Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Al-Qaeda joins those questioning legality of U.S. killing of citizen Awlaki
Washington Post ^ | 10/10/11 | Jason Ukman

Posted on 10/10/2011 12:53:37 PM PDT by RobertClark

Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen has confirmed the deaths of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, the young American propagandist killed alongside him in a U.S. drone strike late last month.

Al-Qaeda has also criticized the Obama administration for killing U.S. citizens, saying doing so “contradicts” American law.

“Where are what they keep talking about regarding freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms?!” the statement says, according to a translation by SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist Web sites.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: alqueda; awlaki; obama; paul; paultards; ronpaul; ronpaul4alqeda; terrorism
How does irony smell? Take a whiff!
1 posted on 10/10/2011 12:53:50 PM PDT by RobertClark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

The only reason most of us have even heard the name Al-Qaeda is because they killed American citizens.

If you go to war, expect the other side to engage in battle.


2 posted on 10/10/2011 12:58:05 PM PDT by thackney (life is fragile, handle with prayer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

It would make a great campaign commercial to show Democrat quotes and quotes from terrorist groups side by side. The talking points are almost identical time and again....... They BOTH want the DESTRUCTION of the USA as it is now!


3 posted on 10/10/2011 1:01:19 PM PDT by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

While I agree it is wrong for the POTUS to order the asassination of a US citizen without judicial oversight, I don’t give a fig about what Al Qaeda thinks.


4 posted on 10/10/2011 1:02:33 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jakerobins
It would make a great campaign commercial to show Democrat quotes and quotes from terrorist groups side by side. The talking points are almost identical time and again....... They BOTH want the DESTRUCTION of the USA as it is now!

Truer words have never been uttered!

5 posted on 10/10/2011 1:03:23 PM PDT by RobertClark (It's better to look goofy with a rifle, than civilized with an exit wound.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

“Where are what they keep talking about regarding freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms?!”

I agree. We should read them their rights after the drone strike. “You have the right to remain silent...”


6 posted on 10/10/2011 1:08:15 PM PDT by Hugin ("A man'll usually tell you his bad intentions if you listen and let yourself hear it"--- Open Range)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Hugin

Sure is a good thing killing 3000+ Americans on 9/11 was done legally. Nuke arabs, starting with Mecca and Medina, never mind the legal bullsh-t.


7 posted on 10/10/2011 1:15:50 PM PDT by Waco (Nominate Palin or forget 2012 you lost)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

Goat humpers.......... ROP... Yea right.......


8 posted on 10/10/2011 1:17:12 PM PDT by Man from Oz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Waco

Just like we toasted them sumbitches down there in Waco, right? Sad to see so-called constitutional conservatives forget about civil rights.


9 posted on 10/10/2011 1:20:59 PM PDT by DryFly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

I don’t care what Al Quaeda thinks but I bet Obama does. When will he apologise?

Oh I forgot the State Department already did.


10 posted on 10/10/2011 1:22:21 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jakerobins

AQ learned quickly from the very best in disinformation.


11 posted on 10/10/2011 1:24:36 PM PDT by MetaThought
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark
Alinsky for Terrorists.

Use their rule and laws against them.

12 posted on 10/10/2011 1:49:08 PM PDT by Drill Thrawl (0 - 537 They ALL must go.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

“While I agree it is wrong for the POTUS to order the asassination of a US citizen without judicial oversight, I don’t give a fig about what Al Qaeda thinks.”

Killing an enemy combatant on the field of battle where he is actively trying to kill more Americans is not an ‘asassination’.

Suppose this dude had not been an American citizen, would the actions taken been legal?


13 posted on 10/10/2011 2:00:48 PM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark

Here is a bit fuller translation:

“The Americans killed the scholar Shaykh Anwar al-Awlaqi and Samir Khan, but they did not prove any crime they committed and they never presented any proof against them from their laws of unjust freedom.

So, where is the freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms they boast of? Did America become so suffocated that it contradicted—and everyday it contradicts—these principles it claims it established its country on?”

“America has failed as it has not stuck to its principles, and the Shaykh—who lived his doctrine and died for its cause—won.


14 posted on 10/10/2011 3:04:21 PM PDT by gandalftb (11th MEU, 2/4 Echo, TRAP Force)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke

Killing an enemy combatant on the field of battle where he is actively trying to kill more Americans is not an ‘asassination’.

Suppose this dude had not been an American citizen, would the actions taken been legal?

There is no "field of battle" and Awlaki was not "actively trying to kill more Americans" at the time.

If he was shooting at our men and they returned fire killing him, fine.

But Awlaki is only known through videos and information we are told by Obama. We don't even know if he is actually tied to any terrorist acts.

If you think it is OK for the President to have a secret panel that can order your asassination, you are a fool.

