Skip to main content

When that American is a half-American involved in an organization that wants to kill Americans, we really shouldn't be surprised when said half-American gets killed .   Not when that terrorist- yes, terrorist-  cannot be reached by any other means beyond putting U.S. boots on the ground in the Arabian Penninsula.

What would you prefer?  A dangerous special op raid into the middle of nowhere without help for hundreds of miles away so we can try to arrest a half-American who's only goal is to kill innocent people?   Guess what; those guys doing those raids are too valuable and the situation can turn out to be far more explosive than a Hellfire missile.

Yes, we do assassinate Americans.  Half-Americans to.   Even bomb-makers.   And like all countries, we have people amongst our population that are incredibly out of touch with their peers.

If Awlaki, the producer of Inspire, and the top bomb-maker of AQAP are indeed all dead than I will gladly have a drink to that victory.   If people want to sit and moan about how stellar their ideals are and how wrong others are, that's fine with me too; you are, after all, entitled to be an idiot.

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

  •  I will not kill a human (11+ / 0-)

    nor will I cheer one's death.

    I won't even go into the issues of constitutionality, or precedent, or innocent lives lost to drone strikes.

    I believe you are headed down the wrong path.

    "We come on a peace thing. White flag?" "White flag!"

    by VictorLaszlo on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:03:18 PM PDT

  •  We Assasinate Americans Every Day (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Setrak, Danjuma, wilderness voice

    There are criminals that the police go after dead or alive.  I don't see any difference in going after a criminal with a drone or with a gun.  I think that it is brilliant to use drones instead of having our soldiers become targets to get the bad guys.  It is naive to think that the bad guys would not use whatever is in their arsenal to get us.

    "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

    by rssrai on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:10:18 PM PDT

    •  They are charged, tried and convicted first. (3+ / 0-)

      Sometimes we even execute them under the law.

      Do we need to embed a ABC School House Rock on the Constitution and the Law for everyone on this thread?

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 05:44:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Al-Qa'ida declared war on the US (4+ / 0-)

        If the guy wants to surrender he can have a trial. Otherwise, if he gets killed in battle he's another casualty. Personally I think the whole "war vs. crime" debate is a false dichotomy. They are not opposites and there are even hybrid categories ("war crimes" and "illegal war" for two). But even accepting that Al-Qa'ida's declaration of jihad isn't war (which would mean that jihad is a crime I suppose) people get killed in police shootouts all the time. It's called "suicide by cop".

        These guys declared war. Now they've got it.

        •  Since when is it a false dichotomy to make (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Nucleo, lawman

          the distinction between assassination of an American and killing an enemy in war?

          Maybe for you it all gets muddled and we best make this simple and let God sort 'em out later, but for people who lived through the last 10 years of War on Terror™ and the rollback on civil rights here and abroad, the Bush years of torture and Gitmo and the illegal invasion of Iraq costing hundreds of thousands of lives and our national treasure, and now the secret surveillance in America by homeland security and the NSA among others, for us this is a very serious issue with a very clear prohibition from our Constitution about assassinating fellow Americans.

          You see no threat because you choose to believe what you want to believe - even after these 10 years.  And the irony is that this isn't about al-Awlaki anymore, it's about your rights and protection under the Constitution from your Government acting to deprive you of Life, Liberty et al.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 07:26:17 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Since when is it a crime to kill the enemy (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            erush1345

            Here's a list of Confederate generals killed in action.

            Hundreds of thousands of other rebels died in the war against the Union.

            How is this different?

            BTW, it's not ten years. It's over 13 since the first attack.

            •  This is not Civil War. With the formal (0+ / 0-)

              declarations and all.  Funny how important it is to formally declare war.
              This isn't even war.  It's an AUMF action against a terrorist organization. More like an international S.W.A.T. action using the Military rather than the police.

              It's been 10 years since the AUMF of 2001.  

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 12:02:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  When you get in a hole, stop digging. (0+ / 0-)

                There wasn't even a AUMF in the Civil War. They shot at us, we shot back. If you say this is like S.W.A.T. action, notice that people die in police raids all the time. Use of the military in domestic law enforcement was outlawed in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, part of the Compromise of 1877 that ended Reconstruction. It's not proscribed in the Constitution.

                Please check your facts before making a fool of yourself again.

            •  Seriously? (0+ / 0-)

              It's different because (A) the Confederacy formally declared and established its own government, which then declared war against the (remaining) United States after the events at Fort Sumter, and (B) that was the fricking 1860s, and the law of war has changed pretty dramatically since then.

              Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

              by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:46:09 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  No, it didn't. (0+ / 0-)

          Al Qaeda is not a nation. It has no territory, speaks for no population, and has no government capable of exercising any clear form of authority. It is absolutely incapable of declaring war, on the U.S. or any other country.

          This is why terrorist attacks are crimes, and should be dealt with as such.

          Moreover, on what possible basis do you assert that Al Awlaki was "killed in battle"? He was assassinated in a country that has diplomatic relations with the U.S., countless miles from anything resembling a battlefield.

          Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

          by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:44:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Right on, Setrak. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Setrak, erush1345, Plubius

    The only people who should be sad about the killing of the Al Qaeda propagandist and the Al Qaeda bomb-maker are those who wish to do 9/11-type terrorism to Americans.

    Let the Al Qaeda terrorists and their supporters die and rot in Hell.

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:12:30 PM PDT

  •  This is a tough one for me. (10+ / 0-)

    I was pretty torn untill I read this from Juan Cole:

    Here’s a troubling thought: do you really think it would be a good idea to give a President Michele Bachmann or a President Rick Perry the authority to kill American citizens at will and with no due process?

    And this:

    The problem with declaring al-`Awlaqi an “outlaw” by virtue of being a traitor or a terrorist is that this whole idea was abolished by the US constitution. Its framers insisted that you couldn’t just hang someone out to dry by decree. Rather, a person who was alleged to have committed a crime such as treason or terrorism had to be captured, brought to court, tried, and sentenced in accordance with a specific statute, and then punished by the state. If someone is arrested, they have the right to demand to be produced in court before a judge, a right known as habeas corpus (“bringing the body,” i.e. bringing the physical person in front of a judge).

    The relevant text is the Sixth Amendment in the Bill of Rights:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

    By simply blowing al-`Awlaqi away, the US government deprived him of his sixth amendment rights to trial before a judge and habeas corpus. Note that the German saboteur with American citizenship executed after WW II was tried first. Likewise, enemy combatants in US custody, such as those at Guantanamo, were declared by the US Supreme Court to have the right of habeas corpus. So that Newt Gingrich thinks al-`Awlaqi was a traitor or a terrorist (and this a rare case where I agree subjectively with the Newtster) is irrelevant to his legal status. Unless a judge has pronounced him to be those things after a trial, he was not as far as the US constitution and the US government is concerned.

    I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

    by Mike S on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:13:03 PM PDT

    •  He Was A Traitor (4+ / 0-)

      He convinced many Americans to abandon their country and convinced them to kill or try to kill.  He might not have pulled the trigger, but he might as well have done so.

      "Don't Let Them Catch You With Your Eyes Closed"

      by rssrai on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:17:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Does it worry or bothr (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Johnny Nucleo, buddabelly

        you that you are so sure of your position?

        I am torn but extremely concerned with the precedent set. Do we want a President making that call or a jury? Do we want to give a President Palin, Perry or any other wingnut having that same power?

        The small picture here, Awaki dead, doesn't bother me so much untill I start looking at the big picture.

        I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

        by Mike S on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:27:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  have you ever seen "Inspire" magazine? (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          IndieGuy, erush1345, sewaneepat

          I have, when I was studying terrorist groups.  

          Cover story: Detailed instructions for making bombs and timers.

          It gets quite a bit worse from there.

