, US News, The Washington Times...etc? Those nutty websites

Editorial spin against global climate change is sadly common in the conservative press, and concervative editorials employed by the mainstram press. However, just like the ACORN scandal, the actual facts turned out not to be nearly as damning as the headlines.

I will defer to Peter MP for more on that subject, if he chooses to speak up.

[Redskins Diehard]

Then you could have him arrested and give him a trial and throw him in prison if he is convicted. That's the problem. You can't arrest him in the mountains of Yemen or Afganistan. But he's still there, still doing that terrorist thing.

Modern terrorism is a real dilemma, and I consider myself a strong civil libertarian.

---------- Post added September-30th-2011 at 12:34 PM ----------

You are a hoot. Never change.

Have to say I disagree with you assertion that we have no option but to kill the man with a drone strike because he is in Yemen and not Montana. Especially since the government of Yemen is at least loosely cooperating with us. Gitmo is full of people that were captured/arrested outside the United States. Perhaps instead of worrying about trials we fly a few Reapers or Predators down there? The interesting thing about this guy is that not only has he not been tried and convicted but the people that he has inspired have also not been tried or convicted of anything. Is there a limit to where we will fly them? Where we will fly them armed? There was an interesting article in the Washington Post about a week ago about the program.

It does look to me like good, bad, or indifferent we are "all in" on the UAV approach.

[War Paint]

Does that make sense? It's the difference between having an open mind ... or a mind so open that your brain falls out.

Okay, so when Predicto has "questions" and believes there is a conspiracy, it is open mindedness. When others "question" official stories, they are tinfoiled hat wearers. Gotcha!

[PeterMP]

Editorial spin against global climate change is sadly common in the conservative press, and concervative editorials employed by the mainstram press. However, just like the ACORN scandal, the actual facts turned out not to be nearly as damning as the headlines.

I will defer to Peter MP for more on that subject, if he chooses to speak up.

There are several threads on the e-mails and climategate, including one that discusses the e-mails in details, in general.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?309520-Climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-Anthropogenic-Global-Warming

If he'd like to make a paticular point, he's welcome to find the relevant discussion in that thread and comment. I don't see the need to discuss this for the nteenth time in another thread.

---------- Post added September-30th-2011 at 09:19 PM ----------

Have to say I disagree with you assertion that we have no option but to kill the man with a drone strike because he is in Yemen and not Montana. Especially since the government of Yemen is at least loosely cooperating with us. Gitmo is full of people that were captured/arrested outside the United States. Perhaps instead of worrying about trials we fly a few Reapers or Predators down there? The interesting thing about this guy is that not only has he not been tried and convicted but the people that he has inspired have also not been tried or convicted of anything. Is there a limit to where we will fly them? Where we will fly them armed? There was an interesting article in the Washington Post about a week ago about the program.

It does look to me like good, bad, or indifferent we are "all in" on the UAV approach.

It seems like they could have tried him in abstentia.

[Predicto]

Have to say I disagree with you assertion that we have no option but to kill the man with a drone strike because he is in Yemen and not Montana. Especially since the government of Yemen is at least loosely cooperating with us. Gitmo is full of people that were captured/arrested outside the United States.

Yes, and when we can go the arrest and incercerate route, we should do it.

When the guy stays in hiding in an area that we have no control over, it isnt the same. We don't control the mountains of Pakistan (and neither does the Pakistani government). Believe me, the Government of Yemen has zero control over Jawf province, the NW region where Al-Awlaki was hiding out. So, when he is there for years, and we have endless intelligence indicating that he is continuing to plot terrorist acts against us, what do we do?

I doubt you would approve of a US invasion of Yemen to get him, and neither would I.

I don't have the answers. I don't claim to have them. I'm troubled.

---------- Post added September-30th-2011 at 06:30 PM ----------

Okay, so when Predicto has "questions" and believes there is a conspiracy, it is open mindedness. When others "question" official stories, they are tinfoiled hat wearers. Gotcha!

When others rely on bogus speculation from useless sources on the internet, treat rumors as fact, treat the absence of evidence as evidence, ignore or misunderstand easy principles of science, are totally sceptical toward all "mainstream" sources but infinitely accepting of all "alternative" sources, rely on "common sense" in ways that are clearly nonsensical, reach harebrained preordained conclusions, and do it EVERY SINGLE TIME, yep, they are tin foil hat wearers.

Yes, I do think my judgment is better than yours and my ability to weigh sources for reliability is better than yours and my skills at processing information and weeding out gibberish is better than yours adn my ability to examine my own misconceptions is better than yours. I'm sorry, I know that it is offensive to say that out loud, but that is what it comes down to. And not just me, of course. 90 plus percent of this message board community.

[War Paint]

[

When others rely on bogus speculation from useless sources on the internet, treat rumors as fact, treat the absence of evidence as evidence, ignore or misunderstand easy principles of science, are totally sceptical toward all "mainstream" sources but infinitely accepting of all "alternative" sources, rely on "common sense" in ways that are clearly nonsensical, reach harebrained preordained conclusions, and do it EVERY SINGLE TIME, yep, they are tin foil hat wearers.