I do not think we have to bring a US citizen back for trial, I think we can try them in abstentia.

There needs to be a check and balance on the President's ability to order the asassination of a US citizen.

All we ask is for the Executive Branch to go to the judicial branch and the legislative branch, present their intelligence and let it be agreed upon that the US citizen is an enemy combatant.

Awlaki did not just pop up yesterday. There has been plenty of time to make a case for his status change.

I think the evidence is there---IN THIS CASE---but we will never know because the whole decision was handled by the Executive Branch in secret.

That is not the type of power anyone wants in the hands of the POTUS.

15 posted on 10/10/2011 4:45:55 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

“There is no “field of battle” and Awlaki was not “actively trying to kill more Americans” at the time.”

“But Awlaki is only known through videos and information we are told by Obama. We don’t even know if he is actually tied to any terrorist acts.”

The man operated a website, released numerous videos, and is known to have been associated with those who committed the attacks of 9/11, the Christmas attack on a airliner, and the attacks at fort hood.

His statements advocating violent actions against this country and it’s citizens are well known and not just “told by Obaman”.

“I do not think we have to bring a US citizen back for trial, I think we can try them in abstentia.”

There are a very few and limited cases where in absentia can be applied. None involve capital cases.

“There needs to be a check and balance on the President’s ability to order the asassination of a US citizen.”

First, there are checks and balances available principally the power of the congress to impeach and the power of the people to vote for some one else.

“All we ask is for the Executive Branch to go to the judicial branch and the legislative branch, present their intelligence and let it be agreed upon that the US citizen is an enemy combatant.”

The federal courts specifically addressed this issue in the case brought by Al Awlaki’s father and found they could not reasonably address these issues, that they were purely in the powers of the executive.

“Awlaki did not just pop up yesterday. There has been plenty of time to make a case for his status change.”

Actually, I agree with that but probably not in the way you mean. The federal court noted that Awlaki had months to hire an attorney or appear in person to challenge the government. In fact, Awlaki specifically and numerous times denied any intention to invoke his rights to redress, even denying the authority of the courts over a muslim.

“That is not the type of power anyone wants in the hands of the POTUS.”

POTUS, as CiC, has always had the power to target our nations enemies. It is a power specifically confered by the Constitution.

BTW, your use of the term ‘assassination’ is incorrect. An assassination is a murder for political reasons by definition. This was not a murder nor was it done for political reasons.


16 posted on 10/11/2011 3:38:18 PM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
The man operated a website, released numerous videos, and is known to have been associated with those who committed the attacks of 9/11, the Christmas attack on a airliner, and the attacks at fort hood.

So, after the Oklahoma City Bombing, Clinton had every right to go after owners of websites that questioned the gov't and supported the theory that McVeigh agreed with?

Also, the link to the Christmas bomber is falling apart as the Abdulmutallab accusation that he was trained by Awlaki is falling apart.

First, there are checks and balances available principally the power of the congress to impeach and the power of the people to vote for some one else.

So, until Congress takes action or until the next election, the President can order the death of any US citizen? When the President stalls the investigation with executive privilege, what will you do?

POTUS, as CiC, has always had the power to target our nations enemies. It is a power specifically confered by the Constitution.

Yup and this members of this CiC have called the Tea Party members "enemies" of this nation.

17 posted on 10/12/2011 4:08:58 AM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RobertClark
Al-Qaeda joins those questioning legality of U.S. killing of citizen Awlaki

Now that is funny.

18 posted on 10/12/2011 4:19:45 AM PDT by SoJoCo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

Would you deny that Obama would have had the power to kill Awlaki had he not been a citizen? Is his citizenship the basis of your objection?


19 posted on 10/12/2011 3:00:43 PM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
Would you deny that Obama would have had the power to kill Awlaki had he not been a citizen? Is his citizenship the basis of your objection?

Precisely.

The bar should be set higher to order the death of a US citizen.

US citizenship is special, it should be difficult to obtain, and it should be difficult to revoke.

20 posted on 10/12/2011 3:33:29 PM PDT by Erik Latranyi (Cain for President - Because I like the content of his character)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Erik Latranyi

So, we agree that Obama has the power to order a strike against a non-citizen who is a terrorist. You maintain, however, that he does not have the power to order a strike against a citizen who is also a terrorist.

I’m assuming you make this distinction based upon the fifth amendment.

The fifth amendment 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; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

Since the fifth amendment uses the term “person” and not ‘citizen’, it would appear the status of citizenship is not relevent. The fifth amendment protects the rights of all persons regardless of their citizenship.

How can the actions of a non-citizen make that person subject to a drone strike, when a citizen who performs the exact same acts be protected from the same drone strike? How is that consistent with the entire concept of ‘due process’?


21 posted on 10/13/2011 4:39:52 PM PDT by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson