Obama Murders an American Citizen

[Anonymous]

Who cares?!!! Good riddance, terrorist asshole.

[Anonymous]

There is apparently caselaw on this, or at least so the talking heads claim. I heard an interview on NPR - I think it was with Walter Dellinger, who certainly has pretty decent liberal bona fides - saying that, because the citizen absented himself overseas and we were unable to capture him or otherwise get his participation in US legal processes, he was not "due" any additional process. I find this fascinating because I, too, thought that due process would require more before an execution. I have not researched this, but I found Dellinger's perspective fascinating (and a little scary if true).

[Anonymous]

Yes, al-Awlaki was born an American citizen. However, he moved to Yemen and declared war on the United States. I think he was particularly dangerous, for a several reasons, namely his skillful use of websites to propagandize and recruit terrorists, his primary goal of launching terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and his status as a Muslim cleric, which he used to provide religious justification for murder. I imagine the CIA had information about his involvement in other plots that we will never know about. I am glad that he is dead, and I would rather see our government kill terrorists this way, rather than invade a country with an army and spend a decade killing their civilians. I believe Samir Khan (sp?) was also killed in this raid. Yes, I suppose it would be better if we could have gone to Yemen and arrested him and given him a trial, but that was not possible.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:There is apparently caselaw on this, or at least so the talking heads claim. I heard an interview on NPR - I think it was with Walter Dellinger, who certainly has pretty decent liberal bona fides - saying that, because the citizen absented himself overseas and we were unable to capture him or otherwise get his participation in US legal processes, he was not "due" any additional process. I find this fascinating because I, too, thought that due process would require more before an execution. I have not researched this, but I found Dellinger's perspective fascinating (and a little scary if true).

I can't find anything like this on NPR.org. Do you remember what day you heard it? This argument doesn't make sense on the face of it. There were no legal proceedings in which al-Awlaki could participate. That is the basis of my complaint. The government indicted bin Laden. He was obviously no more available to the government then al-Awlaki. Why was bin Ladin given more due process than an American citizen?

It seems to me that there is a lot of ex post facto justification going on in liberal circles. But, I note that Dellinger also said the attack on Libya was constitutionally legitimate. In fact, it appears that Dellinger is a pretty dependable defender of just about anything Obama does. He was an opponent of warrantless wiretaps when they were done by a Republican, but in favor of unauthorized wars and due process-less killings when done by a Democrat. Sounds like a hack to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares?!!! Good riddance, terrorist asshole.

I care. One man is not as dangerous as the principle that a President can kill Americans at will. I want to see the memo that authorized this. According to the Administration, it was widely accepted by its own legal team. If they have to redact some details, fine but they should put it out. What do they have to fear?

I am glad that a former congressman is asking for its release.

[jsteele]

For all of you who believe there are truckloads of evidence about al-Awlaki's guilt, read what the US State Department had to say:

http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2011/10_-_October/Summary_Judgments_for_Oct__3/

"It's interesting," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at Friday's daily briefing amid a barrage of questions on the airstrike that killed al-Awlaki in Yemen. Nuland said she asked State Department lawyers whether the government can revoke a person's citizenship based on their affiliation with a foreign terrorist group, and it turned out there's no law on the books authorizing officials to do so. "An American can be stripped of citizenship for committing an act of high treason and being convicted in a court for that. But that was obviously not the case in this case," she said. "Under U.S. law, there are seven criteria under which you can strip somebody of citizenship, and none of those applied in this case."

So, there was not even enough evidence to strip al-Awlaki of his citizenship, yet we are supposed to accept that it was perfectly okay to kill him?

[takoma]

jsteele wrote:...
So, there was not even enough evidence to strip al-Awlaki of his citizenship, yet we are supposed to accept that it was perfectly okay to kill him?

With my oft repeated proviso that I have not concluded which side of this I sit, I can see an argument that withdrawing citizenship is not an urgent question, and might therefore require documentation that is not possible in a case of clear and imminent threat to the country. Whether Al-Awlaki (Aulaqi) was such a threat, I do not know.

How do DCUMers feel about Ron Paul's suggestion that Obama might be subject to impeachment on this? It seems unlikely that the House would have such sentiment on this issue, although a lot of tea partiers might go for impeachment on other grounds.

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Right. So if you're in the military, you can't question military decisions because of chain of command and duty. And if you aren't in the military, it would be hypocritical to question military decisions and you have no right to b/c you haven't fought for freedom. Sorry - I mean, "freedom."

I'll refresh you on that if our current Commander-in-Chief orders you and yours rounded up into camps - which you should be concerned about, with him being Hitler and all.

Oh - you do realize that Nicholson's character was the villain of that movie?

I find your assumption here incredibly naive and optimistic to a fault.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

Right. So if you're in the military, you can't question military decisions because of chain of command and duty. And if you aren't in the military, it would be hypocritical to question military decisions and you have no right to b/c you haven't fought for freedom. Sorry - I mean, "freedom."

I'll refresh you on that if our current Commander-in-Chief orders you and yours rounded up into camps - which you should be concerned about, with him being Hitler and all.

Oh - you do realize that Nicholson's character was the villain of that movie?

I find your assumption here incredibly naive and optimistic to a fault.

I find your retort predictably vague and incomprehensible.

You might want to start by identifying the alleged assumption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

2. Bush would have gotten crucified over this. It is amazing to me to see the hypocrisy on the left over this. While I 2. Bush would have gotten crucified over this. It is amazing to me to see the hypocrisy on the left over this. While I

Bingo. This is what I was getting at when I made the waterboarding (tongue in cheek comment).