Yes, I do think my judgment is better than yours and my ability to weigh sources for reliability is better than yours and my skills at processing information and weeding out gibberish is better than yours adn my ability to examine my own misconceptions is better than yours. I'm sorry, I know that it is offensive to say that out loud, but that is what it comes down to. And not just me, of course. 90 plus percent of this message board community.

So, what's your source in regards to the mafia or the soviets being involved with JFK? Where did you process this information with your dizzying intellect? The only thing missing from your quote is "It's my ball! I'm taking it and going home!"

[Redskins Diehard]

There are several threads on the e-mails and climategate, including one that discusses the e-mails in details, in general.

http://www.extremeskins.com/showthread.php?309520-Climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-Anthropogenic-Global-Warming

If he'd like to make a paticular point, he's welcome to find the relevant discussion in that thread and comment. I don't see the need to discuss this for the nteenth time in another thread.

---------- Post added September-30th-2011 at 09:19 PM ----------

It seems like they could have tried him in abstentia.

Did they? Are you saying it is possible they did? Or something that could be done in general?

[PeterMP]

Did they? Are you saying it is possible they did? Or something that could be done in general?

To my knowledge, they didn't. I'm not a lawyer, but I think they could have, and I would have liked for them to do it. If you are going to kill an American citizen, I'd like to see AT LEAST some sort of trial before you do it.

[Predicto]

So, what's your source in regards to the mafia or the soviets being involved with JFK? Where did you process this information with your dizzying intellect?

I don't have any reliable source. I have heard motivations suggested that seem plausible to me, but I have seen no hard evidence. I don't assume the official story is false either, because absence of evidence is not evidence. So, even though I indule in a little "what-if" game in my mind, in general I leave the whole thing in the realm of empty speculation (where it belongs). I certainly don't jump to the conclusion that there was a conspiracy.

[Redskins Diehard]

Yes, and when we can go the arrest and incercerate route, we should do it.

When the guy stays in hiding in an area that we have no control over, it isnt the same. We don't control the mountains of Pakistan (and neither does the Pakistani government). Believe me, the Government of Yemen has zero control over Jawf province, the NW region where Al-Awlaki was hiding out. So, when he is there for years, and we have endless intelligence indicating that he is continuing to plot terrorist acts against us, what do we do?

I doubt you would approve of a US invasion of Yemen to get him, and neither would I.

I don't have the answers. I don't claim to have them. I'm troubled.

The most difficult part of "bringing these people to justice" is not the capture, not the missile launch, not anything other than finding out exactly where they are. It is a big world out there : ) Look at the Bin Laden case. It took us a decade to figure out where he was. And a few months to conduct a direct action raid in a sovereign country without permission. The fact that the Yemeni government doesn't have any control over that part of their country gives us even more leverage for going in there. I'd argue that is why we have permission to fly armed UAVs there in the first place. The notion that we have two options: 1) unilateral executive branch execution and 2) let him stay there and plot attacks is far from accurate. I'd bet the TF 160th guys would LOVE to fly those stealth helicopters some more. And you would have no problem finding Army or Navy JSOC units that would be eager to go after him.

Believe me, I am not sad to see this guy go. I am a little concerned about the precedent it sets. And even more concerned that the people that are usually a lot more concerned than I am seem not to be concerned all that much.

[twa]

To my knowledge, they didn't. I'm not a lawyer, but I think they could have, and I would have liked for them to do it. If you are going to kill an American citizen, I'd like to see AT LEAST some sort of trial before you do it.

Is there a need for a trial with the AUMF in effect?

A Presidential directive or memo should be sufficient no matter the citizenship status....this is not a criminal matter(though the present administration certainly attempted to cloud that issue)

[BRAVEONAWARPATH]

Deleted post.

[PeterMP]

Is there a need for a trial with the AUMF in effect?

A Presidential directive or memo should be sufficient no matter the citizenship status....this is not a criminal matter(though the present administration certainly attempted to cloud that issue)

Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. But if you are going to go out of your way to kill an American citizen, I'd like to see some independent body look at all the data and conclude this guy needs killing. A jury via trial would be a good way to do that in my opinion.

Since there is no mention of an AUMF in the Constitution and there have been limited Supreme Court decisions w/ respect to an AUMF, I think it is very cloudy as to what an AUMF allows a President to do.

[PeterMP]

You know people say that this guy understood the US because he had lived here. I guess he might have understood how to talk to Muslim Americans that feel isolated, but I think the fact that Obama issued an order for him to be killed and that was never taken to court shows he didn't understand the US legal system, and the larger picture of US politics. Heck, he probably could have delayed his killing for years through court challenges, and can you imagine the uproar if he had been killed while there was a case still being heard over the legality of the federal government being able to kill him.

[Hunter44]

Like I said, I'm not a lawyer. But if you are going to go out of your way to kill an American citizen, I'd like to see some independent body look at all the data and conclude this guy needs killing. A jury via trial would be a good way to do that in my opinion.

Didn't the guy admit to what he was accused of?

[twa]

DOJ memo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,”

..

The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces beyond “hot,” or traditional, battlefields such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Officials said that certain belligerents aren’t shielded because of their citizenship.

