Skip to main content

I'm watching Glenn Beck (which i often do now for comedy) and he mentioned the administration targeting a US citizen for assassination.  Is this true?  

If this is true (which may or may not be the case) then we have to say something about this.  It is bad enough that we kill foreign civilians without trial.  Are we now also targeting American citizens?  

I'm sure the answer will come quickly from the Kos I just want to alleviate my own mind about this.  

BTW, watching Beck's list (which i giggled at) is correct in one point:  All the things he listed that I railed against Bush from Gitmo, to wiretapping, to treating terrorists outside the rule of law, this administration is doing.  

It is sad that I am even questioning whether the government has targeted a US citizen for assassination.  What do the Dailykos members think about this?  

Glen Beck may have just said something that makes sense!  Ding, Ding!  if the President can authorize the assassination of a US citizen without trial, then he can kill at will.  Does he not become a dictator?  

I cannot believe the Obama administration knowingly authorized that.  Maybe the CIA acting alone might but the President?  I'm praying this isn't true.

EDIT:

Just found this...http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html

Can't believe I missed this.  There should really be outrage over this.  

Originally posted to michlawa2 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:20 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Welcome to the internet. (18+ / 0-)

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      http://www.salon.com/...

      If you were gonna get worked up about it, the time was probably January, when they announced it.

      "The joy of activity is the activity itself, not some arbitrary goal which, if not achieved, steals the joy." ~John "the Penguin" Bingham

      by sheddhead on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:28:03 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  michlawa2, don't be so transparent with your (6+ / 0-)

      fake concern. It's unbecoming.

      "Palin tried marijuana years ago. She said it distorted her perceptions & impaired her thinking. She hopes the effects will eventually one day wear off." -

      by marabout40 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:13:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  his transparency makes me weep. (0+ / 0-)

        much of it cut due to boredom.


        Challenge Obama in 2012
        by michlawa2 [Subscribe]

             
        Thu Dec 03, 2009 at 07:11:56 PM EDT

        What are we here for?  

        Can we sit idle while the President continues the terrible occupation of two countries, while the American people suffer 10% unemployment?  

        Is it any less evil when President Obama bombs an Afghan or Pakistani village than when George Bush gives the order?  How many thousands of Afghan citizens has the President condemned to die with his decision Tuesday?  How many American soldiers?  

        From Health Care Reform (remember when Democrats once spoke of universal health care?) that will give a boon to insurance companies, to bailing out the banking institutions that daily rape the American people of their wealth, to continuing not only the occupations but the thinking that led to the occupations, President Obama has shown himself to be no friend of progressives in America.  

        It is time for a change.  

        We should support a real progressive challenger in 2012.

        Why must we allow ourselves to be forced into supporting the moderate candidate with the ploy that not doing so will hand the office to the evil Republicans.  Guess what.  The Democrats have both houses and the presidency and see the change in government?  Pro-Wall Street, Pro-Corporation, Pro-Imperialism...Anti-American.  

        Simple fact of the matter, President Obama has adopted the occupations.  He is responsible for the deaths there.  He is truly a Lincoln figure now, with all the damnation that accompanies the slaughter of innocents.  I can no longer support him in any function and I ask the community to rally behind the Challenger in 2012 (if there is one) or find and prop up our own.  Even if we fail our point will be made.  

        Then, let's find progressives that will not sell us out.  Put them in Congress, put them in the White House.  

        One thing that must happen quickly; Kill the myth that President Obama is a progressive.  He is not.  He is not your friend or buddy or anything like that.  He is a politician first and foremost, and of the same mold as every other President we've had in recent memory.  We deserve better.  We must make the office better.  

        EDIT: I cannot respond to the comments fast enough.  I will say that the argument that we must support President Obama or lose the office to Republicans is a false dichotomy.  We can both nominate a progressive and win the presidency.  It is possible if enough people stand up for what they believe in.  

        I am not going to bend on this principle.  I cannot support this pro-war President.  If this is the best we can do then why fight at all?  

        "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

        by Christin on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 06:37:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  This is a violation of the rule that we should (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          The Narrative

          try to rate the comment (or the diary), not the writer.

          This diary itself, standing by itself, is righteous.

          And yet you have HR'd the tip jar.

          That is straight-up HR abuse.

          Sorry, Christin, I understand your feelings here, but disagree. This is NOT a personal attack on you.

          •  I don't trust his /her motives at all T (0+ / 0-)

            and when i don't, things are off.
            i was in another diary that everyone HR'd the tip jar.
            it had all zeroes.
            and something must be wrong with me. i took no offense to it and laughed.
            and then MB weighed in and seemed to agree with those who were offended.
            so maybe i am off?
            it was some diary by toots74?
            i think.

            "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

            by Christin on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:51:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  This may be a bad diary. And it may quote the (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kingsmeg, Jyrinx, Nada Lemming, Dr Marcos

      odious Beck.

      But it is ACCURATE.

      And it is IMPORTANT.

      And it DOES cite an authoritative article on this outrage from the New York Times.

      The HRs on the tip jar here are straight-up HR abuse.

      •  Not quite acurate (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Timaeus

        The order was to capture or kill him. He has openly been in al-Qaeda training videos. al-Qaeda is a terrorist organization who commits violence against the US and he has openly allied with them. It seems a capture or kill order is not so unreasonable. At the moment he is about on par with an American who sided with Nazi Germany or with other enemy combatants.

        Now look, I didn't HR the guy even though his whole style is trollish. I do see some concerns raised by the methods governments (including our own) go about targeting enemies. But it seems this guy has, in essence, joined a foreign military organization by joining al-Qaeda in Yemen amd participating in their training and recruitment videos. This does seem in the range of legit responses to this kind of situation.

        FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

        by mole333 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:54:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. He's a criminal. You arrest criminals. (3+ / 0-)

          How come FBI agents get arrest warrants, not capture-or-kill warrants, against serial killers? Certainly, sometimes people get shot dead when they fight back against arrest, and sometimes those cases are legitimate and justified. Yet there is no “capture or kill” involved.

          The law does not depend on how much you hate someone or what you think we should do. (Thank God.)

          “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

          by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 05:00:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  As I said in a note to volleyboy1 below, (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming

          this is a case where I'm currently taking the protect-the-consitution-at-all-costs side, which is the opposite of the position I take in the Fred Phelps/Westboro Baptist Church case.

          Part of that has to do, I guess, with the finality of killing. Phelps can get socked with a big fine. Big deal. Doesn't kill him. But Alwaki is likely to take a Hellfire missile up the butt. I think an American has a right to openly side with enemies of the United States without being killed without judicial process.

          What about American actors and writers who were Communists in the 1950s?  They were allied with a power that posed a MUCH larger threat to the United States than does rump Al-Qaeda.  Do you advocate that they should have been extrajudicially murdered by U.S. government death squads?

          That is, in fact, the logical weight of your words.

          •  The Americans who sided (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102

            with the Soviets did not deserve Death - those who spied on America and provided operatable information leading to the death or harm of Americans were Traitors.

            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 05:23:53 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agree. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nada Lemming

              But this doesn't support your argument here, for two reasons.

              First, the Communist traitors got judicial process, as required by law.

              Second, I don't believe it's really clear that Alwaki has committed a capital offense.  It's possible.  But I've seen no proof beyond a reasonable doubt (the standard for a criminal conviction), and I damn sure don't trust the U.S. Government on things like that.

              •  Here, of course, is an issue (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                volleyboy1, Mets102

                He has actively and openly participated in al-Qaeda recruitment videos. He has also been a spiritual advisor to many who have actually committed attacks on the US. He has also openly supported most of those acts. He has moved to live among al-Qaeda in Yemen.

                Does this make him personally an enemy combatant? I think that is a reasonable arguement, but not necessarily a slam dunk. I would need to know more before I was fully comfortable with it. But even with what I have learned so far he seems to be active with enemy combatants at least in a support function if nothing else (recruitment, morale, etc.)

                FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

                by mole333 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:16:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Well (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102

            Again, I suspect they'd rather capture him. But you also have to fight enemy combatants and he is now physically with enemy combatants he should be treated as one. Phelps I am more willing to protect (disgusting though he is) because he is smiply exercising his constitutional rights, not joining enemy combatants. Though having read his son's website, I do think he needs to be nailed for spouse and child abuse, but that is a different matter.

            Similarly, most American communists were just that...American communists, not people who moved to the Soviet Union and joined the army. Even had they done that, since the Soviet Union and the US were not technically at war, they would have been defectors, not enemy combatants. This guy joined a foreign force actively engaged in combat operations against the US. To me that is a totally different situation.

            FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

            by mole333 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:12:28 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  So in effect (0+ / 0-)

             Show me ONE American who was killed as a result of the Hollywood crowd. Show me one! Now look at the pictures of dead American soldiers as a result of the Ft. Hood shooting. Now imagine 260 dead as a plane falls out of the sky over Detroit.

             Unless you're suggesting that communist sympathizers in 1950 had the same goals in mind...your argument makes absolutely no sense.

            There's magic in fighting battles beyond endurance. Its the magic of risking everything for a dream that nobody sees but you!! - Morgan Freeman

            by usmeagle69 on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:43:22 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Uprated (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, Nada Lemming

      I've read the comments claiming H/R's for this being a CT diary but he links to the New York Times read the article just now.

      WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

      So anyone saying it is a CT can please point to the New York Times retraction or to any piece of evidence that goes against his claims that Obama has authorized the killing of this cleric.

      Would just add that it is a dangerous precedent. If you decide to authorize a targeted killing of an American in Yemen planning a terrorist attack whats to stop a future president planning a targeted killing of a domestic terrorist planning an attack. Slippery Slop.

      Non Violence is fine... so long as it works. - Malcolm X

      by Dr Marcos on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:51:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If the person in America (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JL, Mets102

        proudly admits to aiding and abetting terror in attacks that actually killed Americans... I have no problem with that what so ever. See if this joker said he was innocent that is one thing. But he doesn't he admits to his activities.

        Interesting tag line you have. You complain about gov't stopping terror but it implies you advocate violence if Non-violence doesn't work. Interesting and hypocritical.

        "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

        by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 05:02:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  volleyboy1, I didn't see it in links here, (0+ / 0-)

          and I didn't find it in some googling.

          I usually hate link-demandism (my term).

          But if you have a link handy where this rat admitted to killing Americans, or causing the killing of Americans, I'd like to see it.

          By the way, shouting and preaching "Death to Amerika!" doesn't count.

          •  See the comments I linked too (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102

            in other places, He admits aiding them, and he calls them his "Students".... Being a teacher or mentor goes beyond yelling "Death to America"...

            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 06:03:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You think it's way over the line to being (0+ / 0-)

              enough for murder.

              I'm not satisfied. I don't think that's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

              You're prepared to throw away the entire U.S. constitutional order because you're afraid of one angry Arab preacher in Yemen.

              That's not exactly a profile in courage.

        •  Slippery slope you're on there (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Timaeus, Nada Lemming

          If you are in favor of killing Americans that are aiding and abetting terrorist attacks where do you draw the line?

          Maybe start off killing Americans helping Al Qaeda maybe move onto right wing terrorists helping McVeigh-types (Cause terrorism is terrorism no matter the group) how about moving onto the KKK lynching something I would say is terrorism and certainly fits you statement of it "killing Americans". Should the government have the right to assassinate members of the KKK? Without trial?

          I bring up these because like Torture it always starts off isolated and controlled like the water-boarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed after 9/11 but blurs the lines enough so that eventually someone will pull an "Abu Gharib".

          If assassinating Americans becomes policy it will inevitably become routine/be misused. Not to mention it is a violation of basic rules of law like a fair trial/innocent until proven guilty.

          As a European its saddens me to have to explain all this to an American.

          Non Violence is fine... so long as it works. - Malcolm X

          by Dr Marcos on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 06:02:16 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I have no problem with (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102

            putting terrorists out if the government has material evidence they are plotting working toward terror strikes. As I mentioned 1,000,000 x already, I would rather they be captured but, if that cannot happen I have no problem with an alternative.

            BUT... I do think they should have to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt this is happening.

            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 06:06:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Gosh, volleyboy1, you keep claiming (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nada Lemming

              not to be a neoconservative. For years. But my belief in that claim is taking a hit on this bad diary. You're making straight neocon arguments, apparently with little self-awareness. I disapprove.

              You're prepared to throw away the entire U.S. constitutional order due to fear of a single crazy Arab in Yemen. That's not a profile in courage.

              •  Sigh.... you mean (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mets102

                trying to arrest through capture and going through legal channels to everything short of assassination is neo-con? Why I never realized that.

                I also didn't realize neo-cons voted for and worked for President Obama in the primaries

                I didn't realize that neo-cons supported the Israeli Left

                I didn't realize neo-cons agreed with Gay Marriage

                I didn't realize neo-cons agreed with Gun Control

                I sure didn't realize neo-cons supported single payer healthcare, a strong dept. of energy, an end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

                I didn't realize neo-cons favored Cap and Trade

                I mean all those things I support I didn't realize Bush and his neo-con friends supported as well. Well color me shocked. Shocked I tell you. You have burst my bubble.

                "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:20:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Pretty unnecessary (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                volleyboy1

                   to label someone b/c they disagree with your ridiculous view of the world and constitution. Protection of American citizens in the DUTY of the government.

                  Why would the President target this man without reason? Is he trying to start a war like Bush was? Is he trying to win re-election on the backs of our soldiers like Bush was? Is he trying to scare Americans into approving a neo-con agenda like Bush was?

                  The answer to all these questions is no.

                There's magic in fighting battles beyond endurance. Its the magic of risking everything for a dream that nobody sees but you!! - Morgan Freeman

                by usmeagle69 on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:48:52 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  what if they knew about the identity of the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              volleyboy1

              9/11 highjackers before the deed was done.
              and had to take them out?
              when progressives yell NO. is when they get pushed into the corner.
              and why they almost never win elections or make it into power.
              i see a lot of them get go full tilt hypocritical when it comes to defending their children and families though.

              "Oh no...you changed your hair color? It's just so dark. You like it? And with your skin tone?" My Beloved Mom, December 25 2007, once again on notice.

              by Christin on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 06:31:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You mean we shoudn't have arrested them? (0+ / 0-)

                Just walk up and blow their brains out?  No trial, no questions, just shoot 'em?  My, what a world you live in.  What color is the sky where you live?  

                It's good to know that you most certainly are not a progressive.  

                If we question Democrats for their behavior, SARAH FREAKING PALIN!!!!!!!

                by Nada Lemming on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:03:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Dr Marcos, I greatly appreciate your (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Nada Lemming, Dr Marcos

            attempts to explain these obvious truisms to Americans.

            Sometimes I fear America is just a ghost of the past. Here we have the most intelligent, most gifted, most wealthy (on average) American left-wing elites in the majority arguing strenuously for extrajudicial killing!

            It is a spectacle almost worth a suicide. Words fail at the spectacle. George W. Bush and Dick Cheney speak like ventriloquists through all of these ostensible liberals.

            •  Well you've just been outed as a fraud (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              volleyboy1

                a complete, total fraud. Most wealthy elites? What on Earth gives you the idea that we are all wealthy elites?

                Unless you're a damned troll? Not to mention a coward!!

              There's magic in fighting battles beyond endurance. Its the magic of risking everything for a dream that nobody sees but you!! - Morgan Freeman

              by usmeagle69 on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:50:23 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Cheney admitted to war crimes (0+ / 0-)

          Should we send a missile over to his undisclosed location or should we have a trial first?

          Since this is supposedly still America, I'd vote for a trial in both cases.  

          If we question Democrats for their behavior, SARAH FREAKING PALIN!!!!!!!

          by Nada Lemming on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:00:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Rec'd to counter BS HRs (0+ / 0-)

      Dick Cheney would be a moderate in this discussion. Literally.