          "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 05:06:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Congress needs to create a process. (0+ / 0-)

          Right now, there is no review of whom the military targets overseas.

          Courts have no constitutional authority in this sphere.

          "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

          by Geekesque on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:50:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  that's the word: traitor. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        IndieGuy, wilderness voice, erush1345

        If someone materially aids a foreign foe, that's treason.

        If someone joins a hostile nation's military, they lose their US citizenship.  

        Hostile subnational groups harbored by foreign governments are considered evidence of hostility on that part of those governments.  

        QED, he's a traitor and no longer a US citizen.

        "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

        by G2geek on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 05:03:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. Wrong. (4+ / 0-)
          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.

          Making War. Giving Aid and Comfort to the enemy.
          Ask yourself:

          • The Constitution demands charges and testimony of Two witnesses to even begin a case of Treason.
          • Is this War? No it is not. No such declaration. We are not at war with Yemen and the coined phrase "War on Terror™ is not a declaration in any specific sense against a state or sovereign.
          • Who and what is the enemy? Define it?  Whoever the CIA and the President declares it to be? Are we to use "enemy combatants" that was invented to circumvent the Geneva Conventions, habeas corpus? In that case it doesn't apply that this is a bona fide enemy in the conventional sense. So being an "enemy combatant" under the AUMF has no bearing on a justification that he is in fact acting in a treasonous manner but is just a plain ol' member of a terrorist organization. That is not treason per se.  Just an American acting and speaking in support of an organization we have chosen to pursue in the nebulous War on Terror™.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:04:41 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Al-Qa'ida declared war on the US (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            wilderness voice, erush1345

            Where were you when the US embassies in East Africa were blown up?

            This didn't start on 9/11, except for Republicans who were shouting "Wag the Dog!"

            •  What other agents do is beside the point. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Johnny Q, Johnny Nucleo, lawman

              My dog can declare war on the U.S.

              The important thing is how we conduct our War on Terror™ when we haven't declared "War" on any state or sovereign. Pursuing an outlaw terrorist organization is not "War" and has never been defined constitutionally as "War" with regards to the American Constitution and separation of powers.

              Whatever CNN or George Bush or Fox News or your barber wants to call the use of military force to pursue al-Qaida it is not "War" in any conventional sense for the purposes of discussing the Constitution and our rights under it as American citizens.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 07:11:45 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Answer my question (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                erush1345

                and since that might get you to read the body of my comments instead of just reacting to the headlines, note that Congress authorized military force to respond to military force. This is war, whether you realize it or not. Not that war and law enforcement are mutually exclusive. There are even hybrid categories, like "war crimes" (committed on both sides in this war) and "illegal war" (which would have been on both sides, that is if the Iraq War had had anything to do with al-Qa'ida).

                •  Show me the document declaring this to be war. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Johnny Q, Johnny Nucleo, lawman

                  Not the AUMF.
                  The AUMF is a direct consequence of the War Powers Act in resolving the issue of how and when a President can act in the use of force.  Let me repeat "The Use of Military Force".

                  See we never had clarity on that issue since the Korean War.
                  Vietnam happened. Then a police action here and there. Unilateral decisions to strike Libya under Reagan. The bombing of Kosovo under the auspices of NATO under Clinton.  All these events aggravated members of the opposition party in Congress during those events. Till we finally had the War Powers Act defining the circumstances we could prosecute what used to be called "police actions" and NOT war.

                  That's why Congress and the President in 2001 decided for an AUMF.  Because there was no one to declare war against.  There was a terrorist organization to pursue and dismantle with the help of the international community.  No war.  Despite everything that you've been led to believe through these past ten years.

                  Remember if you can, we still have a Constitution.  We are still a constitutional Republic.  We have a rule of law and our conduct in pursuing terrorists still are subject to that law. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW.  That is rule number one in this constitutional republic.  And under the 5th Amendment, a president does not have the right to deprive you of your life.
                  AUMF or not.

                  NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                  by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 07:42:59 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "there was no one to declare war against"??? (0+ / 0-)
                    There was a terrorist organization to pursue and dismantle with the help of the international community.  No war.
                    Sure sounds like a war to me.

                    And forget this "past ten years" stuff. If you only realized it wasn't a "wag the dog" strategy by Clinton to distract attention from his impeachment trial, go back to the Republican Party. I've been following this for a little longer than that.

                    Look, I am no more defending Abu Ghraib and the invasion of Iraq and Bush's other war crimes than I am defending the NSA and illegal wiretapping. I want Bush (and Cheney) arrested and brought to trial for those crimes. All I'm saying is that killing an enemy in war is not a crime. Al-Qa'ida declared war on the US and if they get killed in that war I'm not sorry. I'm not jumping up and down whooping and screaming, but I'm not sorry.

                    •  It may sound like war to you but I assure you (0+ / 0-)

                      legally it isn't as far as the Constitution is concerned.

                      All I'm saying is that killing an enemy in war is not a crime. Al-Qa'ida declared war on the US and if they get killed in that war I'm not sorry.

                      This is not about "killing an enemy in a war". This is about assassinating an American Citizen in the War on Terror™ via the AUMF.  Which was never a declaration of war.

                      Doesn't matter if al-Qaida declared war on the U.S. We didn't declare war on al-Qaida through the Constitutional proscriptions.  The separation of powers that only Congress can declare war.  They decided on the AUMF.  That is the only force the War on Terror™ has: a resolution harkening to the War Powers Act on when a President can use the Military in pursuing limited goals like pursuing al-Qaida.  Just because the Bush administration went medieval on the idea and blew past all restraint doesn't make Obama's actions excusable.

                      That's what we are dealing with.  Watch the frontline episodes and the grab for all out power post 9-11. Frightening what they decided. And now we are seeing the full consequences of being de-sensitized to what ten years ago would've see outrageous.  Bin Laden didn't do this to us, WE DID.

                      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                      by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 11:43:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I have so many problems with your spin (0+ / 0-)

                        1. There's no "War on Terror" TM or not TM, unless the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. You can't declare war on an emotion, or a tactic. Bush just wanted to confuse everyone. Looks like he succeeded with you.

                        2. WTF?

                        a President can use the Military in pursuing limited goals like pursuing al-Qaida
                        I hate to be the first to point this out to you, but that's exactly what just happened. As for Bush "going medieval" as you put it, even Bush never pretended Saddam was behind 9/11 and he got a separate AUMF for the unrelated Iraq invasion.

                        3. More WTF!

                        Doesn't matter if al-Qaida declared war on the U.S. We didn't declare war on al-Qaida through the Constitutional proscriptions.
                        I'll assume "proscriptions" is a typo, not a misunderstanding. But it doesn't bother you that some organization declared war on Americans, without their bothering about even medieval Islamic laws of war? Huh?

                        4. Look, I'm not happy about the executive power grab, either. I just don't think this is part of it any more than killing any other enemy, or if you prefer, criminal, would be. The guy was at war with us, military force was authorized. End of story. Unless you really think we could have flown in and grabbed him for trial. There might have been that possibility with bin Ladin, but even there it's dicy.

                        This guy gets no more sympathy from me than Confederates who died in the Civil War, for the same reason. And, BTW, there was no declaration of war in that little dustup, either.

                        •  Let's address these one at a time: (1+ / 3-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Roadbed Guy
                          Hidden by:
                          buddabelly, Setrak, kalmoth
                          1. There's no "War on Terror" TM or not TM, unless the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. You can't declare war on an emotion, or a tactic. Bush just wanted to confuse everyone. Looks like he succeeded with you.

