Assassinating an active terrorism planner and enabler is like

[MineralMan]

dealing with a guy who's breaking down my front door in the middle of the night. Both should expect to come to a violent and sudden end. It's the risk they take for engaging in their destructive behavior. It is just that simple.

[MADem]

1. +1 n/t

[joeybee12]

2. Enabler? did he buy anyone a ticket to a place to blow it up? Or anything

else that would be considered "enabling."

Planner? Did he draw up plans, seek input, coordinate anything that would be considered "planning"?

Or was it really simply offensive, maybe dangerous speech?

[gratuitous]

3. Oh, "evidence" and "due process" are overrated

If "everybody" knows you're a terrorist, you can come to a sudden and violent end. And if enough of the right people think you're eligible for execution, none of this evidence or due process nonsense is necessary. Ask Troy Davis if you don't believe me.

Geez, it's like you think those quaint old words in the Constitution are supposed to mean something.

[joeybee12]

8. Amazing that some people here have to ratchet up the alleged crime

to justify the killing...facts about what this guy was and what he did don't matter.

[MNBrewer]

17. We have to look forward and W.T.F

and "due process" is SO 18th Century.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot the most important part of any Defend Obama At All Costs post

:rofl:






:sarcasm:

[sad sally]

91. Another lawless day in America...

When government asserts an unreviewable power to kill its own citizens, it mocks the rule of law, and claims a power more familiar to tyrants than democracies.

[StarsInHerHair]

124. 1 guy is just SO MUCH more DANGEROUS than a formal army in a real country!

dontcha know? Honest!:sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

5. I'm afraid I can't answer your question, due to lack of information.

I must not have the same resources you do. I no longer have access to classified information.

[msanthrope]

28. He was convicted of incitement to murder in Yemen. A fugitive.

If he wanted due process, he should have shown up for it.

[Robb]

32. Yes.

I suggest you familiarize yourself with, at a minimum, the British Airways bomb plot. Rajib Karim, al-Awlaki's co-conspirator, was http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12788224">sentenced to 30 years in prison.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/03/anwar_al_awlakis_ema.php">Awlaki's emails to terror plotter show operational role

March 2, 2011

(snip)

Awlaki's words were clearly intended to inspire Karim to action, but excerpts of the cleric's emails reveal that his role went far beyond rhetorical support. The emails and other information linking Karim to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) were discovered on Karim's laptop, which was protected by extensive cyber security.

(snip)

Once authorities cracked Karim's security, they found a series of emails to and from Awlaki. Excerpts of the emails have been widely reported by the British press.

On Jan. 25, 2010, Awlaki emailed Karim, telling him that "depending on what your role is and the amount of information you can get your hands on, you might be able to provide us with critical and urgent information and may be able to play a crucial role for the ummah."

Awlaki continued :

I was pleased when your brother conveyed from you salaams to myself and was excited by hearing your profession. I pray that Allah may grant us a breakthrough through you. As a starter, can you please answer these questions in as much elaboration as possible: can you please specify your role in the airline industry, how much access do you have to airports, what information do you have on the limitations and cracks in present airport security systems, what procedures would travellers from the newly listed countries have to go through, what procedures would a person on a watch list have to go through?

[Robb]

40. More:

...Tehzeeb put al-Awlaqi in touch with his brother Rajib prompting a frank exchange of messages between the radical cleric and the BA worker, as they contemplated how they could exploit Rajib's position within the airline company to launch a terrorist attack.

Rajib's response was honest, without exaggerating his importance. He volunteered information on how he could cause disruption to BA both operationally and financially, by attacking their computer servers, which he said would ground their entire fleet. He also offered to begin recruiting other people.

During the course of their correspondence, Karim told al-Awlaqi there may be an opportunity for him to train as cabin crew during an upcoming strike, which he was encouraged at once to take up. Although Karim filled out an online application form he was not eligible to join the cabin crew as he did not have five year's service.

Al-Awlaqi urged Karim to be patient, to stay in the UK while applying for his UK passport, and not to engage in any activity that would expose him to scrutiny as there was a longer term goal. He wrote: "Our highest priority is the US. Anything there even on a smaller scale compared to what we may do in the UK, would be our choice. So the question is, with the people you have, is it possible to get a package, or a person with a package on board a flight to the US...".

Read more: http://content.met.police.uk/News/Man-jailed-for-30-years-for-terrorismoffences/1260268719101/1257246745756

[JackRiddler]

4. killing several dozen high officials in a number of US administrations. I prefer trials.

[MineralMan]

6. I prefer trials, too. Terrorism is warfare, to be quite frank.

There aren't many trials on the battlefield. And make no mistake, terrorism takes place on a global battlefield.

[MNBrewer]

18. It's crime, not warfare.

[MineralMan]

21. Definitions vary.

You may use yours. I'll use mine. I consider organized terrorism to be warfare. Your definition may differ from mine.

[MNBrewer]

24. So the Mexican drug cartels are involved in warfare, not crime?

[MineralMan]

33. Well, a person could make that argument, and I believe the

Mexican army does just that. However, they're not engaged international terrorism and are not a single group, like Al Qaeda.

[phleshdef]

93. The Mexican drug cartels didn't declare war on any country as far as I know.

But Al Qaeda has definately declared war on pretty much all western nations, especially ours.

[LanternWaste]

31. Quite convenient....

"Your definition may differ from mine...."

Hence, objectivity dies- and we get to define reality and justice in ways which better validate our own biases...

Quite convenient, simplistic, and easy. I can see why it helps you out.

[OnyxCollie]

56. Congratulations.

That puts you in company with Scooter Libby and John Yoo and justifies the destruction of our civil rights.

MEMORANDUM FOR ALBERTO R. GONZALES
COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT
WILLIAM J. HAYNES. II
GENERAL COUNSEL
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

FROM: John C. Yoo
Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Robert J. Delahunty
Special Counsel

RE: Authority for Use of Military Force To Combat Terrorist Activities Within the United States


It is vital to grasp that attacks on this scale and with these consequences are "more akin to war than terrorism."1


1. Lewis Libby, Legal Authority for a Domestic Military Role in Homeland Defense,, in Sidney D. Drell, Abraham D, Sofaer, &. George D. Wilson (eds.), The New Terror: Facing the Threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons 305, 305 (1999).

[elleng]

45. Yes

[RetroLounge]

143. Is that you Mr. Cheney?

:rofl:

WTF has this place become?

RL

[MineralMan]

153. No, it is me, MineralMan.

Why do you ask? If you'd like more information, my profile is available with a click.