    •  yeah, I jsut found this... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, Crabby Abbey

      http://www.nytimes.com/...

      OMG this is sickening

      •  OMG! OMG! OMG! (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        citizenx, second gen, volleyboy1, JL, Dom9000

        You might have thought to 'find' the NYT article before you published the diary?

        "Palin tried marijuana years ago. She said it distorted her perceptions & impaired her thinking. She hopes the effects will eventually one day wear off." -

        by marabout40 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:30:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Which is sickening to you? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Olympia

        That there has a capture or kill order for this man or this man is actively involved in trying to kill Americans.

        •  So you assert that (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Jyrinx, Nada Lemming
          1. the U.S. government intel is always accurate;
          1. two wrongs make a right;
          1. might makes right; and
          1. the president of the United States has power to take your life without judicial process, in complete disregard for the principle of the presumption of innocence, and in complete violation of your constitutional rights?

          And you're down with that for bullshit Fox News style reasons.

          What country do you think you're living in?

          •  No the fact that they have him on video bragging (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1

            about it.

            •  he could simply be crazy - and his family (0+ / 0-)

              which lives in the US does not seem to think he is a terrorist.  

              •  Well that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                volleyboy1

                 definetly should factor in....the family doesn't think he's a terrorist. Susan Smith's family didn't think she murdered those kids. Scott Peterson's family insists he didn't kill Laci and baby Connor. Hell Bin Laden first insisted he DIDN'T perpetrate 9/11.

                 We should definetly put weight on what his family thinks. If they don't think he's a terrorist, we should just forget about him. That's a great policy!!

                There's magic in fighting battles beyond endurance. Its the magic of risking everything for a dream that nobody sees but you!! - Morgan Freeman

                by usmeagle69 on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:52:35 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  the man's guilt is actually a total non-issue (0+ / 0-)

                  here ... after all, treason is a crime, and the courts here are equipped to figure out if he did anything actually illegal.

                  What is an issue is defining the battlefield as omnipresent.  If this guy is actually shooting at our soldiers, of course he can be a casualty and nobody is singing folk songs in his honor.  However, when the whole world is the battlefield all the time (a belief both Obama and Bush have advanced), then everybody is, for the grace of the President, a potential casualty.

                  That the government, who has detained people for the last decade largely in error, declares this guy an important terrorist - does not move me in the least.  Given the government's record of boasting and the ability of those we capture to get released - any claims made warrant quite a bit of skepticism.  

                  Moreover, if someone ends up on the wrong list - or has the wrong last name - there is no recourse.  This is state funded assassination - even if there is a happy "enhanced interrogation" sort of construct there for supporters to use so they can sleep at night.

  •  I'm going to engage in Ad Hominem (13+ / 0-)

    Glenn Beck has a brandy nose, therefore nothing he says is true.  

  •  Glenn Beck NEVER says anything that makes sense (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    michlawa2

    He is to be ignored or mocked.  Never should he be taken seriously, he is a know-nothing racist loudmouth.
    That said, There's alot of secretive bullshit going on.  See MB's front page post about the Washington Post investigation.

    "I drank what?!" -Socrates

    by bagman on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:27:46 PM PDT

  •  Here's the latest about al-awlaki (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    michlawa2
    •  Why can't we arrest this guy? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, Nada Lemming

      The US government has been monitoring al-Awlaki for years. But the Treasury Department was able to slap the cleric with sanctions because officials established an operational link between him and an al-Qaeda spin-off group in Yemen, according to a government official who was not authorised to speak publicly about this matter and spoke only on condition of anonymity.

      If we have enough info on him to monitor him for years, and he's not a "tactical" threat, why do we have to target him for assassination?  Just weird.  

      •  you went from being totally ignorant on the story (21+ / 0-)

        to knowing a hell of a lot about in about 2 seconds. all of your past diaries smell rotten and so does this one.

      •  The same reason (7+ / 0-)

         we can't just arrest Roman Polanski. We can't just walk into another country and slap cuffs on someone. Yemen is not exactly the friendliest of nations when it deals with the US.
         
         It has an Al Q'aeda prescence that is likely shielding this man. We don't live in a utopia. This man poses a threat to Americans...or is it just a coincidence that both the Ft. Hood shooter and the underpants bomber had contacts with him.

         Give me a break.

        There's magic in fighting battles beyond endurance. Its the magic of risking everything for a dream that nobody sees but you!! - Morgan Freeman

        by usmeagle69 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:41:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wait, we can't just waltz in and slap (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Timaeus, DocGonzo

          the cuffs on him, but we can just waltz in and shoot him dead?

          Besides, it doesn't matter how guilty he is. He gets a fair trial. Period. Don't buy into the Cheney view of the war on terror.

          “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

          by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:01:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Would you feel better (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1

              if the US Government revoked his citizenship first? Seriously, if you want to go to the mat defending this man, be my guest. But you're going to have a hard time getting me to care whether the President has indicated that he can be killed.

              I'd rather a trial...but then I'd also rather a 66 Mustang as opposed to the car I'm currently driving.

              This man has had known involvement with TWO recent terrorists who carried out attacks on our own soil. If you buy that as a coincidence....then please come join the poker game I play in!! I'll never have to work again!!

            There's magic in fighting battles beyond endurance. Its the magic of risking everything for a dream that nobody sees but you!! - Morgan Freeman

            by usmeagle69 on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 06:38:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Umm...what law did he break? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Timaeus, Nada Lemming

        Is there some indictment against him of which I'm unaware?  Any formal charges?  

        Are you people even aware of laws??????

        •  I believe this falls under treasonous behavior (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          JL, Mets102

          In the months before the Fort Hood shooting, which killed 13 people, al-Awlaki exchanged e-mails with the alleged attacker, U.S. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Telling "students' to go out and kill their fellow citizens, encouraging such behavior, AND actually facilitating such behavior,and happily continuing the same hehavior plus proving aid and comfort to the enemy.

          Here are some gems from your Mr. Innocent here:

          Hasan initiated the contacts, drawn by al-Awlaki's Internet sermons, and approached him for religious advice.

          Yemen's government says al-Awlaki is also suspected of contacts with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused in the failed attempt to blow up the Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day. Abdulmutallab traveled to Yemen late last year, and U.S. investigators say he told them that he received training and his bomb from Yemen's al-Qaida offshoot.

          In Sunday's video, al-Awlaki praised both men and referred to them as his "students."

          Speaking of Hasan, the cleric said, "What he did was heroic and great. ... I ask every Muslim serving in the U.S. Army to follow suit."

          http://www.aolnews.com/...

          And the definition of treason is:

          NOUN

          1. betrayal of country: a violation of the allegiance owed by somebody to his or her own country, e.g. by aiding an enemy.

          See also  high treason

          1. treachery: betrayal or disloyalty
          1. act of betrayal: an act of betrayal or disloyalty

          http://www.bing.com/...

          Given that he admits to as much - have fun defending this scion of behavior here.

          "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

          by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:16:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And for good measure (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1

            from the Cornell Law School website, Article III, Section III of the US Constitution:

            Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

            The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

            •  Uh, instead of just cut and pasting, (0+ / 0-)

              you should try reading. That will show you that treason, the only constitutionally defined crime, requires the highest burden of proof -- testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act or confession in open court.

              Check the law. It requires JUDICIAL PROCESS.

              Extrajudicial killings are murder.

              •  I know the law of Treason (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                volleyboy1

                I was just cutting and pasting there to give the exact words.

                And in the Hasan case I think it could be proved because we have the statements indicating his working with the enemies of the United States and we also have an overt act: his shooting soldiers on a military base to further those purposes.  There's no need to charge him with treason because he's already charged with a capital offense.

          •  But you're missing the BIG POINT. (0+ / 0-)

            Treason is the only crime defined in the U.S. Constitution, and it requires the very highest burden of proof for any federal crime: testimony of two witnesses in a court of law.

            You can't get from your definitions here to your conclusion.  Your argument is irrational and illogical and wrong.