                          • I agree.  The use of the term is to point out how false the term and it's acceptance has become, hence the ™ . You missed the whole point of my usage since no one knows what to call this situation anymore.  They needed something to feel the blank space with and they came up with War on Terror™.  And you are right it is bullshit.
                          • This is what happens when an undefined situation like this goes on indefinitely and we all lose track of what this was originally all about.  We've had our Tora Bora's, our Iraq's, our "Mission Accomplished"s, our surges, our drone strikes, our collateral damage, friendly fire, suicide bombings, Fallujahs, dead enders and insurgencies.  Now we are all turned around about our own civil protections under the Constitution.
                          I hate to be the first to point this out to you, but that's exactly what just happened. As for Bush "going medieval" as you put it, even Bush never pretended Saddam was behind 9/11 and he got a separate AUMF for the unrelated Iraq invasion.

                          • No problem informing me that a President can pursue al-Qaida like I said with an AUMF.  Only that doesn't say in the AUMF he can suspend the Constitution of the United States. In fact it is the Constitution that gives him the authority to act as Commander-in-Chief.  He is not above it in this situation.  Or ever.
                          • Bush never pretended Saddam was behind 9/11? To that I simply say you probably still believe he had WMD to this day too.

                          And now enough after reading that piece of bullshit I'm convinced I dealing with a troll from Red State at this late hour.  Good night and good luck.

                          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                          by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 12:40:09 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  OK, now you're starting to come to reality (0+ / 0-)

                            It sure was hard to get you to even start, though.

                            Now let's try to finish the job.

                            1. "War on Terror" is no longer in use by this administration. That should be what we're talking about. Get with the decade and stop fighting against the Bush administration. For better or worse they're history.

                            2. You're still confusing the War against Al-Qa'ida (see, I do know what to call it) with the Iraq War. If you're not trying to confuse people here you've been confused by Bush. They are different. If you think Bush said Saddam was behind 9/11 you will have to show me where. First it was WMD, then it was making the Middle East safe for Democracy, then it was he tried to kill my Dad, then it was fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here . . . we never did get a straight story, but even Bush wasn't that mendacious. Cheney danced all around it, all but saying it, but keeping to the windy side of the libel laws. No, 9/11 was never part of official justifications for the Iraq invasion.

                            3. If Obama exceeded his Constitutional mandate, so did Lincoln. If I'm a RedState troll, you're a neo-Confederate. If you make an accusation like that without even reading other comments and diaries I've written you'll deserve any hide ratings your last comment gets. But what happened here is that you ran into someone who's studied Islam and was watching al-Qa'ida before 9/11. Must be a first for you.

                          •  You believe that Bush never pretended that (0+ / 0-)

                            Saddam was behind 9/11.

                            I can't converse with you. I have nothing to add.  You are dead to me.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:03:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You weren't paying attention (0+ / 0-)

                            Seriously, that must be why you still confuse the Iraq War with the War against al-Qa'ida. You think the war against al-Qa'ida only began on 9/11. You even think there were formal declarations of war in the Civil War. You really have no idea what you're talking about. Give up.

                          •  And you believe that Bush never pretended (0+ / 0-)

                            that Saddam was behind 9/11.

                            To each his own.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:35:11 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  You're wrong (0+ / 0-)

                            The Confederate Congress did indeed declare war on the United States, in May of 1861. Obviously the U.S. never recognized the Confederate government as legitimate -- that was kind of the point -- but it was regarded as a "belligerent power," a quasi-national status that specifically applies to internal rebellions.

                            Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

                            by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:01:11 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Cheney did, but I don't think Bush did. (0+ / 0-)

                            Bush just pushed the WOMD meme.

                            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                            by sewaneepat on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 04:30:32 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  No Bush did. (0+ / 0-)

                            Top result after googling Bush 9/11 Iraq Connection:

                            The impact of Bush linking 9/11 and Iraq - Christian Science Monitor 3/14/2003

                            Read that and about 46,600,000 other results.

                            In his prime-time press conference last week, which focused almost solely on Iraq, President Bush mentioned Sept. 11 eight times. He referred to Saddam Hussein many more times than that, often in the same breath with Sept. 11.

                            Bush never pinned blame for the attacks directly on the Iraqi president. Still, the overall effect was to reinforce an impression that persists among much of the American public: that the Iraqi dictator did play a direct role in the attacks. A New York Times/CBS poll this week shows that 45 percent of Americans believe Mr. Hussein was "personally involved" in Sept. 11, about the same figure as a month ago.

                            Get that? He pretended.  A nod and a wink 8 times in one address.  Now I realize your coming right back at me with "he never pinned" but you'd be a mendacious fool to pretend alike the administration and Bush himself positioned the two events 9/11 and Iraq by sheer coincidence with no intention of connecting Saddam with 9/11.

                            So go ahead and HR away if it makes History a little easier for you to deny.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 07:11:14 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I thought you were saying that Bush said that (0+ / 0-)

                            Hussein was involved in 9/11 (as Cheney did) but knew it was untrue so therefore was pretending to believe it. By this response, I see you were using the word pretend to mean that he tried to get people to believe that without saying it. That is true, but it was not evident in your first comment.

                            But I don't know why you got so dickish at me. I have never HR'd you, have very rarely HR'd anyone and then only for flagrant violations.

                            I don't deny history. I do usually try to correct facts when I see one that is wrong. And there are many everyday on this site. One yesterday was that Obama "gave in on Citizen's United;" another was that Bush signed the Patriot Act in the middle of the night without input from "Congress or the Senate." I did respond to the first that it was the SC and the President has no control over their decision, but not respond the second.

                            In any event, a simple statement that I misunderstood your comment, that you weren't saying that Bush actually said SH was involved in 9/11 but attempted to imply that he was would have elicited an "I'm sorry I misunderstood what you were saying" from me.

                            A little polite discourse goes a long way toward being understood and having someone treat your subsequent comments as coming from someone who thinks rationally and is trying to have a conversation. Calling someone a "mendacious fool"  makes one just believe you think that by name calling and being rude, you "win" some points somewhere. Yes, I know that it was a conditional "mendacious fool," but it makes me tend to believe that your opinion of anyone who disagrees with you is beneath contempt.

                            You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                            by sewaneepat on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 06:08:40 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  TR for "troll from Red State" Danjuma is not and (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            kalmoth

                            That's beyond the bounds here imo....

                            Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
                            I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
                            Emiliano Zapata

                            by buddabelly on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:28:03 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I didn't say he was. (0+ / 0-)

                            I said:

                            Bush never pretended Saddam was behind 9/11? To that I simply say you probably still believe he had WMD to this day too.
                            And now enough after reading that piece of bullshit I'm convinced I dealing with a troll from Red State at this late hour.  Good night and good luck.

                            Simply that he convinced me that there is no possibility that anyone could persist here long enough to hold together such a belief that George Bush never pretended that Saddam Hussien was behing 9/11.
                            There's only one explanation:  A troll from Red State.

                            Can you explain why I should believe in any other explanation?

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:54:05 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  If it sounds like war to you... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...then you have no idea what the word means.

                      War takes place between nations. Period, full stop.

                      Terrorism is a crime; a terrorist organization is a criminal organization. It is not a nation, and it cannot declare war nor have war declared against it. What the U.S. can do in terms of legal use of military force under those circumstances is extremely limited compared to an actual war.

                      Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

                      by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:52:19 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  dude, you're at war whether you know it or not. (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Danjuma, erush1345

                    Your posting above is an obvious exercise of "duck and cover."

                    "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                    by G2geek on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 08:27:08 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  wrong. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Danjuma, erush1345

                Hostile subnational groups harbored or otherwise supported by states, are equivalent to hostile state actors.  

                Current US defense doctrine.  

                Argue all you like, you'll lose.