[EFerrari]

7. In these United States, a person is not guilty just because the government says he is. n/t

[MineralMan]

10. You know, that really depends, doesn't it?

Our military folks are often required to kill people without due process. It comes with the territory. I'm sure that arresting a terrorist of any type and bringing him or her to trial would be a desirable thing. I'd love to see such trials. However, that is often not something that can be done. Terrorists are engaged in acts of war. Even those who are not carrying bombs or other weapons are so engaged. Just as a staff officer is often a target of opportunity during warfare, even though he may be located far from the active battleground and unarmed, terrorists are targets as well. The world can be an ugly, violent place. Participating in warfare and terrorism is not a good way to live a long, peaceful life.

Edit to add: On the other hand, if you go to where the terrorist is and arrest him or her, I will support a trial 100%. I do recommend caution in doing that, though. I'd hate to not be able to read your posts here.

[EFerrari]

12. No, it really doesn't depend. And the military is not the Wild West.

This is where eight years of Bush bullshit and two more of Obama have led us. People arguing contra factually that the president has the authority to kill people extra-legally. Disgusting.

[MineralMan]

13. Extra-legally? Is not the President the Commander-in-Chief of

our military? Is that military not currently engaged in that part of the world, fighting terrorists? Sorry. Your argument does not wash well. Try adding a detergent additive to it.

[MNBrewer]

19. Speaking of our military involvement in Yemen....

[MNBrewer]

23. Is this an argument that if the President orders it, it's legal?

[MineralMan]

34. No, it does not, although the permission granted to the President to do this

argues for the legality of it. However, others, like Ron Paul, feel as you do.

[MNBrewer]

111. No such "permission" was granted

Nor CAN it be, as it's unconstitutional.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

141. The president used hand-picked lawyers who would give him the ruling he wanted

Very convenient.

[EFerrari]

25. The President is not about the law, either. n/t

[MineralMan]

35. Ron Paul agrees with you, for whatever that's worth.

It's not something that convinces me, though.

[EFerrari]

37. In this case, he's right. n/t

[MineralMan]

39. You are welcome to hold that opinion. I do not share it.

And there it is.

[rustydog]

131. I'd like to agree with you...but then we'd both be dead wrong.

[WinkyDink]

94. The salient point, though, is "American citizen."

[msanthrope]

99. The President has the authority to kill military targets. It's too bad Bush didn't use that

authority to kill OBL before 2003, eh?

[thelordofhell]

150. Clinton tried

[AverageJoe90]

77. I agree with this, too.

If a terrorist can be captured and given a trial, then by all means, I say, go for it! But then again, in some cases, it might not be possible.

[hfojvt]

9. clearly you do not understand the inviolable High Moral Principles

of Free Speech and Due Process. If you were a True Liberal then you would be reading somebody their rights even as their partners in crime were torturing your children.

Curiously enough, I am reminded of Marvel vs. DC

Quicksilver was matched up against Flash, and it was no match. Flash was much, much faster, and was basically toying with Quicksilver. Then a car accident happened nearby and Flash ran to save the passengers from the burning car. In doing so, he was temporarily overcome by smoke and Quicksilver took advantage of this to start pummelling him. But then he became Morally Conflicted. "What am I doing? I am a terrible person, taking advantage of Flash's heroic act to win this fight."

At which point, Flash recovered and beat him unconscious.

[MineralMan]

11. Perhaps you are right. So, maybe the guy breaking down my door

should be apprehended by a Barney Fife-like "Citizen's Arrest?" I never looked at it that way. Maybe I should put the shotgun back in the closet and just threaten such a Citizen's Arrest in a loud authoritative voice. I'll have to think about that, truly...OK, it's been thought about. I guess not. :rofl:

[Hassin Bin Sober]

20. Yeah, umm, derrrrrr, my front door is 8000 miles away. Derrrrrr

[StarsInHerHair]

125. no the guy breaking down your door will get a Predator drone-fired missle

& take you out with him.

[MineralMan]

154. No, actually, he will not.

I do not know of a single case of a home invasion in the US where a Predator drone has been used. Not one. I know of many where the homeowner has killed the person who broke in, though, and I know of many more where the homeowner has died due to the home invader. I'm not interested in dying.

[rustydog]

133. Apples, meet Oranges...fine comparison, EXCELLENT logic...not

[semillama]

14. It actually isn't that simple.

The U.S. President ordered the assassination of a U.S. Citizen, whose crimes were as far as can be documented restricted to speech. Incitement and recruitment. He had never been charged with planning or directing attacks. He wasn't even the main leader of AQ in Yemen. He was not killed in a combat zone. He was not directly engaged in combat with U.S. forces or allies. As a U.S. citizen, he had all the same rights as you or I. Regardless of who he was as a human being, this man was an American, and had not renounced his citizenship. I am VERY uncomfortable with any US president behaving in this manner. All those who call themselves liberals should be.

[MineralMan]

15. You are certainly welcome to hold that opinion.

My opinion differs from yours, though.

[Bucky]

16. That post should be my sig file quote. It'd save me lots of time & possibly improve my manners.

Or at least the perception of my manners.

[DirkGently]

26. That's kind of the problem, isn't it? You're supporting a killing while admitting a lack of facts.

You've characterized this person's actions in a variety of ways, without any factual support. You've analogized him to someone smashing down your door in the middle of the night, but then said your thoughts on what he actually did are a matter of opinion.

If this person can be killed based on an uncertain opinion as to what he may or may not have done, anyone can be. No?

This is the kind of argument we all heard about Guantanamo. They don't need a jury trial because they're the worst, most dangerous terrorists the world has ever seen. Not that we actually know that, because again ... no jury trial.

Guilty because they're guilty because they're guilty.

What you're supporting is the CIA'S right to break down your door in the middle of the night. With a Hellfire missile, no less.

[MineralMan]

38. I did not kill him. I would kill the person breaking into my house.

No, I don't have all the information, because I'm not in any position to obtain it. That is true of many things. For example, I do not understand how beta blockers work to slow the heart rate and lower blood pressure, but I believe that my doctor and pharmacist do, so I take it daily, and it works very well. There are many things I do not know, but trust others to know. I'm sure the same is true for you.

[rustydog]

134. Are you considering entering the olympics? These are some fantastic leaps

you are making...Don't strain yourself.

[DirkGently]

148. As a nation, we do not trust our gov't to execute people without trial. We do not "trust" in that.

This is a core principle of the Constitution, which I'm sure you know already.

[MineralMan]

155. As a nation, we have been killing people in military operations

since the founding of the country. During the Civil War, many of them were American citizens. Defense of the nation is also part of the Constitution, and American citizens who fight against the United States in military operations, even if they are not bearing arms themselves, are subject to being killed by the military. It has certainly happened in the past, and will no doubt happen in the future as well.

Is organized international terrorism warfare? I believe it is. You may not believe it is. My opinion is based on my belief in that regard.

[DirkGently]

168. You are talking about Bush doctrine. Endless, borderless war against whomever we wish.

It's an empty, dishonest conceit created by the Bush administration and its co-opted lawyers to justify unlimited Executive power. If it is true, and we are at "war" with whomever we say we are at war with, and use that premise as permission to kill, without evidence, without trial, in secret, then anyone can be killed for any reason at all.

This was not the Civil War. There was no battle. There is no "war" that includes the entire world and anyone in it we choose to designate as an enemy.

You may support that premise if you wish. But you cannot successfully pretend blowing up an American with a Hellfire missile, by an administration openly refusing to even present evidence as to why, is somehow analogous to the Civil War, or to anything else this country or its Constitution countenances as acceptable.

[treestar]

27. Obama does not agree

At least, in his statement, he thought it was a bit more than just speech.

[msanthrope]

29. Wrong. He was tried and convicted for incitement to murder in Yemen.

He was a fugitive. If he wanted due process, he should have shown up for it.

[bvar22]

97. Yemen?

Well, case closed.

Yemen doesn't even have an Extradition Treaty with the USA,
and YOU insist we honor their court system.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_countries_have_no_extradition_treaties_with_the_United_States

Would you feel the same way if Kyrgystan tried you for accidentally posting a picture of Allah, found YOU guilty, and sentenced YOU to DEATH?

Extra Judicial Assassination by a Unitary Executive without oversight from a US Court is NOT something to cheer for.

Were you supportive of Bush-the-Lesser when he claimed the power of a Unitary Executive?

[coalition_unwilling]

22. Innocent until proven guilty is so 20th century. Upon further

reflection, I do not believe you and I have anything whatsoever further to discuss.

[dtexdem]

30. Or someone who is resisting arrest for a violent crime.

Whether or not he is actually in the midst of committing a violent crime.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

36. Or, someone who's planning to break down your door?

Or, how about CIA types who send drones to knowingly kill civilians? Shouldn't they be assassinated for being assassins?

[MineralMan]

42. I don't know how I'd know someone was planning to break down

my door, to be quite frank. I don't maintain an intelligence agency. I do not know the names of potential home invaders, either. I will react if someone actually does attempt to break down my door, and not before. I'm just one person, so I can't access advance information or research potential home invaders in my area.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

47. So, should the government do it on your behalf? They have intelligence agencies.

[MineralMan]

51. Do what on my behalf? I'm not sure I'm understanding your

question. Keep the home invader from breaking down my door? I'm sure they're trying to do that by catching and arresting home invaders. However, in the extremely unlikely event someone does break down my door, I have a 12-ga. shotgun loaded with 00 buckshot in my bedroom closet. I did have a drunk man banging on my back door, insisting that I let him in, but that's all he did, so I just called the police, who took him to the house he was actually trying to find. I was armed, but, he didn't actually break in.

I do not expect the police or anyone else to know in advance that someone is planning to break into my house. However, I do expect the government to attempt to identify organized terrorists, especially in recent years. They've identified a number of such terrorists and have killed quite a number of them. Terrorism is a lot closer to war than it is to burglary and home invasion.

If I misunderstood your question, please clarify it, and I'll try to answer you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. You're the one using the metaphor.

The "terrorist" in question may, or may not, have been planning a terrorist attack. He was assassinated as a threat, real or imagined.

Someone may be planning to break down your door, you have no way of knowing that. The police agencies have intelligence units looking for criminals, potential, or active. So, if they come upon such an individual who is planning to kick in your door and murder you and your family, should they assassinate him? For the sake of the argument at hand, lets say said criminal resides in Mexico or Canada or Yemen.

Further, let us say that the government of Pakistan finds out that the CIA is targeting a village that has a terrorist resident in it. Should the Pakistani government come to the USA and find the CIA agent responsible for guiding the drones and assassinate him to protect the civilians in the village?

[Gormy Cuss]

41. It's not a matter of what he should expect. It's a matter of what our govt. should do

or in this case, should not.

[MineralMan]

44. Our government, and our elected officials are sworn to

protect the nation against enemies, both foreign and domestic. So are our military personnel and some others. You do not believe this was an action that should have been taken. That's fine. I disagree with you, or at least am not ready to condemn the action. I do not have sufficient information for that. Perhaps you believe you do. Perhaps you have access to information not available to me.

[Gormy Cuss]

122. Those are some giant leaps in assumption right there.

I didn't state anything about my level of knowledge -- or yours, for that matter. I'm responding to your opinion in the OP. Perhaps you could explain why you thought your opinion deserved a thread since it seemed to be a flat out emotional response rather than a position for debating. You're getting responses in kind. I hope that's what you expected.

[MineralMan]

123. Why would I explain my reason for posting?

I posted. The thread exists. It seems to be very active. Why should I not post my opinion when I have one about an issue like this one? Of course I expected responses. Most of my threads get responses. Not all, but most.

This thread started with my opinion, which was based on what I know and believe. I don't mind at all if others have a different opinion. I'm always happy to discuss any opinion, whether or not it agrees with mine. Almost every post here is someone's opinion, either that of the poster or of some other writer. That's what we do here on DU. :shrug:

You've added your opinion. Thanks for that.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gormy Cuss]

151. Because you seem to be uninterested in engaging in a discussion on topic..

Replying in the vein of "You're entitled to your opinion" is not an opening for discussion of an issue. Isn't that what GD is for?

[MineralMan]

152. You may or may not have noticed that I've been actively participating

in this thread. However, I do not consider questions about my motivation for posting a particular post are actually appropriate for this discussion. I posted the OP, because I believed it deserved discussion, and because it represents my opinion on this incident. That a significant discussion occurred means that I was right to post it, since a discussion was my goal.

I hope this answer adequately deals with your question. I still do not believe that questions about motivations for posting are worthwhile, but those were my motivations. I hope you enjoy your weekend.

[rustydog]

136. I have access top this informatin you conveniently forgot or out of ignorance simply do not know

They have sworn to uphold, protect and defend the CONSTITUTION. None of them are above the law. None of them can simply declare someone an enemy of America and kill them.

[elleng]

43. Yes

[MineralMan]

46. Thank you.

It appears that many are in disagreement with my statement. Here and elsewhere. Ron Paul, for example, has said the same things many in this thread are saying. On this issue, there appear to be two disparate opinions. There it is.

[lunatica]

48. Al Aulaqi was tried in absentia in Yemen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110206509.html

He planned the killing rampage in Fort Hood where 13 people were killed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

"The Yemenese government began trying him in absentia in November 2010, for plotting to kill foreigners and being a member of al-Qaeda, and a Yemeni judge ordered that he be captured "dead or alive".<35><36> U.S. unmanned drones were deployed in Yemen to search for and kill him,<37> firing at and failing to kill him at least once,<38> before killing him in a drone attack in Yemen on September 30, 2011.<10>"

***************

I agree with you.

[MineralMan]

53. Thanks. I read that Wikipedia entry today. It appears that the

late al-Alwlaki or however you spell his name was a serious threat and a leader in al-Qaeda. I shan't mourn his death.