            I'm not endorsing this diarist by any means, but I think he's correct in the diary and what he has said so far in comments.

            •  I understand the (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mets102

              point you are making and I get your concern. I would have the same too had this person not admitted to it and happily admitted I might add. If he doesn't brag about it - hey I see a grey area - but, once he 'fesses up (and I don't mean through bullshit torture) he wrote his own ticket.

              He knows what he is doing, and he is proud of it. Too bad for him.

              "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

              by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 05:06:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  That's protected speech. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Timaeus

            See Brandenburg v. Ohio — advocacy of illegal activities, anything this side of a specific and immediate threat, is protected by the First Amendment.  

            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

            by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 05:08:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Ummm... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        volleyboy1

        Because he's holed up hiding in Yemen with a bunch of armed anti-American fanatics. Exactly how do you suggest we arrest him?

        And again, he is targeted for "capture or killing." Sounds reasonable for someone who has joined armed groups sworn to attack us.

        FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

        by mole333 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:00:30 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  How the fuck do you know any of those (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          monroematt, Nada Lemming

          allegations to be true?

          I'm always amazed when people using crazy law and order arguments like this never realize how easily the same gun will be pointed at them.

          •  He admits to them Timaeus (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            JL, Mets102

            he is proud of them. What exactly more do you want? We go on a capture mission 20 people die in that and we put him on trial where he admits what he already has admitted. Then we sentence him... to die.

            Makes sense. If he claimed innocence that is one thing BUT he does not. He happily admits to being guilty. What more do you need? It's not like he is being coerced or the confession is under duress.... Face it man, we do have enemies in the world. No here suggests torture and if he is captured I think we would all support a fair trial.

            But according to his own statements he is a threat.

            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:20:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  volleyboy1, as you know, I respect your (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jyrinx

              views. I also wonder if your opinion here might not be influenced by the fact that this diarist had a stinkbomb of an anti-Israel diary on 2/19/08, which I linked below.

              It just occurred to me that this case is kind of like the Fred Phelps/Westboro Baptist Church case. I think what Phelps' cult does is so awful that it should not be protected by the constitution. But there are very respected First Amendment scholars who hold to the contrary.

              Here, I agree that Alwaki is awful, but I'm holding to the side of protecting the constitution.

              If Alwaki really had unambiguously admitted to killing Americans, I might go over to your side on this. I just did 10 minutes of googling on this, and speaking as a defense attorney, I'm not prepared to agree that he really has admitted everything he is charged with. He's a blowhard and a publicity hound.  Maybe he's completely evil.

              But I would protect the constitution, taking the long view (as I see it now).

          •  From what I can tell... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1, JL

            From what I can tell he is quite open about all of this. It's kind of like how do we know al-Qaeda planned 9/11? Well they proudly admit it. Same here from all I have read.

            The guy seems quite openly treasonous. I don't think we should be surprised if he is treated like a traitor. I can understand criticism of the process, and I am open to your suggestions (things like "why don't we just arrest him" as the diariest said in the comments are not really appropriate for someone hiding among al-Qaeda folks in Yemen). But I don't think it is really in question that the guy is openly advocating and recruiting for armed attacks on the US.

            FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

            by mole333 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:29:55 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Staute citation please? (0+ / 0-)

          LOL...we are still a country of laws.  We need something other than an assertion that he's a "bad guy."

          •  Well (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1

            Perhaps you should read the NY Times article that you cite. Or perhaps the Huffington Post where he is actually IN AN al-Qaeda VIDEO advoacating attacks on the US. Read the profile on BBC. He has PUBLISHED works advocating violence and has ties to, and is known to have advised, several known terrorists.

            We aren't talking "assertions he's a bad guy." We are talking about evidence that he is linked to not just one, but several individuals who have been under his tutelage who went on to commit terrorism, and he has openly supported and advocated the very acts these people committed.

            FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

            by mole333 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:45:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And I maintain that's not even (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Nada Lemming

              remotely enough to justify extrajudicial killing.

              •  The way I see it is this (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mets102

                When someone commits a crime and the police are looking for them they are out to capture him. Of course if that person is armed and dangerous, they are out to capture him but with the knowledge that the person may not come easily. If that person holes up in a compound with other armed and dangerous suspects and resists with violence, then that person is going to get killed.

                I see this as no different. I could argue that if he surrendered to answer the charges then he'd get his day in court...whatever one they decide on for such cases...I was all for trying the 9/11 suspects here in NYC in a regular court...but there is a reasonable arguement that these are enemy combatants, and if that is the route they are going then they should be treated as enemy combatants.

                Calling it assassination or extrajudicial killing is assuming that the main purpose is to kill rather than to capture. Yet I don't see that is warrented. I suspect they'd RATHER capture him.

                FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

                by mole333 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 06:59:46 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  I'll let you get all worked up (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Olympia, ariseatex

      I'll continue to not care. This is months old and is hardly news.

    There's magic in fighting battles beyond endurance. Its the magic of risking everything for a dream that nobody sees but you!! - Morgan Freeman

    by usmeagle69 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:36:28 PM PDT

  •  Wow. I guess Paul (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peace voter

    the Apostle was lucky he was able to fall back on Roman citizenship when he got in trouble. Instead of just assassinating him they had to give him what amounted to a 'fair trial' before executing him for believing the wrong things.

    Now, more than ever, we need the Jedi.

    by Joieau on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:37:58 PM PDT

  •  Yes. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ben masel, Timaeus, DocGonzo, limpidglass

    It's always painful when Glenn Beck can say something outrageous and be right.

    “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

    by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:40:02 PM PDT

  •  I like professional wrestling (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timaeus, GlowNZ, Jyrinx, David Kroning II

    The story lines about good and evil are clearer than on Glenn Beck.

    I also like Iron Chef. That mysterious Japanese billionaire funding the competition is good.

    Point: Professional wrestling has real chairs. Iron Chef has real lobsters. Beck, it seems, has real assassination orders of U.S. citizens.

    But watch out for fictional plot lines in what Beck is doing with the material.

  •  You lost me at (11+ / 0-)

    I'm watching Glenn Beck (which i often do now for comedy)

  •  It is outrageous (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Marcos

    But IMHO it's not outrageous because he's an American citizen, it's outrageous because it's essentially green-lights a summary execution, and a summary execution is more acceptable if it's a foreign citizen or an American citizens.

  •  Pathetic Concern Trolling (8+ / 0-)

    or serious patriot - we report... you decide.. </snark>

    Capture or Kill means try to capture and if you can't, then don't risk your assets or produce collateral damage trying to capture if your only option is kill.

    This is manufactured BULLSHIT by Beck. He wouldn't / doesn't say a word about contractors in Iraq, or anything else from the Bush years. Really.... I would do what the The President is doing in this case. This person is a traitor to the U.S. he became an "enemy combatant" when he decided to terrorize the country.

    If he is captured I advocate full rights of trial and what not but if he fights, I have no problem with our soldiers doing what needs to be done.

    "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

    by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 02:53:08 PM PDT

    •  Killing someone just because you can't capture (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, monroematt, Dom9000

      is against the law. Period.

      “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

      by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:04:17 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Umm not if the target (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Rich in PA, BFSkinner, JL, Mets102, Dom9000

        is an enemy combatant. If he is actively taking a role in striking the U.S. - not just babbling about it, but, actively engaged then I don't it is at all. Otherwise every death of a person trying terrorize or attack America would be illegal.

        This person is actively involved in attacking the U.S. He is not a passive by-stander or big mouth talking head. He is an active enemy.

        "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

        by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:08:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Neoconservative claptrap. (3+ / 1-)
          Recommended by:
          Timaeus, monroematt, The Narrative
          Hidden by:
          Mets102

          Apparently now to be “actively striking” against the U.S. all you have to be is a webmaster?!!

          “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

          by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:12:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  OH Please.... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            second gen, JL, Mets102, Dom9000

            First of all not everyone who disagrees with you is a neo con. That is a Republican tactic - frame those who disagree with you as your political enemy.

            Second of all, he is a lot more than some Webmaster sitting in mom's basement. He takes an active role in the conflict.