                "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 08:25:54 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Current U.S. defense doctrine (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Johnny Q, lawman

                  drawn up by generals and national security council lawyers are not Constitutional arguments.
                  That's called policy.  Not law.
                  And it's an attempt to rewrite justification for situation like Afghanistan when we invaded.
                  They are only used to describe the reasoning in the use of an AUMF to legitimatize a drone strike or a sortie or a commando operation or, illegally in the situation of Iraq, an invasion.
                  Those Executive Branch policy statements from the Pentagon have no bearing on the Constitutional questions of what war is and who declares it (only Congress can) and our protection under the 5th Amendment concerning our civil rights.  No policy drawn up by defense departent, the President's Justice Department or the National Security Council trumps the Constitution.

                  Just because Bush/Cheney got away with the abuse so long, and then were not prosecuted for their crimes, doesn't mean that what Obama is doing is legal.  Assassination of American citizens is NEVER legal.

                  NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                  by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 12:20:26 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  false premise, invalid conclusion. (0+ / 0-)

                    You're still saying "American citizen."

                    He forfeited his citizenship when he went to work for AQ.

                    Since your premise is false, your conclusions are invalid.

                    Case closed, have a nice week.  

                    "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                    by G2geek on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 07:43:14 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You're doubly mistaken (0+ / 0-)

                      First of all, Al Awlaki never forfeited his citizenship. I'm not clear where you could even have gotten that idea, since almost all media reports have mentioned the fact that he was a citizen. Forfeiture of citizenship is a serious matter and requires explicit intent. It's not just some implicit thing; it requires an affirmative act: either you renounce it, or the government revokes it after confirming that through various acts you intended to renounce it. (There's a rebuttable legal presumption that you didn't intend it.) It can also be revoked after a conviction for treason -- but, obviously, that didn't happen here.

                      Second, what makes you think any of this hinges on his citizenship anyway, or that the lack of it would somehow validate your proposition that "defense doctrine" trumps the Constitution? The First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments obviously apply to U.S. citizens, but they're not limited to U.S. citizens. You should read them.

                      Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

                      by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 09:17:53 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  "the media" pronounced him a citizen. ha, that's (0+ / 0-)

                        .... funny.

                        He committed a sufficient number of acts to demonstrate that he renounced it.  And if he had been convicted of treason in-absentia, some of the same people here would be whining about trials in-absentia.

                        This is where your logic fails:  All forms of due process would have required his participation.  However since his participation was not forthcoming (plus or minus boots on the ground to capture him and drag him back to the US), the result is a stalemate and the guy gets to walk.

                        So: is that what you want?   A stalemate from which the guy gets to walk?  

                        "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                        by G2geek on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 09:36:17 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  It doesn't matter what you think he demonstrated (0+ / 0-)

                          Unless the U.S. government took action to have his citizenship revoked in court, he was still a citizen.

                          The fact that an accused person remains at large never has been, and is not now, an exception to the constitutionally required due process of law.

                          Besides, you're making the assumption here that what happened was somehow the only option: that the U.S. had any interest at all in indicting and prosecuting him, or made or would have made any attempt to do so, or at least asked Yemen (a friendly government, albeit a barbaric one) if it could apprehend and extradite him, and that somehow all these options proved impossible. None of this is true: it wasn't even tried. He was simply put on an assassination list, and then killed.

                          Regardless: some unpleasant people remain at large, yes. We can survive that. What we as a nation cannot survive is the erosion of due process of law.

                          Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

                          by lawman on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:10:49 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                •  "Current U.S. defense doctrine" (0+ / 0-)

                  ...doesn't hold anything resembling the authority of the U.S. Constitution, nor of treaties we have entered into, both of which have equal status as the supreme law of the land. If "defense doctrine" is at odds with either of those, then defense doctrine is invalid.

                  Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

                  by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:03:45 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  what part of "adhering to their enemies".... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Danjuma, erush1345

            ... don't you understand?

            Subnational groups with state support are legitimate enemies.  Go look up John Robb.  His theories of warfare have become part of US defense doctrine.  I know the guy and I know his theories, so if you want to argue this point, just say the word.  

            "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

            by G2geek on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 08:24:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  U.S. Defense doctrine has no say in the matter. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lawman

              That is defense posturing and war theory.
              And what part of "theory" don't you understand? While we're at it.

              We are arguing a rock bottom Constitutional question of whether it is legal (let me point that word out) legal to assassinate American citizens. A matter for Congress and the Federal Courts to hash out if anyone pursued this. Not national security councils to decide. Or generals. Or defense hack theorists.

              I'm glad you know the guy and you know his theories.

              Do you know any Constitutional lawyers?

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:01:58 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  you're grasping at straws. (0+ / 0-)

                A person who goes to work for a hostile state's armed forces loses their US citizenship, period.

                Today that includes going to work for a hostile subnational group that is harbored or otherwise supported by a state.  

                A traitor killed in a foreign combat operation isn't a martyr, he's a dead traitor.  

                "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 07:40:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Triply wrong this time (0+ / 0-)

                  First of all, entering the armed services of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. is grounds for revocation of citizenship, yes... but it still requires the U.S. government to take affirmative action to revoke it, including showing by a preponderance of the evidence that the person in question intended to renounce it. That never happened here.

                  Second, that's all moot anyway, since another thing that never happened is that Al Awlaki never entered the military service of a foreign state. A "hostile subnational group" is not a foreign state under the law. Check out 8 USC Sec. 1481, which is perfectly clear on this citizenship question, and hasn't been changed by any "defense doctrine."

                  Third, even if AQ did somehow pass muster there, your point is still moot unless Al Awlaki actually took up arms on its behalf... which is another thing that, to our knowledge, he never did.

                  He was a propagandist for a cause that opposed the U.S. government. That's all, and that's not illegal. And even if it were, the proper action would still be to try him for treason -- not conduct an extralegal assassination.

                  Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

                  by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 09:27:42 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  the "state-supported subnational group" item.... (0+ / 0-)

                    .... has not yet been litigated, so there is no case law with which you can support your conclusion.

                    In any case, you end up by committing the big logic-fail at the end of your post, by calling for him to be tried for treason.

                    Since there is no way to bring him to trial without "boots on the ground" to fight their way into his lair and capture him, the result is either:

                    a)  Boots on the ground, and another metric shit-ton of diaries complaining about that, or

                    b)  Trying him in-absentia, and another metric shit-ton of diaries complaining about that.

                    Bottom line is, nothing you propose has any chance of meeting with your own (and other al-Awlaki apologists') criteria, therefore the result sums to the outcome of wanting the US to have just let him be.

                    In other words, you're coddling terrorists.

                    Fail.

                    And in any case, moot.  Unless that is, you want to bring a lawsuit on behalf of some aggrieved party.  Perhaps on behalf of AQ for being deprived of al-Awlaki's leadership and possibly some good sex?  

                    G'night.  

                    "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                    by G2geek on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 11:40:19 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  You seem to be assuming here... (0+ / 0-)

                      ...that if the U.S. government finds it difficult or inconvenient to follow the law and the Constitution, or if political critics might object, then it's justified in just doing an end-run around all that and killing whoever it likes by any method available.

                      IOW, you're arguing that the ends justify the means. That assumption is, of course, both morally and legally inexcusable. That you seem to think it puts you on some sort of high ground here is remarkable.

                      Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

                      by lawman on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:14:00 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  OK so let's do it by the book: (0+ / 0-)

                        Congress declares war on Yemen, Obama sends in the troops.

                        A few thousand US casualties and a few tens of thousands of civilian casualties later, we get al-Awlaki and bring him back to the US for trial.

                        His lawyers cite his notoriety and say he can't get a fair trial.

                        The jury agrees.

                        al-Awlaki gets to walk, thereby making himself an instant hero and leader of whatever AQ faction he chooses to name.

                        The next time we see his ugly mug is on a video communique after something very large blows up, killing another 5,000 or so Americans.  

                        Is that what you want?  

                        "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                        by G2geek on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 12:39:22 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

      •  Traitor. Our Constitution is very explicit (5+ / 0-)

        on the issue of Treason:

        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.