[RetroLounge]

145. Wikipedia trumps the US Constitution?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

RL

[MineralMan]

156. Of course not. Wikipedia is a source of information.

I can understand your confusion, if you believe it is anything other than that. I find it quite useful as a starting point when I'm looking for information. The external links offered there in most articles are also worth exploring. Do you not use Wikipedia?

[EFerrari]

58. And what about the others that were killed in the strike?

AJE reports there was at least one more American.

Passing over the fact that it's an open question whether he "planned" the Fort Hood killings or not, what about the others killed in this drone strike?

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Yemen

[MineralMan]

60. What about them? I have no opinion on them.

Hanging out with terrorists is dangerous. What more would you like me to say?

[EFerrari]

63. Really? Your government is killing people and you are completely incurious?

Okay.

And here is Carney claiming Alwaki was a leader in AQ, which he was not, and that he had operational control, which he did not:

CARNEY: I — Jake, you know, I should step back. I — he is clearly — I mean, “provably” may be a legal term. I think it has been well established, and it has certainly been the position of this administration and the previous administration, that he is a leader in — was a leader in AQAP; that AQAP was a definite threat, was operational, planned and carried out terrorist attacks that, fortunately, did not succeed but were extremely serious, including the ones specifically that I mentioned in terms of the would-be Christmas Day bombing in 2009 and the attempt to bomb numerous cargo planes headed for the United States; and that he was obviously also an active recruiter of al-Qaida terrorists. So I don’t think anybody in the field would dispute any of those assertions.

TAPPER: You don’t think anybody else in the government would dispute them.

CARNEY: I think any — well, I wouldn’t know of any credible terrorist expert who dispute the fact that he was a leader in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and that he was operationally involved in terrorist attacks against American interests and citizens.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/todays-qs-for-os-wh-9302011/

You will not find an actual expert on Yemen or AQAP making these claims, only the Obama administration.

[MineralMan]

66. My dear EFerrari. You post things as though they are facts,

but without evidence of that. That's fine with me, but your posts are not the basis for what I think. During the past few years, many, many people have been killed in the Middle East by both sides. Sometimes I take notice of them or am curious about them. Other times, they are collateral to the principal target of an attack. While I always regret when innocent people are killed in military operations, I'm also aware that such is fairly common. In this particular instance, there was a target of this attack. Others who were accompanying that target in the same vehicle died as well. I may learn who they were, as with the other American citizen in the vehicle. Am I curious about them? Marginally, but I'm not particularly seeking out information.

Was Alwaki a leader in AQ with operational control? I do not know. I do not personally have access to that information. I think you do not, either, nor does Tapper. So, I can't comment on that with any factual basis, and am not particularly interested in hearing people's opinions on that unless they are privy to such information. I do not know. Alwaki was killed in a military action by US forces and the CIA. Frankly, those are the only facts I have in the matter. If you have other facts for which you have direct knowledge, I'd welcome hearing about them. Otherwise, you're just quoting people who also do not have those facts.

I have stated my opinion of this action. You have a different opinion. I have said what information I have, which is not much. I can't go beyond that, really. Personally, I consider international terrorist organizations the equivalent of nations, and consider international terrorism as warfare. That is also my opinion. It is further my opinion that warfare often involves killing participants. And there it all is, in a nutshell. You are welcome to hold different opinions.

[TheKentuckian]

90. Yemen didn't off him, we did. We aren't Yemen's goon squad.

[Major Hogwash]

165. President Obama said it was a joint operation between our 2 countries.

So, I'm satisfied with this President's decision.

[Scurrilous]

49. He's cool with it:

Kill Americans, Says Yemeni-American Cleric (November 8, 2010)

<snip>

"In a new video message posted on a jihadist Web forum on Monday, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric based in Yemen whose most inflammatory sermons were withdrawn from YouTube last week, said that the killing of Americans by Muslims requires no special sanction.

According to The Associated Press, Mr. Awlaki told jihadists in his latest, Arabic-language video: “Don’t consult with anybody in killing the Americans, fighting the devil doesn’t require consultation or prayers seeking divine guidance. They are the party of the devils.”

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/08/kill-americans-says-yemeni-american-cleric/


Whatever you say Mr. Awlaki. :thumbsup:

[MineralMan]

54. Famous last words, it appears. nt.

[Taverner]

50. If he were a threat, I would agree with you

But I think a better analogy is he's breaking down someone else's door, thousands of miles away, trying to kill you.

[OnyxCollie]

52. Let's kill Robert Spencer with a Predator drone then.

'We could have another Timothy McVeigh': U.S. authorities warned against anti-Islamic terrorism after Norway shooter 'inspired' by Robert Spencer and Unabomber
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018976/Norway-shooting-Anders-Behring-Breivik-inspired-Robert-Spencer-Unabomber.html#ixzz1ZS5IzDjb

It has emerged that Anders Behring Breivik lifted words from 'Unabomber' Ted Kaczynski and took inspiration from a range of other American right wing and anti-Islamic groups in his rambling 1,500 page manifesto discovered after Friday's attacks.

The fantasist also referenced co-founder of Stop the Islamisation of America, Robert Spencer, more than 50 times.

~snip~

According to experts, much of the manifesto outlining his reasoning behind the attacks was directly inspired by U.S. extremist groups - many of whom are directly quoted.

[leftstreet]

55. Predator drones rock! We should take out bank robbers and shoplifters with them, too

Talk about a deterrent!

Let's make ALL American streets safe

:sarcasm:

[louslobbs]

59. Ok, since the Koch brothers are actively terrorizing this country and are most

likely enabling others to do the same with all of their billions and their apparent power over our government and many of its elected officials. Since they engage in destructive behavior everyday in this nation, that also causes problems in other nations as well, would it be ok if some other nation or groups of people from other nations who don't like what they've been doing regarding all of the harm they have been causing to our Democracy and to various Democracies around the world, came together and decided to take the Koch brothers out with an unmanned drone to stop their destructive behavior upon this nation and the entire world? Would that also be considered a risk that the Koch brothers had been taking all of this time that just caught up with them? Many think that the Koch brothers fit the definition of terrorists, and many of their actions have terrorized and caused suffering for people here and around the globe, so would assassination of those terrorists be justified as well, or are there different rules applied to terrorists who have billions of dollars and live in America? If it's ok to assassinate one terrorist, why wouldn't it be ok to assassinate them all? I don't really think it is that simple, not that simple at all.
Lou

[MineralMan]

61. I wouldn't even honor that by discussing it. Not equivalent in any way.

Poor try, really.