            Sorry, but stop the bullshit for a minute - you are the one defending the neo-con and his diary not me...

            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:28:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No, but people who disagree with me and spout (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Timaeus

              neocon platitudes, including the gold standard of Bush-era Orwellian propaganda — “enemy combatant” — are indeed saying neoconservative claptrap. I never said the commenter is neoconservative.

              “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

              by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:33:25 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  LOL I know you didn't (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mets102

                you called me a neo-con which is seriously: TEH STOOPID... I don't advocate torture or anything else. If we capture him I think he needs to stand trial in a criminal court as terrorism is a criminal activity.

                At the same time it is treason as defined above. I believe if we cannot capture him (and we should try above just assasination) then assasination is what needs to happen. Given his bragging and admissions even I would have no problem here.

                But the diarist who is shilling for Beck is pretty obviously some kind of neo-con.

                "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:41:37 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Too the fuck bad. Assassination is illegal. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Timaeus, The Narrative

                  And again, I didn't call you a neocon. I called what you said neocon.

                  It doesn't matter what someone has bragged about. They get a fair trial. That's how American justice works, and it doesn't get suspended just because a few penny-ante thugs got used by bigger thugs to scare the bejeesus out of the American citizenry.

                  (Cut the CT alarms. I'm not saying Cheney and the terrorists are in cahoots. I'm saying Cheney was masterful at getting us maximally scared of them so we'd believe what he said was necessary.)

                  And if the goal is to reduce incidence of terrorism, the first thing that should happen is to drop the cowboy act. NOW. Every drone strike creates more terrorists than it kills. How is that pragmatic or realistic or anything else?

                  “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                  by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:47:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Umm read the post (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mets102

                    what did I say here:

                    I believe if we cannot capture him (and we should try above just assasination) then assasination is what needs to happen

                    Did I say drone strike him first and ask questions later???? Why no... I did not. I said attempt capture ABOVE just assasination. In fact, I said only assasinate when capture is impossible. Read the posts before getting all high and mighty.

                    And sorry but the President has legal clearance to do this.

                    Jyrinx - this is the real world not some fantasy planet where everything is ponies and rainbows. It is fucked up right now - and this guy is helping kill Americans. It is not some dumb ass cowboy thingie - it is unfortunately real.

                    "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                    by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:58:40 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  It doesn't become legal just because (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Timaeus

                      you tried real hard to capture him but couldn't.

                      It's illegal. Period.

                      “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                      by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 05:09:07 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh, and you know what ELSE is real? (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Timaeus

                      The War On Terror is making us LESS SAFE. Got that? Every drone strike, every due-process-free detention at Gitmo or anywhere else, it all encourages more terrorism.

                      Being realistic does not mean swallowing scaremongering whole.

                      “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                      by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 05:13:45 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Apparently you know what else is (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Mets102

                        real... Reading comprehension is a skill. Try it sometime.

                        Did I say drone strike him first and ask questions later???? Why no... I did not. I said attempt capture ABOVE just assasination. In fact, I said only assasinate when capture is impossible.

                        Do I need to use small words for you to understand this or the other post where I said:

                        If we capture him I think he needs to stand trial in a criminal court as terrorism is a criminal activity.

                        Ok here are big letters for you: READ. THE. POSTS. BEFORE. YOU. COMMENT. ON. THEM. It will do you a world of good.

                        "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                        by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 05:17:37 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Um, yes, I did read those comments. (0+ / 0-)

                          Those aren't the parts that are wrong.

                          If I say “I only rob banks when I'm broke,” that doesn't make it legal for me to rob banks.

                          If the government says “we only assassinate when we can't capture,” it's no better.

                          “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                          by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 05:20:07 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That's a terrible analogy... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102

                            Come on man... you can do better than that.

                            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 06:09:23 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  What do you mean? (0+ / 0-)

                            My entire point is that things don't become legal just because you want to do them and have exhausted all other options.

                            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                            by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 06:28:04 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Oh come on (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102

                            robbing a bank vs. the Government protecting it's citizens. One is clearly for illegal gain and can be circumvented the other is only after every other option is exhausted and approved by the governing party. They are very, very, different things.

                            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:10:49 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  They're both illegal. (0+ / 0-)

                            The government's best intentions do not make illegal things legal. That's a tyrant's mentality — I'm sure Castro would tell you it's all for the citizens' benefit, too.

                            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                            by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 08:05:27 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Ummm you are comparing the U.S. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102

                            Gov't to the Cuban dictatorship... Seriously?

                            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 08:08:21 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  If they act like a dictatorship, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Narrative

                            I will compare them to one. Tribalism is for wingnuts.

                            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                            by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 08:28:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Wow you must be tough on family (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102

                            and friends and a hit at parties....... </snark>

                            Seriously, all governments take objectionable action and it is fine to call them on it. As you are doing here. But in many other countries including Cuba you can't. Yet you sit here and compare us to that.

                            Again, if you can beat this in court - why not take it on? Your right as an American, a right you don't have in Cuba. But go for it - defend al-Awlaki... if you think you have an iron clad case - take it up. People have beaten our Government in court before.....

                            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 08:38:33 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  BTW the NYT report (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102

                            also comments that it was cleared by legal authorities. Now, again you may not like who is calling the shots but that doesn't mean they are not legal.

                            However, you may consider joining Al-Awlaki's legal team and arguing against it. You have the right to do that here - you don't in Castro's Cuba.. Would you like to stick both feet in or is one enough.

                            Since you are so up in arms about this why not volunteer. I suggest an interview in Yemen. Let us know how that works out for you.

                            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 08:14:45 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  “Cleared by legal authorities” (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Narrative

                            the way torture was under Bush?

                            The only “legal authorities” that can make illegal things legal are Congress and the Supreme Court.

                            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                            by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 08:30:43 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  The way that anything was (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Mets102

                            if you feel it is flimsy - act against it. No has yet - I wonder why.

                            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 08:47:41 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Um, because liberals have been co-opted (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            The Narrative

                            by a new Dem administration that has painted a smiley face on Bush's inhuman policies rather than push back on them?

                            Easy question, easy answer.

                            “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                            by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 10:48:53 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

          •  HR'ed for personal attack and purity trolling (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1

            Killing someone on the battlefield when they are engaged in combat is legal and i does not make one a neocon to advocate this position

            •  should read: "it does not" n/t (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              volleyboy1
            •  You should be HR'd yourself for outrageous, (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Jyrinx, The Narrative

              un-American, neocon right-wing bullshit.

            •  What battlefield?! (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Timaeus

              Seriously, this “all the world's a battlefield” bullshit is the lynchpin of neoconservative scaremongering.

              If he's actually on a battlefield attacking us, there's no need for a capture-or-kill order.

              “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

              by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:31:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Purity trolling. Has it really come to this? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Timaeus, The Narrative

              That having the same viewpoint most of us shared during the Bush years, that his absurd executive overreach always couched in doublespeak like “enemy combatant” was illegal and repulsive and worth fighting about, is now considered purity trolling.

              I'm beginning to think “purity” is a dysphemism for “intellectual integrity.”

              “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

              by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:36:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  It's purity in the sense that (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                volleyboy1

                anyone who dares mention the term "enemy combatant" (which is an important legal distinction under the Geneva Conventions) or suggest that when said enemy combatant is shooting at our soldiers that they shouldn't be allowed to use the necessary force to protect themselves.

                •  And it has specific, well-defined meaning (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Timaeus

                  under Geneva, which very much does not include someone we merely think is talking with people who are evil.

                  Also, you notice we stop citing Geneva the moment it's inconvenient. If we grab an enemy combatant and ship them to Gitmo under that pretext, we have that right — but then we can't interrogate them. Hell, you have to pay POWs a stipend — I'd love to see that appropriation get through Congress.

                  “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

                  by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:52:40 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  What the fuck? (0+ / 0-)

              That statement is an absolute staple of the neoconservative worldview, even you sound like a Lindsay Graham clone with "killing someone on the battlefield when they are engaged in combat is legal".