Haven't finished the thread here, so at risk of repeating the point someone else has made, I wanted to ask the question? Did every right-wing yahoo in America sleep through the Bush decade? That's the only reason I can imagine an adult American would ask the question "What if Bush had done this?"

Al-Harithi was traveling with Kamal Derwish (Ahmed Hijazi), a US citizen, and Derwish's killing was the first known case of the U.S. government killing a U.S. citizen during the "War on Terror".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ali_al-Harithi

U.S. Citizen Among Those Killed In Yemen Predator Missile Strike

Additionally, Hijazi was killed in a country considered at peace with the United States.

http://tech.mit.edu/V122/N54/long4-54.54w.html

Fuck "crucified". It's obvious the right-wing trolls around here didn't even stop masturbating to war porn when Bush *did* do the exact same thing.

It's becoming more and more obvious that the debate between progressives and reactionaries in this country isn't about two conflicting interpretations of a set of facts anymore. It's a debate between a set of facts, and utter ignorance on the other. Guess that's what happens when you spend 10-15 years in an echo chamber of propaganda. Hey, look! An illegal immigrant killed a retiree in Arizona!

[Anonymous]

You might want to start by identifying the alleged assumption.

Sure:

Oh - you do realize that Nicholson's character was the villain of that movie?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who cares?!!! Good riddance, terrorist asshole.

It used to be that the US was a nation of laws. I just want to thank PP for contributing to end of *that* failed experiment. Now let's go scourge the face of this planet of evildoers, shall we?

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:

jsteele wrote:...
So, there was not even enough evidence to strip al-Awlaki of his citizenship, yet we are supposed to accept that it was perfectly okay to kill him?

With my oft repeated proviso that I have not concluded which side of this I sit, I can see an argument that withdrawing citizenship is not an urgent question, and might therefore require documentation that is not possible in a case of clear and imminent threat to the country. Whether Al-Awlaki (Aulaqi) was such a threat, I do not know.

How do DCUMers feel about Ron Paul's suggestion that Obama might be subject to impeachment on this? It seems unlikely that the House would have such sentiment on this issue, although a lot of tea partiers might go for impeachment on other grounds.

I feel that if Ron Paul had made even 1/1000th of the stink he's making over Bush's numerous and vastly more egregious crimes, then I'd have some respect for the man. The fact that he didn't, and that he's running for the GOP primary, leads me to lower my estimation of him. Paul used to be a fruitcake, but at least he was relatively consistent.

[Anonymous]

Haven't finished the thread here, so at risk of repeating the point someone else has made, I wanted to ask the question? Did every right-wing yahoo in America sleep through the Bush decade? That's the only reason I can imagine an adult American would ask the question "What if Bush had done this?"

Fuck "crucified". It's obvious the right-wing trolls around here didn't even stop masturbating to war porn when Bush *did* do the exact same thing.

It's becoming more and more obvious that the debate between progressives and reactionaries in this country isn't about two conflicting interpretations of a set of facts anymore (not that I even bothered to read all the postings in the thread...). It's a debate between a set of facts, and utter ignorance on the other. Guess that's what happens when you spend 10-15 years in an echo chamber of propaganda. Hey, look! An illegal immigrant killed a retiree in Arizona!

Awesome debating skills. Keep up the good work.

Someone points out that perhaps liberals might have protested about Bush killing an American citizen if the strike had occurred under his watch and you are off to the races with right-wing yahoo trolls masturbating to war porn in their 15 year echo chamber of propaganda. You only need to an a reference to Faux news to have a perfect posting.

Speaking of protests, what happened to all the anti-war protests? They just sort of stopped when Obama became president and we are in three wars now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Haven't finished the thread here, so at risk of repeating the point someone else has made, I wanted to ask the question? Did every right-wing yahoo in America sleep through the Bush decade? That's the only reason I can imagine an adult American would ask the question "What if Bush had done this?"

Fuck "crucified". It's obvious the right-wing trolls around here didn't even stop masturbating to war porn when Bush *did* do the exact same thing.

It's becoming more and more obvious that the debate between progressives and reactionaries in this country isn't about two conflicting interpretations of a set of facts anymore (not that I even bothered to read all the postings in the thread...). It's a debate between a set of facts, and utter ignorance on the other. Guess that's what happens when you spend 10-15 years in an echo chamber of propaganda. Hey, look! An illegal immigrant killed a retiree in Arizona!

Awesome debating skills. Keep up the good work.

Someone points out that perhaps liberals might have protested about Bush killing an American citizen if the strike had occurred under his watch and you are off to the races with right-wing yahoo trolls masturbating to war porn in their 15 year echo chamber of propaganda. You only need to an a reference to Faux news to have a perfect posting.

Speaking of protests, what happened to all the anti-war protests? They just sort of stopped when Obama became president and we are in three wars now.

Aside from the fainting-couch act, what's your beef? You said, "perhaps liberals might have protested about Bush killing an American citizen if the strike had occurred under his watch". But of course, that's a misrepresentation of the PP's post. He said, "Bush would've been *crucified* if he'd done the same. Of course, he *did* do the same. And not only did he not get "crucified", but it's clear that all of the virtuous civil libertarians on the right never even fucking heard about it.

That was my point. What the Hell was yours?

PS: As for "anti-war protests...just sort of stopped when Obama became president", can you please point to the rash of fervent anti-war protests that were going on in 2008? 2007? 2006? We weren't having mass anti-war protests in 2008 because the wars have been going on for a decade. It's simple: the faction of society that decided a permanent state of war should be the new normal, won.