[louslobbs]

62. I wasn't looking for you to honor anything, your opinions don't mean that much to me, but your lack

of a response, will speak volumes to most. Like I said, it isn't that simple, not that simple at all.
Lou

[MineralMan]

64. You were interested enough to reply to my original post.

I reply to posts as I see fit. What you think of my opinions does not play into my decisions. I post independently of such things on DU, and will continue to do so. You may read my posts or not, as you see fit, and reply to those you wish. :shrug:

[louslobbs]

69. I just wanted to see if you agreed that all terrorists should be assassinated or just the ones that

you agree fit a certain criteria. As I said, it really isn't as simple as you imply, but everyone is entitled to an opinion regardless of what it imports. I choose to read all posts and comments as I see fit as well, I chose to ask you a question about your assassination theory and you chose not to answer it because either you couldn't, or you are stuck in a belief, that other opinions really offend you rather than potentially giving you room for thought or pause. Some people feel a need to be right and make others wrong at all costs, their opinions and views are the right ones and others are simply wrong and they must educate others as to the right point of view. That old "don't want to honor your comment with a reply" went out with Lincoln, some use it when they don't know how to reply. I've gone back and read some of your other posts and comments to others, you seem to think that many online should bow to your superior intellect and sense of what's right, that you have the answers that others should seek because your understanding of things is superior to others. I wish I could say that I thought as highly of your opinions as you think of your own, but I just don't. If you think that assassinating people is as simple as you claim, that it's the same thing basically that a person could expect, just as if they were breaking in to your home, then I pity you.......I know, I know, you don't care if I pity you and if I don't want to read your posts don't, and you post independently and blah, blah, blah.
Lou

[MineralMan]

75. I do not consider the Koch Bros. to be terrorists in the normal

definition. Execrable excuses for human beings, but not terrorists. I like words. I like to carefully consider the words I use.

As for your other comments, I expect nothing from people who read my opinions. I don't expect them to agree or disagree. They may do as they please. Your opinion of my opinions is your business. You're welcome to hold or express any opinion you may have. I will assume that you believe I am also free to hold and express my opinion, as well.

Finally, I neither expect nor care about your pity for me. It's irrelevant.

[louslobbs]

84. I know, I said that in my comment, that my pity for someone like you would be irrelevant or some

such "carefully" chosen word. We are both free to hold and express our opinions, agreed. We can agree to disagree here, no hard feeling mineralman.
Lou

[sabrina 1]

65. Why was he not arrested here before he left the US relatively

recently? He was on the streets preaching here after the Fort Hood shootings and no one was bothering to arrest him for all the 'terror' attacks going back to 2005 we are told he was guilty of orchestrating? What is the excuse for allowing such a violent terrorist OUT of the country two years ago when all this was known, so he could plot more attacks? Where was the TSA since we are now told he has been on the terror list of several countries for several years??

And why are people on the left not even interested in 'evidence' anymore before the killing of a US citizen? I know the Right never worried about such things, but here on DU during the Bush admin, these were very serious issues. Why is that changing now?

Who screwed up and let this 'terrorist' (he may or not be but I have seen no evidence, Saleh of Yemen is not a credible individual btw) nor did the US seem overly concerned about him even though we are now told he was a known terrorist for years.

And why was he invited to dinner at the Pentagon as part of their outreach program to Muslims, after being vetted by the FBI?

This is WHY we need trials, so American citizens can learn whether their government is acting in their best interests or not.

There are dozens of questions to be answered, (we are still a democracy that respects our Constitution aren't we?) about this US Citizen. And I hope one day they will be.

[MineralMan]

67. I cannot answer that question. I do not know.

Sorry. The fact is that he was not so arrested.

[sabrina 1]

68. And being unable to answer it justifies the extra-judicial

killing of a US citizen who could have been easily apprehended right here not so long ago? I call it an outrage, and that is putting it mildly. I am glad to see that those who understand our Constitution agree with that position.

If, as we are now being told, he has been on terror lists in several countries for years, then it is an outrage that he was free to operate in this country all those years and to get on a plane undeterred where he could have blown it up, and leave this country not so long ago. How are we to take this news? A known terrorist got past the TSA when ordinary Grandmothers and children are harassed every day for 'our protection'?

Not sure how anyone can blindly support this knowing there are thousands of questions that needed to be answered BEFORE this killing took place. Unless of course, we have decided as a nation that we are so scared now it is okay to throw out our system of justice, and only use when it is easy, on drug addicts etc.

[louslobbs]

71. "It is just that simple" Sabrina, haven't you heard?

Lou

[MineralMan]

72. Why do I have to justify anything. I killed nobody.

I do not have the information. That does not mean that nobody has the information. There are many things I do not know that I assume are known by others. How are we to take this news? However we wish. You may take it one way, and I may take it another.

I would imagine that you have no more actual information than I do. I have not heard from you that you have access to any classified government information or diplomatic information. If you do have such access, tell me, and I'll pay more attention to what you have to say.

Were there questions that needed to be answered before this action was taken? No doubt. But I'm not the one who must have the answers, and I do not believe you are either. You may take your opinions from wherever you choose. That's not all that interesting to me. My opinion is that a decision was reached, based on information I do not have, by my own government. Until it is proven otherwise, I will assume that they had good reasons for their actions.

International organized terrorism is the equivalent of war with another nation, and the leaders of such organizations are enemies in that war. If they are killed in military action, then there it is. If you have actual factual information to the contrary to share, I'll be happy to see it. If you have opinions based on other opinions, I will give them all the value they deserve. Personally, I have no factual details, and willingly admit it. I assume that those who took this decision and acted on it do have such detailed factual information. You're perfectly free to believe they do not. That's not my concern.

[sabrina 1]

80. Neither of us has factual information and that is the problem

'Why do I have to justify anything. I killed no one'. You are an American citizen are you not? He was killed by your government in your name. Yet you admit you have no factual information which you think, absolves you from any blame. I disagree. If an individual kills, then you are innocent of any blame, but when your government does it claiming to represent its people, its people better be demanding the information you correctly say we do not have. 'You' is meant in the generic sense.

International terrorism is as old the planet and is not the equivalent of war with another nation and never has been until Bush decided it was. We on the left never agreed with that.

Why are you asking me for evidence? I do not approve of this assassination. I did not approve when Bush was doing it, did you?

The burden of proof certainly is not on me, is it? It's rather silly to even ask that question.

I make no assumptions about 'those who did this'. Is there some reason, absent as you admit, any factual information, people should just blindly accept the killing of an American citizen based on loose charges that no one has seen evidence of, especially given our recent history, now confirmed by the Wikileaks cables, of holding and torturing hundreds of innocent people making claims that they were 'terrorists' when we know, they knew, they were lying. Most of us on the left always questioned those charges also. Seems we were right and are now vindicated.

Do you think the German people were right not to question their government, and to assume that those who were engaged in the persecution of various different groups of people, acted on detailed factual information? That WAS the defense of many Germans, not accepted by the International community.

And please don't bother with Godwins Law, I do not pay attention to such efforts to prevent people from making obvious comparisons to historical events.