              It probably is illegal, given that the Obama administration is using IHL to justify this order, and regardless of the fact that they adopted the Bush definition of the Globl Batthefield; anyone using lethal force against an accused "terrorist" CIA or US military, could be prosecuted for murder in a domestic court with jurisdiction over the crime. So for you to say categorically that this order is legal is nonsense.

          •  Scary responses Jyrinx. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Timaeus, Jyrinx, The Narrative

            I don't know about you, but such disregard for basic civil protections on a "progressive" website scares the bejesus out of me.  Imagine what they would say on RW blogs, if an American made a similar pitch for applying the Constitution?

            The Neocons really have done a great job of reducing us to a nation of cowards willing to accede to anything as long as "they" promise to keep us safe from....terrirists or commies....or whatever made up threat is useful to the goals of the Neocons.

          •  From the DKosopedia (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1

            here:

            Trolling, defined, is not simply disagreeing with your opinion or the collective site opinion. It is engaging in behavior which is directly contrary to the stated goals of the site -- furthering the progressive Democratic agenda. There are a number of things which very clearly constitute "trolling", and which should be troll rated (and therefore deleted from the conversation) quite legitimately...

            Personal attacks on other site user

            And types of trolls:

            "Purity Trolls". These are trolls from the left. Otherwise known in reallife as drama queens. No matter how pure your position is, their position is more pure. No matter how compassionate or informed or skeptical or vigorous your opinion is, theirs is more of it. These trolls are insistent that they are the true spirit of liberalism, and spend their time being quite put out that the rest of us don't turn over our resources, our audiences, and our respect to them, regardless of how thin their positions may be on the merits

            •  Yeah, well. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Timaeus, Nada Lemming

              We used to have a much clearer idea of what was right and wrong in terrorism policy. Seems like Bush was only doing what we thought best, too.

              If realizing that makes me a purity troll, I weep for America.

              “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

              by Jyrinx on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:39:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Where's the evidence for that claim? (0+ / 0-)
          •  Seroiusly? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102

            His own statements - he calls these people his "Students". He had extensive contact with them prior to their acting. They admit it, he admits it. He facilitated training..... I mean the guy ADMITS it...what are you not seeing here?

            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

            by volleyboy1 on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 10:19:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I just mean (0+ / 0-)

              where is it, as in where can I find it, links etc?

              •  Look at all the links throughout the (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mets102

                diary.

                "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                by volleyboy1 on Tue Jul 20, 2010 at 12:23:12 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Obviously I've read them (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't see anything supporting the statement that he is "actively involved". He had contact with NH and OF yes but that wouldn't mean an automatic conviction (given what we know) in the U.S. The argument is not that he is innocent (he probably isn't) but that even in a U.S. court this wouldn't be a cut and dry case. Authorizing his death in this manner unless the define the entire planet as a battlefield (U.S. included - i.e. no legal protection whatsoever if the President deems you an enemy - enjoy that power President Palin), if he were killed, would be illegal. Unquestionably.

                  "Offense.— A person who, being a national of the United States, kills or attempts to kill a national of the United States while such national is outside the United States but within the jurisdiction of another country shall be punished as provided under sections 1111, 1112, and 1113."

                  This isn't an ambiguous law,and it's important. You might trust Obama, but do you trust the next republican president with this power; imagine the potential damage. There is no legal construct to determine a enemy combatant, outside immediate national self-defence. If you believe there is, as Yoo/cheney/ Bush did then torture is as legal as laughing.

  •  CT and not a diary to boot. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    volleyboy1, Mets102

    HRed.

    I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. - Gandhi

    by Dom9000 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:00:05 PM PDT

    •  I will join you in this (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mets102, Dom9000

      see... us Pro-I AND Pro-P folk can agree on something. Heh.

      "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

      by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:04:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I uprated because I'm not sure (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, Nada Lemming

      I understand the HR charges here: it is a diary (even if a poorly done one), and it's not CT by any definition I know of that term.  This is an issue on which people disagree, and that disagreement is being hashed out in the comments.  If you can convince me that I shouldn't be uprating, I'll remove it, but I don't see the justification here.  

      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

      by pico on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:16:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  It's CT. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        second gen, volleyboy1, JL, Mets102

        Can't disprove because obviously CT's are made to not be able to be disproved.
        I would think the whole "Obama's assassinating americans in the middle of the night with drones!" thing would give it away though.
        Think for a minute:
        1). Wild accusation that Obama is assassinating people with no proof.
        2). Then says he picked it up on Glen Beck's show.
        3). All backed up with a shady diary history.
        Trust me, the HR's are richly deserved.
        Also: Please remove uprate. Surely you realize it makes the whole site look bad when we are seen purporting this crap.

        I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. - Gandhi

        by Dom9000 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:30:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  All of this comment of yours is (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming

          pulled out of your ass and is incorrect.

          1. It's not a wild accusation. It's true. It's proved in the diary that Obama has issued the order.
          1. You're twisting his words, because he didn't say Obama is DOING it, only that so far he has ordered it. So you are lying and exaggerating.
          1. Fact that he picked it up on Beck's show is irrelevant. Even a stopped clock is sometimes right. This is a primitive argument.
          1. Shady diary history? I don't need to check that to know that your HR here is bullshit.
          •  You're lame uprate is the only thing (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            citizenx, JL

            that's bullshit here. Earth to Timaeus: Obama is not out to kill you. Seriously i can't believe this bullshit gets uprated now a days on DKos. Whatever happened to the whole reality based community thing?

            I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. - Gandhi

            by Dom9000 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:25:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I just went through this guy's diary history. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              pico

              None of them are very good, but he sure writes a lot of them, way more than me.

              I saw one that is certainly generally objectionable:
              http://www.dailykos.com/... .

              But I don't think the whole history is shady. We can't all be Shakespeare.

              ********

              I do genuinely feel saddened by your comment here. The point is not really whether the man Obama is going to get the man me.  The point is whether the U.S. Government can kill people extrajudicially.

              You know, I'm not making it up when I say that is universally denounced as immoral, illegal under U.S. law, and illegal under international law.  The U.S. is turning itself into a pariah, pirate state.

              That's the "reality," bud.

              •  It's not "reality". (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                volleyboy1, Mets102

                Because it's not happening. We are talking about if it's OK to kill - if capture is absolutely impossible - known terrorists who have killed untold innocents, to stop them from killing many more. Not the random assassinations of innocents bullshit Glen Beck, The Diarist & apparently you are pedaling.

                I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. - Gandhi

                by Dom9000 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:38:49 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well, no, it is happening. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nada Lemming

                  The CIA is still disappearing and torturing people. They're still launching drone strikes at houses and mosques in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

                  I wonder what it looks like with one's head in the sand, ignoring reality.

                •  I don't see the diarist saying anything (0+ / 0-)

                  about "random assassinations of innocents", nor Timaeus saying that.  In both cases it's about whether the President should have that power.  You might remember during the Bush administration, certain arguments about sacrificing freedoms for security: this is a continuation of that line of thought, not something particularly new or surprising.  

                  Have you been at dailykos long?  I'm asking because your UID is relatively new - and you're asking 'what ever happened to the reality based community' - while Timaeus and I have both been here long enough to remember the "sacrificing freedom for security" line that goes way back on this site.  This is nothing new.

                  Again, I'm not saying you have to agree with it, but that your objections to this line of discussion are strange, and your apparent embarrassment with members of the community are poorly founded.

                  Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                  by pico on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:26:28 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  This is silly (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Mets102, Dom9000

                    NO ONE is suggesting sacrificing freedom for security... I mean no one. NO ONE is saying the President should just wave his magic wand and have the power to order; "I don't like that person. Kill Him"

                    This framing is getting ridiculous and it is incredibly stupid. The President should have the power to defend the country within the legal limits of the law. The President needed to get approval. So please you don't like it... fine - take up a defense fund. Argue it in court. You win... the order gets overturned you lose... sorry you lost.