        Here's what one commentator adds:

        I realize that the official rationale for the killing isn't predicated on the legal definition of treason. It's some arcane gobblydygook about a "global battlefield" and unlawful combatants and state secrets, none of which is even remotely settled law. But it's vitally important that we not start thinking that being accused of "treason" means that the US government can unilaterally decide to kill an American citizen without any due process. -digby

        The subtle difference between being accused and actually being proved a traitor.  But why worry about the cart being before the horse when it's a question of "half-Americans" and "bastards".

        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

        by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 05:50:16 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In that case... (0+ / 0-)

        Okay, fine, the crime to try him for is treason, if there's evidence to support the charge. There's still a big difference between doing that and skipping straight to summary execution.

        Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

        by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:48:23 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Brilliant idea! All we have to fucking do is (5+ / 0-)

      try Awlaki!  Why didn't the Obama administration think of that?

      Oh wait, that's right, we couldn't.

      As I said, and as I continue to believe, this was a far better tactic than risking dozens of American lives in a covert raid designed to capture someone who we probably wouldn't have been able to take alive in the fist place.

    •  It's a troubling thought (4+ / 0-)

      To give Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann the power to nominate federal judges.  That doesn't mean we should take that power away from the presidency.  If you want to go down that path, then it's not hard to end up being completely anti-government and believing that government should not have the power to do anything relevant.

      There exists no useful government power that cannot be abused in the wrong hands.

      •  Nominating a judge still requires approval from (4+ / 0-)

        our democratic representatives.  Having unequivocal authority to assassinate any American that the President, as advised by the CIA or Pentagon, or even the FBI or Homeland Security, deems a threat to national security seems a little different to me.  
        As long as people are consistent and agree the authority should go to all Presidents.  

        S.A.W. 2011 STOP ALL WARS "The Global War on Terror is a fabrication to justify imperialism."

        by BigAlinWashSt on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:42:59 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We can't think that far. 2013 is sooo far away. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          BigAlinWashSt

          Even if we could be considerate of our future selves and rights under President Whackjob, I would think folks like Setrak would easily toggle back to their Neocon blogs in celebration of the New Leader.
          This for them is mere passing time for the main event.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:10:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  There is a problem with your point. (8+ / 0-)

        The power you cite is a power that the President has been given by the Constitution. Killing Americans without a trial is forbidden by the Constitution.

        I was Rambo in the disco/ I was shootin' to the beat/ When they burned me in effigy My vacation was complete. Neil Young

        by Mike S on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:47:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  God that is so simple. (0+ / 0-)

          I'm sorry but many here can't get to that level of "idiocy".
          /snark.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:12:19 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I'm actually not convinced (0+ / 0-)

          That targeted killing of Americans is inherently unconstitutional.  I'm not entirely convinced that it is definitely constitutional, though.  It's something I would like to see addressed.

          I think it is possible to make the case that a) it is constitutional for Congress to approve of targeted killings and b) Congress has implicitly approved of the use of targeted killing.

          •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

            I can't imagine how you think it's possible to make the case for (A), but feel free to try. As for (B), arguing that Congress has "implicitly" approved of something it doesn't even necessarily have the power to do explicitly is even more of a stretch.

            Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

            by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:07:34 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Here's how I think it is possible (0+ / 0-)

              The taxing and spending clause gives Congress the power to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".  The justification of progressive public policy hinges in part upon an expansive view of this clause in which Congress is not limited strictly enumerated but may act if it provides for the general welfare.  This is one argument cited to claim that health care reform is constitutional.

              If one has an expansive view of Congressional power to provide for the general welfare, then one should have a similarly expansive view of Congressional power to provide for the common defense, to be consistent.  Arguably, if targeted killings may legitimately provide for the common defense, then Congress has the power to authorize such actions.  The 2001 AUMF Against Terrorists could then be interpreted as such an authorization.

              •  Not quite (0+ / 0-)

                That clause is clearly using "provide for" in a financial sense: it's all about taxing, spending, and assuming and paying debts. IOW, so long as the government has the power to do certain things, it also has the power to pay for them.

                In terms of progressive public policy, very little rests on this clause. Far more rests on the commerce clause, which has been expansively interpreted for 75 years now, since almost everything touches on interstate commerce.

                Regardless, even if one goes with your interpretation, basic jurisprudence says that you can't interpret one clause of Constitution as giving Congress the power to do something that's explicitly prohibited elsewhere in the same document. There might be all kinds of means of securing the common defense, but extrajudicial killings are not one of them, as the Fifth and Sixth Amendments make abundantly clear.

                Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

                by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 09:47:32 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm not sure the fifth and sixth amendments apply (0+ / 0-)

                  I can see how they would be interpreted to refer specifically to the rights of those who are held in custody.  Some seem to be interpreting due process as a right to trial.  I'm not sure if that is the case.  I believe that unlawful combatants (if such a category exists) have certain rights when in custody, but I'm not sure if there is anything that prevents the government from targeting unlawful combatants.

                  I would like to see some way for the Supreme Court to rule on this question and I would like to see another round of Geneva conventions negotiated to establish rules for treating terrorists and other non-state belligerent actors who seem to fall in a grey area.

                  I consider this an unsettled area of law and I believe that there are reasonable reasons to be on either side of this dispute.

                  •  "Some"? (0+ / 0-)

                    Pretty much everybody for over 200 years has interpreted due process as including a right to trial.

                    "Unlawful combatant" is a neologism created by the Bush administration to try to poke loopholes in the Geneva Conventions. Under the GC, which doesn't use the term, everyone in enemy hands in a military conflict is either a POW under GC3 or a civilian under GC4; there are no exceptions. The closest approximation in the GC to defining this term would be someone who has been captured and determined by a tribunal to have violated the laws of war, after which he can be prosecuted under relevant domestic law. Regardless, certain minimal protections always apply, including a right to trial.

                    There are decades of precedent on this, including recent decisions by the international tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. The only people who think there's a grey area are John Yoo types attempting to create one. It would be a real shame if anyone who frequents this site persuaded himself to side with the likes of them.

                    The difficulty with getting the Supreme Court to rule on this is that when the administration does a complete end-run around the legal system, as it did with Al Awlaki, then nothing ever gets to court. That's right at the heart of the problem here, of course. At this point, after the face, there's a serious question about who would have standing to bring a challenge.

                    (Not that I have any particular confidence in the current far-right USSC's willingness to abide by settled standards of justice, regardless...)

                    Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

                    by lawman on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:29:57 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  By that standard, we should abolish the military (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice, erush1345, Danjuma

      the CIA and FBI.

      Killing terrorists is part of the job.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:48:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This was war. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice

      The man declared war on the US and was behind attacks, advocating more. I'm sorry about all the Confederate soldiers who died, too, but the idea of arresting them all and giving them trials is a little nutsy if you ask me. Al-Qa'ida is committing war crimes in their jihad, but killing soldiers is, unfortunately, what war is all about. If you can shorten the war by killing a general or two, so much the better.

      •  a very good point - an apt parallel (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Danjuma, erush1345
        I'm sorry about all the Confederate soldiers who died, too, but the idea of arresting them all and giving them trials ....
        was utterly impossible.

        Awlaki and the Confederates  had both been American citizens who then made war on the US. If you can safely arrest someone who is attempting to do this then yes, they should be arrested.  If not, defending the nation against those who very clearly are making war against it is justified.

        Scientific Materialism debunked here

        by wilderness voice on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 07:32:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Our cops kill Americans everyday (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Setrak

    when they're branded as murder suspects and they flee.

    Why? Because when law enforcement wants you arrested, you get arrested or you get shot in the back as you run.

    And liberals yawn every single day of their lives as it goes on, because it's police fucking procedure and they understand it as such.

    These small minded hypocrites who get up on their moral high horses to protect who??? An Al Qaeda terrorist?!?