[MineralMan]

82. My dear Sabrina1: You have a different opinion than I do on

this event. DU has members who share your opinion, as well as members who share mine. There it is. I'm not going to convince you of anything, and am not really concerned if I do. Neither of us have any more facts than the other. However, there are those who have many more facts than either of us. They are the ones who took this decision.

You don't trust them. I tend to trust them. And there you have it. I can't see how any further discussion about whose opinion is correct is of much value here. Unless new facts are available, I'm sure we'll continue to disagree. :shrug:

[sabrina 1]

86. The law is not an opinion.

So unless we disagree about our laws, then we do not disagree on the main thrust of this case.

It is not a matter of trust, it is a matter of law. Who are these shadowy people who made this decision? This is not how our system of justice is meant to work. I see no evidence anywhere of this man's guilt. I also see nothing in the Constitution that gives the powers of a King to a US president. If we disagree on those matters, then we have more to worry about than this one case.

[AverageJoe90]

115. Post deleted.

[MineralMan]

118. Actually, all law is an opinion.

That's why we have a federal court system. There is a law that covers this, and it has been tested in the courts. We have a system. Our constitution names the body and system that will decide the constitutionality of our laws. Do you have a problem with that? Please think carefully, and not about a single court in time. Our federal court system is responsible for much that is good and has declared many bad laws to be unconstitutional. At this time, President Obama was acting within the law. Will that change? I doubt it very much, regardless of who is sitting on the SCOTUS. War is a different situation than normal life in these United States.

There is a law that authorizes President Obama's actions. It has been upheld as constitutional. Case closed. Your argument is what is actually wrong when it comes to the constitutionality of what happened today.

[msanthrope]

104. I've repeatedly, on this thread and others, asked Sabrina to cite her claim that

Al-Awlaki was in in the US recently and could have been apprehended. It's a pretty important claim. I'd like to know why it is being made.

[MineralMan]

113. The thing is that I'm not even going to get involved in that

discussion. My post is about what happened today. I have no interest in a debating match about this man. Was he here? I don't know. I know he was here sometime, but that's all I know. It's not one of those things I've been following. He's now dead.

[msanthrope]

103. Why do you refuse to cite your information that Al-Awlaki was in the US recently?

I have asked you repeatedly to cite your information that he was in the US and could have been apprehended easily, but you refuse to answer.

[AverageJoe90]

121. Good point, Sabrina.

And, I just found out that you were EXACTLY correct on him having the Pentagon dinner. Why in the HELL wasn't this guy thrown in jail and tried in a court of law? The fact that quite a few other terrorists got the same protection & vetting is even more outrageous, don't you agree?

We can't let this hypocrisy on Washington's part stand; Many actual terrorists, both foreign & domestic are often left alone, while ordinary citizens are still being strip searched! What in the FUCK is wrong with our country?!?!

[Harmony Blue]

70. I am inclined to agree with Sabrina

They had plenty of evidence, they could have arrested him. If not, then clearly the evidence wasn't strong enough for the court of law which is why he left the country unscathed. So why should he be targeted based on loose evidence?

[MineralMan]

74. Arrest is not a common option in wartime. As I have said

a number of times, I consider organized international terrorism the equivalent of warfare between nations. In warfare, there is no expectation that enemy leaders will be arrested and tried. That simply is not how it works very often. So, you may disagree with my equivalence with war, but that is my opinion, and is the basis of my support for this action. My opinion is subject to change, should actual facts indicate that a change is needed.

You're welcome to your opinion, though.

[sabrina 1]

98. He was not in a war zone when he was here in the US.

And International Law clearly states that extra-judicial killing is forbidden, even in a war zone. When possible, the enemy is supposed to be taken prisoner, NOT killed simply for the sake of doing so.

It is NOT an opinion, it is the law. If you have laws that counter the Geneva Conventions on this very issue, then I would like to see them.

As for our Constitution, no where in it is there anything that gives the US President the right to act as judge and jury anywhere. If I am wrong, then please present the evidence that I am wrong.

This is not opinion. This is fact.

[msanthrope]

106. He hasn't been here since 2002. If you have any evidence for your claim that he was here recently,

please post it.

[sabrina 1]

109. You are correct, my mistake on when he left.

However that does not change the fact that he has been on the FBI list of people who may have had knowledge of 9/11 as far back as days after the attack on the WTC. He was also suspected of being involved with many other known terrorists. There was plenty of opportunity to detain him, here at the time, we certainly detained lots of other innocent people and kept them for years in our gulags.

He was in England, yes, still a suspect, but not arrested as so many others were, with far fewer connections to terror than he was thought to have.

Even when he was in Yemen, and in jail there for over a year, no attempt was made to hold him on any charges.

He has denied being responsible for having anything to do with terror attacks on the US. And even with the fact that he was known to have been in touch with two of the 9/11 hi-jackers, AND thought by some in Intelligence to have known about it before it happened, to have been a contact eg, no effort was made, while he was her or in London to hold him.

In fact even with all these 'suspicions' he was invited to the Pentagon to help their program of reaching out to Muslims in this country after 9/11.

And he denied having anything to do with the Fort Hood shootings. There have been multiple opportunities to arrest him, yet, none of them were taken. And with the relationship between this country and Yemen, it would not have been difficult to get him handed over on numerous occasions.

He preached against the US. But initially airc, he was opposed to 9/11, possibly because it caused more problems than anything else, for Muslims. Or maybe, because he didn't support the killing of innocents, which he would not if he were a true Muslim. But we don't know do we, because instead of him being given a trial, he has received the death penalty.

I still see nothing that was not already known about him, he preached against the US, which he has been doing for years. But no evidence of him making bombs, shooting at anyone, and this was the excuse given by the FBI for NOT arresting him. So what additional evidence is there that made him Death Penalty material, when he wasn't even considered arrestable 'because we don't have enough evidence'?

[msanthrope]

112. So you agree he hasn't been in the US for 10 years?

Upthread, his emails that he exchanged with the BA bomb plotter, Karim, were posted. They show him directing a bomb plot.

I hope his emails with the Fort Hood shooter are eventually declassified--funny how wikileaks never published them, eh?

He wasn't some cute, fuzzy misunderstood guy who just got too many soliciting prostitution arrests....he was an actual terrorist.

[rustydog]

137. This somehow recinds being an American? Now he is guilty because

of his absence?

[msanthrope]

101. Can you cite your information? He left the US in 2002, went to Yemen in 2004. nt

[joshcryer]

130. Yep, FBI sit downs were in 2001; he spent from 1991 to 2002 in the US advocating extremism.

It was clear that the FBI found him to be an intriguing character, and it remains to be seen if the pressure from the FBI pushed him over the edge to actually advocating and assisting terrorism. Would be interesting if that turned out to be the case, as the atmosphere here in 2001 was very toxic for Muslims.