                    Oh and stop pulling the UID bullshit. I am a newb. (1 1/2 years), but have put a diary on the Rec. List and have run an open thread on the Middle East for over a year - if you think that is easy - think again. People who are new can and do contribute to this site. Remember that.

                    "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                    by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:41:35 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hold on a second: (0+ / 0-)

                      you've misread my comment on multiple levels.

                      1. I've repeatedly said that disagreement over the implication of the order is fine: I'm talking about whether it's HRable, and it is not.  This has been a common discussion on the site, and calling it CT ignores a long tradition here of discussing this very issue from this very angle.
                      1. I'm not "pulling the UID bullshit" if I'm asking the commenter to explain his "whatever happened to" comment: he referenced what the site used to be like, and I asked how long he's been here, and whether he remembers that this discussion has been commonplace on the site.

                      Both of your objections are completely tangential to what I'm saying.

                      Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

                      by pico on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:52:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  But it's not CT. (0+ / 0-)

          There is an executive order allowing for the killing of American citizens who are overseas allegedly aiding Al Qaeda.  For the purposes of this thread I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing, but that the executive order certainly exists and has been covered extensively.  Here's the NYTimes (linked in the diary):

          The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday. ...

          It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said.

          Disliking the diarist's attitude towards this and criticizing him for picking it up on Beck are certainly your prerogative, but that's not what the HR is for.  I'm afraid you haven't made a convincing case, so my uprate stays.

          Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce

          by pico on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:21:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  CT? What's the CT? (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus, DocGonzo, monroematt, Jyrinx

      That Obama has any idea what the government actually does?

      What Beck failed to metion is the CIA actually carried out such an order under Bush.  

      Just another thing that did not change,

      It's called the Dodd-Frank bill. What else do you need to know?

      by roguetrader2000 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:23:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Not CT at all! (0+ / 0-)

      It's reported all over the mainstream press such as the NYT, as added to the diary.

      You should remove your abusive HR.

  •  "If Glenn Beck is right" (6+ / 0-)

    makes me think of Leonard Nimoy narrating "If aliens did visit the Nazca ..."

    Next time start with the facts, not rummaging the trashcan.

    "I was a big supporter of waterboarding" - Dick Cheney 2/14/10

    by Bob Love on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:08:09 PM PDT

  •  of course it is an outrage - not because of the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timaeus, pico, Jyrinx

    basic premise per se ... killing Americans in battle against this country is ok - killing on the battlefield is inbounds.

    The problem is that Obama has adopted the Bush War on Terror definition of the terror battlefield.  If the battlefield is 24/7 and omnipresent - then the distinction between wartime and peacetime is gone.

    By the war on terror definition of a battlefield there is no distinction to whether this guy is waving a gun at a soldier or eating breakfast as whatever IHOP equivalent there is in Aden.  The current rules basically make him a candidate for killing no matter where.  It's assassination - even if there is a technocratic way to explain it as something else.  

    Worse still - that the guy IS a terrorist (due to this construct) is an unchallenged claim.  There is no overt Congressional authority, and the guy (assuming he is eating breakfast and not brandishing a weapon) has no recourse to say he is not a terrorist - despite still retaining his rights as an American to face his accuser (note: treason is a crime - so the legal system in the USA has a construct in place if this guy has done what he has been accused of doing).  When you consider how shoddy the government's record has been with detainee habeas cases - there is a very real possibility (a probability???) that the government is wrong.  But there is no way to deal with that.    

    •  Yes yes yes. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jyrinx, sk7326

      Any extrajudicial killing is immoral, against U.S. law, and against international law.

      This order is COMPLETELY outside the law.  It is a pirate's order.

      And it really doesn't matter whether it is against a foreigner or a U.S. citizen, although the latter gets more points in most arguments with Americans.

      And NONE of the pro-murder people in this crowd actually has any proof that this guy is a "terrorist," but they're down with the murder.

      Most Americans never got over 9/11 and 24.

  •  Here's what you can do... (5+ / 0-)

    Log off your computer and head to whatever hellhole this "American" is holed up in while actively plotting to kill you and your family and bring him back to justice.  

    This guy turns himself in tomorrow and he can have a trial and spend the rest of him life in prison.  

    How about we compromise and try him in absentia.  Treason is punishable by death.  

    I'm not going to shed a tear if he is killed in a drone strike.  

    Politics is like playing Asteroids - You go far enough to the left and you end up on the right. Or vice-versa.

    by Jonze on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:17:27 PM PDT

  •  Yes, and rightly so. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OIL GUY, amk for obama, Dom9000

    Back to work!

    •  No Due Process, No Big Deal (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Timaeus

      Yes, when American's "guarantees" of due process are nothing to an executive order, that's no big deal. Get back to work, and be glad you have a job.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:29:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  And that's why people hate progressives! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Christin, volleyboy1

        Short of a fishbowl or Matrix scenario in which we're all just artefacts of some Other Reality, there's no chance that our fellow citizen in Yemen is anything other than what he claims to be. What exactly is the Due Process angle here?

        •  Why People Hate Cowards (0+ / 0-)

          How do you know he hasn't been set up? Or just mistaken?

          Due process isn't just the right of the accused. It's the right of the people to use the most reliable way of finding the truth. The military just killing people, even with approval of the president, doesn't use the reliable way. It uses the abusable way.

          Your way is why people hate those so scared that they'll burn any and all rights when it's unnecessary. We've had years, decades of your way. People hate it. They love to say it, they love to see it - at first. But after a while, they hate it, and hate the people who do it. At this late date, that should be obvious.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:37:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  How do you know he hasn't been set up (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102

            Seriously??? The man makes an Al-Qaeda tape praising the killings committed by his "students". He brags about being their mentor.

            Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 08:18:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sometimes (0+ / 0-)

              Sounds like you could easily convince a court to try and convict him in absentia.

              But it's easy to make a tape claiming credit. Maybe he's guilty only of being an asshole, not of managing a gang of murderers. That's not punishable by death.

              What you want is revenge. Which won't get anything but even more assholes, some of whom manage gangs of murderers, to do whatever they can to attack the US. Which is precisely what this asshole wants, whether or not he's got a gang of murderers of his own.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 08:37:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hence.... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Mets102

                do what it takes to Capture him... Kill is only as a last resort. His words and actions convince me of his guilt. Not what the NSA says, not what President Obama says but what al-Awlaki says. Just because he is an enemy of America doesn't make him a good guy or innocent.

                "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

                by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 08:50:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Sometimes though killing is unavoidable... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  volleyboy1

                  If there's a special ops mission conducted and he has a gun in his hand and is firing at our soldiers they can't exactly keep on getting closer, mirandize him, and put him in custody.  At some point they have to protect themselves and fire.

  •  Step one... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    volleyboy1, JL, Mets102, Dom9000

    Stop getting information from Glen Beck. Guaranteed it is distorted at best, out right lies at worst.

    Step two, read more than just a headline. From your linked article:

    As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

    Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

    Note: capture or killing. Note: he went through the established process by getting the additional approval from the NSC.

    Not that I think it isn't above criticism. Are there enough checks and balances? Is it a system that works? Not sure. But your Glen Beck induced outrage seems out of proportion to the facts that are presented in the NY Times article.

    FREEDOM ISN'T FREE: That's why we pay taxes. Read the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT Newsletter

    by mole333 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 03:52:21 PM PDT

  •  HR'ed for what Dom and Volley both said (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BFSkinner, volleyboy1, Dom9000

    This is CT and this is concern trolling

  •  Someone please help! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    volleyboy1, Mets102

    1 more HR will sink the Tip Jar. DKos will get a bad rep if we're seen purporting this bullshit. Please think of all the good diarists that will not have their hard work taken seriously if this site gets a reputation for hosting/condoning this CT nonsense. Someone please drop the last necessary HR.

    I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ. - Gandhi

    by Dom9000 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 04:34:04 PM PDT

  •  It is an outrage plain & simple (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Timaeus

    change we can believe in

  •  Are you kidding me? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    volleyboy1, Mets102

    Okay, so the guys leaves the country, joins our greatest enemies, denounces the U.S., calls for a jihad, actively participates in plans to kill U.S. citizens and we should "arrest" him?