“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” an administration official said in a statement Friday.

[PeterMP]

Didn't the guy admit to what he was accused of?

I don't know, but if he had, that should have made it really easy to convict of him of treason.

---------- Post added October-1st-2011 at 11:08 AM ----------

DOJ memo

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,”

Clearly, they thought it was legal (or at least thought they could make an argument that it was legal), but that doesn't make it so. The President doesn't get to decide what is legal for him to do.

If this guy really understood the US, he would have found somebody to challenge that decision in court for him.

[nonniey]

The most difficult part of "bringing these people to justice" is not the capture, not the missile launch, not anything other than finding out exactly where they are. It is a big world out there : ) Look at the Bin Laden case. It took us a decade to figure out where he was. And a few months to conduct a direct action raid in a sovereign country without permission. The fact that the Yemeni government doesn't have any control over that part of their country gives us even more leverage for going in there. I'd argue that is why we have permission to fly armed UAVs there in the first place. The notion that we have two options: 1) unilateral executive branch execution and 2) let him stay there and plot attacks is far from accurate. I'd bet the TF 160th guys would LOVE to fly those stealth helicopters some more. And you would have no problem finding Army or Navy JSOC units that would be eager to go after him.

Believe me, I am not sad to see this guy go. I am a little concerned about the precedent it sets. And even more concerned that the people that are usually a lot more concerned than I am seem not to be concerned all that much.

We have finite resources to execute these type of missions. TF 160 or other ground forces may very well have not been available to execute such a short suspense mission. To complain we used a Reaper and should have captured him flies in the face of reality. The choice given was likely to either kill him or let him go.

[twa]

The court traditionally defers in matters of national security(especially outside our borders) and war powers,leaving it to the Executive and legislative branches.....especially in times when AUMF has been granted.

Not really their jurisdiction....Do ya'll think they should intervene in war power decisions? (that would make for some entertainment)

[PeterMP]

The court traditionally defers in matters of national security and war powers,leaving it to the Executive and legislative branches.....especially in times when AUMF has been granted.

Not really their jurisdiction....Do ya'll think they should intervene in war power decisions? (that would make for some entertainment)

War powers are pretty well set out in the Constitution and there have been various historical precedents w/ respect to war powers. I'd expect the Courts to take up any particular issues, but I also expect those issues for the most part could be settled pretty quickly based on the language in the Constitution and already existing precedents.

AUMF aren't in the Constitution, there have been fewer of them, and all of those have dealt with attacks/force with respect to a particular nation state/limited geographical area (i.e. somewhere with what can at least be broadly defined as boarders) of the world. I don't think it would at all be out of line, for the Supreme Court to address the Constitutionality of various new issues with respect to this particular AUMF is raising.

That is part of their job, you know, to determine if things are Constitutional.

You really aren't advocating that one of the branches of our government should stop doing its job, are you?

[twa]

War powers are pretty well set out in the Constitution and there have been various historical precedents w/ respect to war powers. I'd expect the Courts to take up any particular issues, but I also expect those issues for the most part could be settled pretty quickly based on the language in the Constitution and already existing precedents.

AUMF aren't in the Constitution, there have been fewer of them, and all of those have dealt with attacks/force with respect to a particular nation state/limited geographical area (i.e. somewhere with what can at least be broadly defined as boarders) of the world. I don't think it would at all be out of line, for the Supreme Court to address the Constitutionality of various new issues with respect to this particular AUMF is raising.

That is their job, you know, to determine if things are Constitutional.

But to address it there must be a case that advances to them

THe AUMF was not limited to a state or region,nor is the self defense right that exists w/o a declaration of war or AUMF.

ya might enjoy this legal look at it

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1754223

Who May Be Killed? Anwar al-Awlaki as a Case Study in the International Legal Regulation of Lethal Force

[Fergasun]

I fundamentally disagree with the idea that American citizens can be declared assassination targets without due process.

However, Al-Awlaki had plenty of time to bring up his case to the court. He could've submitted himself to US law and jurisdiction and filed his own court case. He didn't. Only he is the one who qualified for standing in the case, not his dad. I'm not sure the Supreme Court wouldn't smack down the DoJ for their due process here. Court's can only intervene when someone with proper standing ask them to.

[PeterMP]

But to address it there must be a case that advances to them

THe AUMF was not limited to a state or region,nor is the self defense right that exists w/o a declaration of war or AUMF.

Oh, I agree with that. The Supreme Court can't just up and decide something is unconstitutional. Somebody with standing must bring a case.

Which is why I said that if this guy really understood the US, there would have been court case because he would have hired some lawyers to take it to court.

And, this AUMF hasn't been limited, but that's one of the things that make it different, and no, the right of self-defense doesn't, but for example, there are issues where the President's ability to protect the US ends and my right to freedom of speech begins.

Those are the types of issues where there could have been a court case around this.

[twa]

The issue goes beyond speech according to the govt, if it was simply that I would agree

[HailGreen28]

What about setting up a procedure for traitorous Americans like Crazy Al? Set up a trial, notify him. Try him in absentia and then go after him, if he doesn't turn himself in.