[AverageJoe90]

117. I do think we can certainly agree on one thing, Sabrina.

There is certainly a worrying amount of evidence that our beloved Constitution is indeed in trouble, and I do worry about the number of people who have been held without trial(anyone remember Jose Padilla?).

With that said, I do find it highly intriguing to hear that this man was invited to the PENTAGON of all places, and that no one seemed to be overly concerned about his terrorist activities for a time.

And, TBH, Sabrina, I do wonder if it's possible that he MAY have been either a pawn, or that perhaps his old associates turned on him. In any case, I DO honestly believe that a trial would have been the absolute best option to punish this guy, and to possibly uncover other wrongdoers as well; but sadly, that didn't happen. Those who committed the constant fuck-ups, instead of doing the right thing and arresting him, should DEFINITELY be held responsible for their failures; many, maybe even MOST, of them may have been CRIMINALLY negligent.

EDIT: I did an Internet search and it turns out that you were right after all, as I had suspected.

[joshcryer]

129. Your timeline is totally screwed up there, you make it sound like he was doing terrorist stuff...

...while having sit downs with the FBI.

He did not start doing terrorist stuff until after 2004 and the connections to acting terrorists weren't made until after 2008, it still took another two years for him to be put on the targeted killing list.

The fact that this guy did walk around unscathed for a decade in the United States and the UK proves that the United States and the UK has due process as it concerns free speech. This guy is akin the the Derick Jensen of the Islamist movement, and for a decade there he just talked, he never advocated. Once you start advocating and furthermore, start actively assisting terrorism, you are considered a terrorist.

[Uncle Joe]

73. 1. Who determines whether someone is a terrorist and can be killed, is it just the President?

2. Is there a public attempt made to get said terrorist to surrender whether a warrant can be served or not?

Thanks for the thread, MineralMan.

[MineralMan]

78. I doubt very much if that's a determination made by any single

individual. As it happens, in the United States, the final decisions in military matters are made by the President. I'm sure he has had a lot of input into this and allowed or ordered the military to take this particular action. I would guess that the action was proposed by the CIA and the military and that the President assented to their proposal. That's how it's usually done.

As for arrest, that's not really a military priority in most cases. If, as I believe, international terrorist organizations have an equivalency with nations, then we are currently involved in a military conflict with Al-Qaeda, which is one of those organizations. In such cases, leaders of those organizations are equivalent to officers of an enemy military force. It is unusual to arrest such people. If they can be killed, that is the usual course. If the opportunity comes to place them under arrest, that is also done, but it's more unusual. It's clear, from what President Obama has said, that he considers this a military operation, so those rules would seem to apply here, rather than civilian rules. Very different things.

I know I'm making a lot of assumptions, but those are the assumptions I'm making in coming to this opinion. If facts show those assumptions to be incorrect, I will consider those and perhaps change my opinion. Facts, however, are hard to come by in military and international intelligence, unless you're directly involved, so I doubt I'll ever have any more facts than I do. There are lots of opinions around, but few facts.

So, I posted this original post. I fully expected to hear opposing viewpoints, but that's my opinion, so I posted it.

[Uncle Joe]

100. I'm just thinking of the pressure a Vice-President ie:Cheney not to mention a President can place on

the CIA or for that matter FBI when they want a certain predetermined, outcome as in the run-up to the war with Iraq. That was all based on lies and any contradictory evidence or messengers were ignored or betrayed as in the outing of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Look at what happened during the McCarthy ERA witch hunts, people's lives and careers were destroyed just because they belonged or once belonged to an unpopular political party with the PTBs here in the USA, home of the brave and land of the free, would they today be classified as terrorists?

You may trust Obama in making the right decisions but considering an ambiguous concept ie: "War on Terror" (emotion) can't possibly have an end anymore than the "War on Drugs" and that corrupt, evil people will come to the most powerful job in land at some point, this kind of policy is extremely dangerous to our democratic republic.

[AverageJoe90]

76. I agree COMPLETELY.

While I do understand why some may be worried, I'd like to say this: "Folks, if this guy was a Neo-Nazi smashing in your garage door or breaking your bedroom window, would you stand by and worry about a trial? Or would you defend yourself and kick ass, and then worry about the trial?"

[MineralMan]

79. Thanks for sayin that. Many don't agree.

That's the nature of things, I guess.

[louslobbs]

87. That's the thing about whether or not we all agree all of the time, it doesn't make anyone good or

bad and obviously, no one always agrees with everyone, it's a difference of opinion, it just means that someone else thinks differently than we do. I should have just said that I respect you point of view, but I disagree with it........so I'm saying in now and I apologize for anything said out of pure emotion, I'm only human of course lol.....all the best.
Lou

[louslobbs]

83. The Koch brothers are actively engaged in the destruction of our Democracy they have bought and paid

for destructive policies that have killed thousands and caused millions pain and suffering. They're still having secret meetings and covertly planning to steal elections and buy judges and other officials. They are in fact killing Democracy and people everyday. Do we wait until someone finally has the balls to investigate them, drag them in to court and prosecute them, wait for their trial......all the while they continue their assault on this nation, or are they both taken out by a unmanned drone, stopping their terrorism and their push toward fascism on this country once and for all? Do we defend ourselves and kick their asses or worry about a trial? Is it really just that simple?
Lou

[COLGATE4]

107. Silly example. What you would do is call the cops.

[rustydog]

139. We'll never know because he was murdered without trial where

our government would be FORCED to produce evidence of their accusations and the now dead Amercian would have had the chance to refute the charges.
As for the neo nazi...I believe we have arrested and sued most of those retarded losers into bankruptcy without sending in the drones to kill them. Unless you know of a drone attack in Northern Idaho we do not know about.

[mmonk]

81. Due process, evidence, and trials are so messy.

We don't have to worry about those things anymore. 9/11 changed everything. No more pesky rule of law and constitutions to have deal with.

[louslobbs]

85. I forgot about that mmonk, thanks for reminding me, in that case, carry on all who think that

simply killing those who are thought to be terrorists, whether or not all the facts are there, is cool and righteous. I think 9/11 also ushered in a process by which any one of us can be picked up off the streets at any time and without any reason and held without representation for as long as the government decides........they would all just be horrible terrorists, so what, the government would never pick you or me up, we're law abiding citizens. As you were.......carry on.
Lou


Lou

[JNinWB]

88. If Awlaki were currently engaged in a plot to kill Americans...

...would that fact have any influence on pro-Awlaki opinions?

If Obama had called off this strike and several hundred Americans were soon killed because of Awlaki plots, would that influence opinions?

With hundreds of Americans dead, would Obama be blamed for not "taking out Awlaki" when he had the opportunity?

You know he would.