    Good fucking lord, no wonder liberals lose elections, it's a wonder they can tie their own shoes.

    I laugh at them in their hypocritical faces when they cry about team Obama taking out an actual terrorist.

    Thank God Obama is in charge rather than the hypocrites we have to put up with.

  •  "half-American"? (11+ / 0-)

    So there are degrees of citizenship now? Some Americans are more American than others?

    This is exactly the sort of thing the Republicans say: there are "real Americans", and the rest of the country are untermensch: don't have the same rights and don't really count.

    I can't begin to express how wrong and wrong-headed I find these notions to be.

    Every time these ideas have been carried to their logical conclusion the outcome has been bloody. So be careful what road you're headed down; you might not like where you end up.

    "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

    by limpidglass on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:16:17 PM PDT

    •  You're grasping, Limp. (0+ / 0-)

      Grasping.

      •  Enlighten us Setrak, on the theory of (7+ / 0-)

        "Half an american".

        I'd like to hear it.

        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

        by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:43:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  if you go to work for a hostile foreign nation.... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          wilderness voice, erush1345

          ... or a hostile subnational group harbored by a nation-state... and you lose your US citizenship.

          "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 05:07:54 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I want to see the evidence (7+ / 0-)

            not have it hidden from public view. All I know is what the government has told me. It also told me Iraq had WMDs, IIRC.

            •  Wow. Great example. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              skrekk, marina, Johnny Q

              I remember all the discussions online about Just War Theory and this new invention of "Pre-Emptive War" as if this was bona fide way to frame the illegal invasion of Iraq.

              It was and is still illegal but I'm "half" expecting a full blown debate on a thread like this that Iraq was alright, yeah!

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:17:08 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  this is NOT pre-emptive war. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                erush1345, Danjuma

                The war on Afghanistan was not pre-emptive war, though the objectives could have been achieved using commando raids and drone attacks.

                The war on Al Qaeda was not pre-emptive war.

                The war on Iraq was.

                Nobody here is justifying the war on Iraq.

                Al-Awlaki in his leadership position in a hostile subnational group that had long ago declared hostilities on the US, in word and in numerous deeds, thereby forfeited his citizenship and made himself a legitimate target for US military action.

                So let's puh-leeze stop all the weepy sympathy for a terrorist bigwig.   If nothing else, killed in combat = martyrdom, so right about now he should be enjoying his eternity with 72 teenage virgins.   He can have them.  I'm glad to be rid of him either way.  

                "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                by G2geek on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 08:34:07 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Read the post. I WAS referring to Iraq. (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Johnny Q, marina, lawman

                  And it was in response to marina's case on the track record of trusting the governments claims on WMD in Iraq.

                  If nobody here is justifying the war in Iraq then they should neither be justifying the meme we should  trust the intelligence services on the evidence they secretly claim to have justifying the assassination of an American Citizen without due process afford by the 5th Amendment.  That would be ill advised considering out collective experience of Big Lies of our government costing hundreds of thousands of lives and the blood of our young soldiers and our national debt.

                  This isn't about sympathy for Mr. terr'st bigwig.  This is about mine and your rights not to be eliminated without a trial by our President.

                  No one "forfeits" their citizenship. Can't be done.
                  Read some of the threads here and educate yourself on the laws concerning citizenship and how difficult it is to lose it.

                  NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                  by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 10:46:41 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  The Iraq War had nothing to do with al-Qa'ida (0+ / 0-)

                    Neither does this diary have anything to do with Iraq.

                    Don't hijack it.

                    •  You're having a hard time because it is so late. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      marina

                      She was saying (marin the user) in her comment about how we were mislead into Iraq by the intelligence on WMD.  Are you following?  So why should we automatically give credence to secret intelligence claiming this case. A great point.

                      No one was equating a link between al-Qaida and Iraq.

                      But now that you mentioned it YOU happen to believe that Bush never pretended that Saddam was behind 9/11 and in league with al-Qaida by that implication.

                      So you have no credibility to argue much of case for anything on a thread like this.

                      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                      by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:43:26 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  We weren't misled by any intelligence (0+ / 0-)

                        They made up lies. That's what Plamegate was about before it became "Who outed a CIA agent?" gate. They knew there weren't any WMD, or even intelligence that there were, but they wanted an excuse to go to war with Iraq. I have my own idea why, but that's neither here nor there.

                        People like you assumed there was some link between Iraq and al-Qa'ida because you had no idea what was going on, and didn't even know we were at war until 9/11. You should either educate yourself or just STFU.

                        And you personally should learn something about the Constitution.

                        •  You believe that Bush did not pretend that Saddam (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Johnny Q, marina

                          was behind 9/11.

                          And yet:

                          People like you assumed there was some link between Iraq and al-Qa'ida because you had no idea what was going on,

                          People like me, people like my fellow kossacks, did not believe in any link between the two.

                          You on the other hand believe that George Bush did not pretend that Saddam was behind 9/11.

                          BTW we were never at war post 9/11. Only Congress can declare a war.
                          And the AUMF only came out in December of 2001.

                          Enough.

                          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                          by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:30:17 AM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

            •  go read AQ's "Inspire" magazine. I did. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              erush1345, marina

              Back when I was studying this stuff in some detail.

              Cover story on how to make bombs and timers.  And it got worse from there.   Al-Awlaki was up to his ears in that one.  

              All the evidence you need is widely available on the internet (and I'm not going to do your searching for you).    

              "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 08:30:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Having information on how to build bombs (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Johnny Q

                is not criteria for assassination of American Citizens.

                LOL.  It is all over the internet. So Inspire published such material.  You have no concept of what you are talking about on the  legalities concerning the prosecution of Americans as traitors or even as "enemy combatants" without rights in the arbitrary kangaroo courts of a national security council.

                If they be the enemy then go about this in the way they went about convicting Osama Bin Laden.  He wasn't even an American and they still went to trial.

                NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 10:52:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  you defend this guy so vehemently.... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... that I'm starting to wonder about your motives and loyalties.  

                  "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

                  by G2geek on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 07:53:26 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  It is quite available on the internet. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              marina

              Here is a link to the 2nd edition of Inspire, the magazine published by al Awlaki and Khan.

              One of the articles is called "The Ultimate Mowing Machine." Here is an excerpt:

              The idea is to use a pickup truck as a mowing machine, not to mow grass but mow down the enemies of Allah.
              You would need a 4WD pickup truck. The stronger the better. You would then need to weld on steel blades on the front end of the truck....They do not need to be extra sharp because with the speed of the truck at the time of impact, even a blunter edge would slice through bone very easily....Go for the most crowed locations. Narrower spots are also better because it gives less chance for the people to run away. Avoid locations where other vehicles may intercept you.
              To achieve maximum carnage, you need to pick up as much speed as you can... In fact if you can get through to “pedestrian only” locations that exist in some downtown (city center) areas, that would be fabulous. ...If you have access to firearms, carry them with you so that you may use them to finish off your work if your vehicle gets grounded during the attack
              .

              Other suggestions in the magazine are going into a crowded restaurant (DC is a suggested location) and shooting the patrons, building bombs in your mother's kitchen and how to distribute them, making botulism, ricin, and cyanide.

              Another article by Samir Khan is called "Why I am Proud to be a Traitor to America."

              Other editions are also available though publicintelligence.net.

              You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

              by sewaneepat on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 04:49:50 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So? (0+ / 0-)

                That may be reprehensible in moral terms, but it's still constitutionally protected speech. It's not even grounds to try the author for anything, much less to assassinate him.

                Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

                by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:11:51 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  This may be constitutionally protected speech (0+ / 0-)

                  and the assassination may be against the Constitution. I'll let the courts decide. But morally I have no problem with killing this man.