    HOW THE HELL ARE WE GOING TO DO THAT!!!? He's in Yemen!!! He wants to kill us. He LEFT THE DAMN COUNTRY.

    Okay, just think a second. There were Americans that left the U.S. and joined the NAZI forces. Anybody want to guess how many cops went over there with arrest warrants? Uh... NONE!!! So you all feel sorry for those NAZI EX-AMERICANS?

    Gimme a break. And somebody here says the black-listed Communists in Hollywood were a greater threat than Al Alwaki!? Uh... read your history folks -- communism wasn't owned by the Soviet Union, it's an economic philosophy. Ring Lardner never called for the killing of Americans. Zero Mostel was never found carrying a bomb onto a plane. Arthur Miller never left the country to join our enemies.

    Get real! NOW! Stop embarrassing the rest of the human race.

  •  Answer this, extrajudicial killing supporters! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nada Lemming

    Suppose somebody here were to say that he supports the Pushtun people in Afghanistan and Pakistan in their struggle against American imperial aggression.

    Do you think the president can lawfully order an extrajudicial killing of that person, in other words, place a hit on him like a mob boss?

    If you support that, you've abandoned your humanity, or at least your allegiance to American law and ideals.

    But if you don't support that, how can you explain the difference from the Alwaki situation? Can't be done.

    •  Nope we can't (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Mets102

      but in his striving to help that Pashtun people he trains, sends money, puts people in position to gain battlefield access using false papers and so on and in that leads to the killing of Americans... AND he admits it and is proud of it....

      He is Capture or Kill. Period.

      "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

      by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 06:12:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Good grief. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Nada Lemming, The Narrative

        Don't you see how you contradict yourself?

        In the Anglo-American system, that kind of dispute over the facts can only be resolved by judicial process.

        You are reverting to an ancient, savage system in which the Big Man (the chief, the monarch, the oligarch, the dictator) has life-and-death control over ever subject.

        You have reverted all the way to primitive savagery.

        •  Hardly... Timaeus.. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Timaeus, Mets102

          As you noted above we have a mutual respect. So I won't respond in a vitriolic manner.

          There is no real dispute here - the subject admits his culpability. He comes out and says it. That is the first thing.

          Second, President Obama did not just wave his magic wand and say "Kill the Peasant". He went through a process to get this order.

          The official added: "The United States works, exactly as the American people expect, to overcome threats to their security, and this individual — through his own actions — has become one. Awlaki knows what he’s done, and he knows he won’t be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone."

          As a general principle, international law permits the use of lethal force against individuals and groups that pose an imminent threat to a country, and officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the list of targets. In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against Al Qaeda after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. People on the target list are considered to be military enemies of the United States and therefore not subject to the ban on political assassination first approved by President Gerald R. Ford.

          Both the C.I.A. and the military maintain lists of terrorists linked to Al Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing, former officials said. But because Mr. Awlaki is an American, his inclusion on those lists had to be approved by the National Security Council, the officials said.

          "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

          by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:08:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Geez, louise. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      volleyboy1, Mets102

      Okay, if somebody says they support the Pashtun (not Pushtun) and they're sitting in their Lazy Boy in Des Moines watching The Simpsons and eating corn dogs. NO, I don't have a problem with that and the reason why should be so simple anybody can understand it.

      HE'S HERE, IN AMERICA, PROTECTED BY THE LAWS OF FREE SPEECH AS LONG AS HE'S JUST TALKING OUT HIS ASS AND NOT INVOKING PEOPLE TO KILL HIS NEIGHBORS!!!

      You see, words are words are words. But pick up a sword, work with an organization that killed 3000 innocent people, tell others to go out there and kill people in another country -- that's not just idle chit-chat and I'm not going to view it as such.

      There is a point when one must pull their heads out of theory and face reality. Are you seriously saying that if you were alone in a room with Alwaki that you'd have a nice, calm discussion about his "rights" as an American? Seriously?

      This is a "him or us" situation. And I vote HIM.

      •  Incoherent. (0+ / 0-)

        First of all, Pushtun is the more common spelling. I'm an immimgration lawyer with more than 20 years of experience and many Pakistani clients. I'm right on that.

        The rest of your comment, in my opinion, is just nuts.

        As I said in my comment to volleyboy1 and other comments above, I don't trust news accounts and statements from the U.S. government as to whether this guy has crossed the line you describe--and even if he has (which may well be true) I STILL think extrajudicial killing is ABSOLUTELY prohibited under (1) moral law; (2) U.S. law; and (3) international law.

        It's ILLEGAL!

        And yes, I suspect I could have a nice, calm discussion with Alwaki.

        Your last sentence is primitive savagery.

        •  Wow! A lawyer! So you're special! (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          volleyboy1, Mets102

          Okay, you're an immigration lawyer. Great. I write cartoons. We have jobs, good for us. Being a lawyer doesn't make you smarter than anyone else. As George Carlin once said, "Somewhere in America there is a WORST doctor... and someone has an appointment with them tomorrow morning."

          Who are we fighting? Iraq, Afganistan or Al Qaeda? If we're fighting Al Qaeda (the correct answer) then we are fighting Alwaki. He is the enemy. He's no longer an American citizen and by his own words he has renounced his U.S. citizenship. So... he's no longer an American, he is simply an American-born combatant. He is no longer subject to the laws of the U.S.

          I am really digging this "primitive savagery" idea. Let's see, I'm a primitive savage for calling for the death of an enemy who would behead my child if she didn't wear a veil. But you want to have a nice chat with a guy who thought raining bodies on the streets of Manhattan was a good day.

          What am I missing here?

          •  Your not missing anything (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Mets102

            you are right.

            He joined the enemy. And he is not sitting on some couch in Idaho yelling at the T.V. or pretending to be a jihadist. He proudly says he is Al-Qaeda. He proudly ADMITS to ACTING against America and it's people. What are we supposed to do - let him kill as many of us as he can? Of course not - that is Darwin Award territory. We need to capture him and put him on trial. BUT, if we can't capture him then we have an obligation to protect ourselves from him and his followers.

            Now some nicely nuanced folks here may think they can go to Yemen and talk sense to him. I would highly recommend they do that. Heck, he deserves a fair say... I think going to Al-Qaeda controlled areas in Yemen would be a show of friendship. Talk him down. They will respect that. Oh and they should let us know who to send condolences when they go there.

            "No Groin.... No Krav Maga" - The Simpsons

            by volleyboy1 on Mon Jul 19, 2010 at 07:48:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  treason is a crime - with punishment and (0+ / 0-)

              everything.  And has he killed anybody?  There is evidence he spouted propaganda to encourage terrorist looniness - but to be fair so have any number of Congressmen in this country (assuming terrorists read or watch the news).  

              That whatever process that identifies terrorists has been largely a failure (look at the rate at which detainees are found to be wrongly imprisoned) should be taken into account.  Simply observing that they follow a process before determining who to kill has not exactly bore fruit here.

              The entire construct - regardless of this one individual - is corrupted.  After all if you ended up in the wrong database, the universal battlefield notion that our government favors means that you wouldn't be safe.  

          •  Only quibble I have with what you said... (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            volleyboy1

            is that he's still technically a US Citizen because there's an official process to go through for renouncing citizenship and I doubt that he's gone through the process.  Of course it's possible that he did go through the process prior to this, but I doubt it.

          •  You probably won't see this late response (0+ / 0-)

            but again you completely miss the point.

            I didn't say I was special because I am a lawyer.

            I mentioned that I am an IMMIGRATION lawyer with many Pakistani clients over 20 years, because I think that gives me some authority on issues like whether it's Pushtun or Pashtun.

            The rest of your comment is crap that doesn't add anything to the thread. Already rebutted.

  •  Stop watching that freaking channel! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    volleyboy1, Mets102

    You are supporting their message by tuning in.  They get higher ratings and think they should continue spewing their hate.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site