[louslobbs]

89. Many believe the Koch brothers and their like are engaged in plots to undermine Democracy and are

additionally, engaged in buying government officials to vote for their policies many of which lead to the deaths of untold numbers of Americans each year. Last I checked, those Americans should have protection as well, from the nefarious plots of the Koch brothers.....but they're not terrorist in the sense of the word used by most, so they get a pass to continue their brand of terrorism. If politicians and judges who take the Koch brothers bribes (sorry, donations), do nothing, and hundreds of thousands of Americans are killed how is that any different from Awlaki plots to kill? Two billionaires who have purchased most of our government and cause untold deaths by the policies they push, and believe me, those dead at their hands are just as dead, and they hold private gatherings, and galas, and party's where they are honored. Why aren't they targets for their plots against Americans. No need to answer, I know the answer all too well sadly.
Lou

[rustydog]

140. And with him dead he will never be able to deny that in a court of law and

Uncle Sam doesn't have to bother with that pesky bit of proving their assertions.

[Jack Sprat]

92. It really is that simple.

If I could have spared the victims of the Norway Camp killings by putting my finger on a drone and eliminating him before he could strike down the first victim or the last one, I would have droned his @$##eD up arse to death pronto.

[WinkyDink]

95. So you are for "Justice by Clairvoyance" ?

[Jack Sprat]

102. When the clairvoyance is that compelling, hell yeah! n/t

[COLGATE4]

108. You've been watching too many chapters of '24 hours'. Real life

isn't like that.

[WinkyDink]

96. And yet,....and yet, Obama lets Cheney and Bush walk free.

[Rex]

105. Not really a very good analogy imo.

The enabler would never break your door down and would always pay or incite someone else to do it. They are enablers, not doers. Now does that mean I agree with political assassinations? Obama does and it is the law of the land.

[EFerrari]

135. Obama's DoJ didn't prove this man was a threat

on some imaginary battlefield in Yemen so they went with state secrets in the case with ACLU & CCR.

[Rex]

144. It seems the JD is still the same place Cheney left it.

Why the fuck it was left in place, only Obama knows.

[EFerrari]

149. Obama also has a fondness for JSOC, which is McChrystal's baby,

and basically the Salvador Option on steroids now, globalized death squads.

[Enrique]

110. did you just come back from "Straw Dogs"? n/t

[MineralMan]

114. No. I saw the original in the theater.

I thought it was an excellently-made film. I have no intention of seeing the new version. Why do you ask?

[whatchamacallit]

116. Idiotic analogy

It doesn't follow even if he is guilty, which btw will never have to be proved. Enjoy your authoritarian wet dream... while you can.

[rustydog]

119. You are nuckin' futs my friend. There is no comparison in your comparison!

Talking shit does NOT mean the same as Kicking in your door at 2 in the morning.
You cannot be that ignorant of the RULE OF LAW in America.

At best this moron was suspected of Treason, he fled the country and talked shit on TV encouraging attacks...not a capital offense even by the broadest Bush-stretch of the Constitution. He had no weapons, he had no plan he was going to imminently place in motion he wore no uniform of a foreign nation, fired not one shot in anger....

At best he should have been ARRESTED, presumed INNOCENT in and UNTIL found guilty in a court of law.
That is how America is supposed to work.

Now, all we have to do is have the President say the person is bad and he can have that person assassinated?
Bull Shit.

[MineralMan]

120. Well, thank you for your carefully reasoned argument.

I find "nuckin' futs" to be an excellent insult, indeed. You are a genius. That's clear.

[U4ikLefty]

142. all your post deserved

[Bonobo]

127. Serious question: How does one judge whether he is an "active terrorism planner"?

Answer that and you may have an argument. Otherwise, sorry... you are ducking the issue.

[EFerrari]

132. The government told him so. Isn't that enough for you?

:sarcasm:

[MineralMan]

158. I am not competent to make that judgment, nor do I wish to

have that responsibility. Others, however, are competent to make that judgment, have the information they need to do so, and are empowered to act on their judgment. I'm not ducking any issue. I'm telling you what I think about what happened.

[Bonobo]

163. I suggest you read up on Arendt's concept of the "banality of evil" nt

[Zhade]

128. Jesus fucking christ. You people are insane.

NT!

[MineralMan]

161. Thank you for your detailed addition to this discussion.

I appreciate all the thought you put into it.

[bluestate10]

138. I, for one.

Would like to see the military and the CIA set up a killing day where bastards like the ones killed yesterday get tracked and all get killed in a series of drone strikes, all launched at the exact same minute. I have no regard for scum of the type killed yesterday.

[RetroLounge]

146. I'm a liberal

You obviously are something else.

RL

[MineralMan]

159. I see. And what I see is that you don't know me at all.

But, that's OK. We're both just pseudonyms on a discussion forum.

[Bonobo]

147. Few things are simple, my dear Mineral Man. Least of all killing. nt

[MineralMan]

157. You're certainly correct about that. This action was, I'm sure,

very carefully planned and discussed long before it happened. Not simple at all.

My response to someone breaking down my door is also carefully planned. Since it is something that occasionally happens to people, I though about an appropriate response and made a plan about what to do if it occurred. I do not wish to shoot someone, but will do that if necessary to protect myself and my wife. So, I have a plan that takes all the factors I can think of into consideration and will carry out that plan if it ever becomes necessary. It certainly would not be simple, and would lead to very complex issues if it ever occurred. All of that was considered as well when I came up with my plan.

I can't even imagine what must have gone into the planning for this operation that took place yesterday. Not simple at all.

[spanone]

160. so who's word do we take that he's a terrorist or an enabler?

i've learned you cannot trust governments...democrats or republicans

[MineralMan]

162. Well, in this instance, I'm taking the government's word,

obviously. While governments are sometimes untrustworthy, there is enough supporting evidence about this man in public sources that I feel confident that he is indeed a terrorist and a leader of terrorists. You may think differently. That's your privilege. However, evidence is pretty substantial regarding his activities and history.

[Major Hogwash]

164. Good point.

And the answers are all in this thread if anyone is curious enough to look for them.

Excellent thread.

[pitohui]

166. i agree

at the end of the day we sat on our hands for many a year waiting for these gov'ts to man up and turn over the terrorists in question for a public trial

instead pakistan, yemen, afghanistan etc. gave these murderers aid and comfort

fuck it, at some point you have to accept that if the other guy isn't dealing in good faith you have the right to eliminate the murderer who is sitting on his ass living high and getting away with it

i think obama's policies are great...he is killing the fucking scumbags, george bush just let them do as they pleased and walk away with bags of money

my PREFERENCE would be take it to trial but these nations aren't allowing us to take the scumbags to trial and doing nothing is a cruel injustice to the victims

[JackDragna]

167. A completely false analogy.

You, as an individual homeowner, have the right to defend yourself. You are not a government, tasked with guaranteeing the civil liberties of your citizens. There's also another type of right - the right of American citizens to a trial by the jury of their peers and not be exterminated by presidential fiat. Unless all citizens are guaranteed these rights, then the rights mean nothing to anyone.