                  You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                  by sewaneepat on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:25:38 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's bizarre (0+ / 0-)

                    Morally, you have no problem with the executive branch sidestepping the Constitution entirely in order to kill a man without letting the courts decide? If you think he's said things that make him a Very Bad Man, somehow that trumps the whole concept of an actual justice system?

                    Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

                    by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:46:56 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I think that the administration has more (0+ / 0-)

                      evidence if his involvement in a number of plots. I know from his writing and his videos that he has encouraged and instructed people about killing people. I know that he is implicated in the Killings at Fort Hood. I know that he was found guilty in a Yemeni court of being an accessory to murder of a French man.

                      I know that it is also illegal to assassinate the leader of a foreign country, and that in all cases I know of that we did such that it was a crime legally and morally. However, if we had been able to assassinate Hitler, I would have not had a problem with that even though it would have been illegal.

                      I believe that the deaths of these three men and bin Laden  saves the lives of innocent people. I also believe in karma and am willing to accept responsibility for condoning these deaths.  Some situations are not black and white morally.

                      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                      by sewaneepat on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 06:53:13 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Of course, the justice system isn't perfect (0+ / 0-)

                        It is, however, far better than the alternative of letting the executive branch decide who gets punished and who doesn't, with no transparency, no oversight, no legal process, and no appeal.

                        If as you imagine the administration had evidence of his involvement in plots, then it should certainly have been willing and able to present that evidence to a judge. It hasn't; instead it's claimed "state secrets." But that's insulting on its face; if there's evidence that can be trusted to officials in the executive branch, there's no reason it can't be trusted to a judge in the judicial branch. There are well-established, perfectly effective procedures for reviewing evidence in terrorism cases, espionage cases, and other similarly sensitive situations.

                        It is therefore far more reasonable to assume that the government does not have evidence that implicates him in any actual plots, or at least not evidence that would hold up in court. Under such circumstances, there are various alternatives available, but one of them is not and should never be "let's just kill him anyway."

                        (The Hitler analogy is flawed. Hitler was leader of a country that was, in fact, in a formal state of war with the U.S., and as such would have been a valid military target. This was clearly not true of Al Awlaki. OTOH, had Hitler been captured alive in his bunker, it would not have been legitimate to assassinate him at that point. Even the top Nazis officials got trials at Nuremberg, remember?)

                        Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

                        by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 09:39:50 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                    •  I also respect the US Constitution and the judicia (0+ / 0-)

                      system, but I do not think they are perfect and that the Constitution does not define morality. For instance, the counting of AAs as 3/5 of a person.  Likewise, the judicial system is not perfect and  certainly does not make a perfect fit with morality.

                      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

                      by sewaneepat on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 07:01:32 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

        •  And if you're African American (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Johnny Q, Aeolos

          that takes you down from 3/5ths to 3/10ths if I'm doing my fractions correctly . . .

      •  no, Setrak, I heard you loud and clear (8+ / 0-)

        and I say again: you should think long and hard about what you're saying and what it ultimately implies.

        Any time people start saying that certain groups are beyond the pale and therefore may be stripped of their fundamental rights, it ends badly. History has shown us this time and again.

        "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

        by limpidglass on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:47:52 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  There's no such thing as a (7+ / 0-)

    half-American.  He was an American citizen by virtue of being born here.  Would you call a child of an undocumented Mexican born in the US, a half-American?

    I don't disagree with the killing.  I do wish there was another way.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:18:04 PM PDT

  •  I have always been taught (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aeolos, marina, lawman

    that assassination is a bad thing done by bad people.  Nothing I have seen has given me cause to change this view.

    You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

    by Johnny Q on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:41:25 PM PDT

    •  would you rather we went to war in Yemen? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice, erush1345

      Boots on the ground and all?

      Or would you rather we'd had a Democrat in office who would have used commando raids (Bin Laden) and remote methods (Al-Awlaki) to take out AQ leadership?

      You do realize, don't you, that this is how Gore and Kerry would have done the job (assuming by some chance that they'd pulled off 9/11 despite Gore taking the intel briefings more seriously than Bush did).

      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 05:13:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wait, where not at war? (0+ / 0-)

        But this was an assassination of a U.S. citizen who gave aid and comfort to our enemy in War time. And he obviously was a soldier for the Army of Yemenese Against America.

        This isn't about Democrat vs. Republican but it makes me very suspicious about your motives for defending this now.

        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

        by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:22:17 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "who gave aid and comfort to our enemies.... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          erush1345

          .... in war time."   You said it, and it's one of the definitions of treason.

          He took a leadership role in a hostile subnational group that is supported by state actors.  Thereby forfeiting his US citizenship.

          Therefore he was not a US citizen.

          He was a traitor, a non-citizen, and a hostile combatant.

          And taking him out was a legitimate military action.

          But if we all bounce on our thumbs next year and Perry gets in, then he can go to war in Yemen and we'll have good cause to protest.  

          "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

          by G2geek on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 09:40:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I should have included the snark tag. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            lawman

            No such Constitutional exception for taking leadership roles in "subnational groups" of any sort or facebook groups of terrorists for that matter.
            No such thing as "forfeiting" your citizenship.  You have no legal ideas about what your pulling out of your ass.
            You don't just become an Un-US citizen.

            Your whole argument is becoming on big pile of mushy half-baked blather about "traitors, non-citizens and hostile combatant".  The only word not made up being traitor.  Of which the constitution says this:

            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.

            Read it carefully. It's the Constitution of the United States. Not some half-assed policy memorandum for the Brigadier General on Counter Insurgency with brand new glossary attatched.

            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

            by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 12:51:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  what part of "adhering to our enemies" don't you.. (0+ / 0-)

              .... understand?

              So here's another place your "logic" crashes and burns:

              You'll insist on a trial for treason.

              But you'll reject a trial in-absentia.

              However there was no way to capture this guy without boots on the ground.

              Stalemate!

              Result: Al-Awlaki walks free.

              Is that what you wanted?

              "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

              by G2geek on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 07:58:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  I'm very suspicious about your intelligence. (0+ / 0-)

          Given that you called the proud son of a proud Jew a skinhead.  Fuck.  You.

          •  Could care less about how you were sired. (2+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q, codobus
            Hidden by:
            Setrak

            Keep insinuating about certain ethnic groups being "half americans" with a smirk and you get more of the same.

            And all to justify your creepy diary (more of a grunted comment really) about Yes We Do Assassinate Americans.

            You are either a contractor or some sort of parasite with skin in this game of GWOT.  I've seen enough of you around here to know you stink to high heaven with your Drone Diaries.

            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

            by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 12:59:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  HR'ed for again insinuating I am racist (0+ / 0-)

              when I have already pointed out earlier that "half american" referred to the fact that the guy was a dual-citizen.  And that's before we even get into the whole declaration of war against America thing.  Oh yah, it's not "an official" declaration.. which tends to happen when the group under discussion is a non-state group.

              But by all means, keep claiming I'm a contractor or some shit.   I'll keep reminding you that you are pathetic.

              •  Setrak you can't HR in retaliation to (1+ / 1-)
                Recommended by:
                lawman
                Hidden by:
                Setrak

                a comment from someone you've just told "fuck you" to.

                And your statement about "half american" was quite racist.
                And an insult to the idea of citizenship to boot.
                I don't know how you did it but you managed to insult Middle Eastern Americans as well as America itself in one fell swooping ignorant racist comment.

                Your "half"-assed explanation is too sorry to believe:  Dual citizenship doesn't halve an American citizenship.  Or maybe you really are that ignorant.  Then you bring up that you are Jewish.  Oh the ironies.

                I've read enough to know you have an agenda being here at dkos and it isn't to mix it up with fellow progressives that's for sure. It isn't to make friends.  What is it Setrak.  You just have a hard-on for Drones?  Are you just a Dronehead from France?

                NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 01:26:21 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  I find the "half American" meme offensive (4+ / 0-)

    I devoted most of my adult life to defending the Constitution, which includes the following premises:

    1. There aren't any half Americans
    2. Due process is part of the bargain

    I'm not going to mourn the death of Al Outta-Luckie or whatever the hell his name is.  However, I am concerned that his death could set a precedent, and precedents invevitably suffer mission creep.

    I'm okay with viewing this bastard's death as military action against a bona-fide violent aggressor.  However, I can't condone the nation creeping in the direction of administering a death sentence without benefit of trial.

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Ghandi

    by DaveinBremerton on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:42:12 PM PDT

    •  Setrak and his ilk are counting on you (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      lawman
      I'm okay with viewing this bastard's death as military action against a bona-fide violent aggressor.  However, I can't condone the nation creeping in the direction of administering a death sentence without benefit of trial.

      Military action.  Nothing to see here.  Bona fides as aggressor redacted in this secret report from the CIA here.  Not a "Bastard" but HALF an American speechifying against his countrymen.  Deserves death for sure.  Move along now you can't bring him back (or half your bastard rights you lost along with al-Awlaki's assassination).

      Yep.  They're counting on the bastard factor.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 05:17:15 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No, I'd say they are counting on you... (3+ / 0-)

        ...to make the "anti" argument look crazier than the "pro" argument.

        The dead guy in question could have simply stopped helping kill people.  Easy day.  But he didn't.  Now he's dead.  Sad day for him.

        "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win". Mohandas K. Ghandi

        by DaveinBremerton on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:20:39 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Not about the dead guy now. (5+ / 0-)

          It's about your rights as an American citizen.

          Difficult for you to see because of the ugly mask of an American turned al-Qaida lieutenant.  He never stopped being himself - a member of a terrorist organization we are dedicating our military to destroy.

          But the question: Does the President of the United States have the right to assassinate an American Citizen without the due process that the Constitution guarantees all citizens.

          It remains unanswered and mostly obscured by the ever consuming project of War on Terror™ and the need to rain terror down from above on Terrorist and citizens alike without regard for the very laws we are claiming for our self defense.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:32:50 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Did he actually kill or "help kill" anyone? (0+ / 0-)

          Evidence, please? I'm well aware that he talked and wrote about how great an idea it would be to kill certain people. But that's a far cry indeed from actually doing it.

          Resolving questions like this is what due process of law is all about, of course. That's why it's kind of important to hang on to it, rather than doing end-runs around it.

          Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

          by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:16:25 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  If you're actually fighting with the enemy (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Setrak, wilderness voice, erush1345

    or even providing help, then you accept the consequences.  I'm glad we got him.

    •  Was he fighting with the enemy? (6+ / 0-)

      Who are the "enemy"?  Yemen?  Did we declare war on Yemen?
      He was a member of the terrorist organization al-Qaida for sure but there is nothing in the AUMF that give the President a pass on the Constitution as it applies to American citizens if they have not been accused, charged or tried.  Nothing.  

      Was he fighting?  Do you have proof?  Reports?  Anything other than "believed to be" and "suspected of" blanket phrases in all the reports?

      Do you understand the legal concept of "evidence" and "due process"?  Or are you just glad?

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 05:23:39 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Now that assassination is back on the menu (7+ / 0-)

    as a fully condomed and accepted tactic of The Way We do things, I'm sure there will be no complaints/outcry from those cheering this new state of affairs if/when the chickens come home to roost.

    Surely you didn't think we would be the only ones taking advantage of the new rules.

    We are all potentially targets now.

    You may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.-- Francis Urqhart

    by Johnny Q on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:51:46 PM PDT

    •  when will the left ever get over.... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345

      .... the "we are all XYZ" meme?  

      Name one election that meme has won for us.  Even one.

      "Minus one vote for the Democrat" equals "plus one vote for the Republican." Arithmetic doesn't care about your feelings.

      by G2geek on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 05:15:30 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We can hardly think past Sunday brunch. (0+ / 0-)

      And you expect us to worry about far off consequences when we have Terr'sts to smoke? /snark.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 05:25:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because AQ thugs like al-wacky would never dream (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice, erush1345

      if targeting Americans.

      Glad the traitorous terrorist got what he had coming.

      "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

      by Geekesque on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:45:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We were all potential targets of al Awlaki before. (0+ / 0-)

      Do you think that his instructions to kill Americans and how to go about it were not assassination orders directed at all of us?

      Yes, it is always quite troubling when a President goes beyond his constitutional duties. It was troubling when Lincoln did it. It was troubling when FDR did it. It is never something to be taken lightly; however, I certainly see more justification for this than for FDR putting American citizens in detention camps with no due process. But neither Lincoln revoking habeas corpus or FDR indefinitely detaining citizens based on their ethnicity has led to that becoming accepted practice.

      You may believe with all your heart that killing another person is never justified without a trial (or even with a trial), but if you are faced with a person threatening the life of your child, you would likely find some gray area- or at least come to the conclusion that even though it might be wrong, you would kill the person and accept the consequences (karmic or otherwise).    That seems to be an apt analogy here because this man was a direct threat to the lives of innocent people.

      You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

      by sewaneepat on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 05:08:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  False comparison (0+ / 0-)

        You're comparing this to self-defense, or defense of others, from imminent threat of violence. That's well-established grounds for use of violent (even deadly) force. It also has nothing whatsoever to do with the circumstances under discussion here.

        If the guy down the block threatens you from afar -- or, to be even more accurate with the analogy, tells others that that they should do so -- self-defense does not give you the right to go to his home and kill him.

        Blogging on politics and pop culture at SmartRemarks

        by lawman on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 02:20:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We Were All Targets On 9/11. (0+ / 0-)

      Or did you and others here already forget that?

      It's sad when people on this site will actively defend terrorists who happen to be US citizens. Terrorists who actively target innocent civilians. Yes, we could engage and idealism and wait for them to see a court of law, but the odds of that happening are about 1,000 to 1. Meanwhile, as we wait for that day, he and his AQ allies are plotting more acts of terror against civilians.

      Will Rogers was right.

      by kefauver on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 07:56:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I hope everyone understand who this diarist is. (0+ / 0-)

    Setrak the Great Drone Diarist.
    The Drone Diaries anyone?

    You have such a way with those you disagree with as "idiots".  And those who would defend our Constitution, our rights as American citizens and the rule of law.

    Half an American.  You are as half-assed as your false and bigoted construtions are.

    NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

    by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:53:52 PM PDT

    •  Have a HR for your slam (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      limpidglass
      If people want to sit and moan about how stellar their ideals are and how wrong others are, that's fine with me too; you are, after all, entitled to be an idiot.

      Not a kosher way to end a diary on Daily Kos. Especially on the topic of an executive assassination of an American.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 04:57:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  This person is being an (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mother Shipper

        asshole at the end but I think Kos clarified that we may want to think before we HR people for being assholes.

        I rec'd the diary cause I agree not because of the HR.

        On 9/26/11 at the end of his show Al Sharpton broke it down like it needed to be broken.

        by mim5677 on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 05:02:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Bs HR (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        kalmoth, wilderness voice

        You, and I are, indeed, entitled to be an idiot.    Kosher is in the eye of the beholder, and I think you have proven extremely thin skinned in this circumstance.  I will rec to offset a bad hr.

        I am the neo-con nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

        by bhfrik on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 05:08:14 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  likewise... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bhfrik, wilderness voice

          although I strongly disagree with the diarist on the "half-American" thing.

          •  What about the title of the diary? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Johnny Q

            Have any problems with him calling  generic assassination of Americans A-OK?

            Think about it.  Because whether you agree or not with the al-Awlaki assassination you are assenting to the basic frame:

            Assassination of Americans is Fine.

            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

            by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:42:17 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  not talking to you, sorry n/t (0+ / 0-)
            •  sheesh... (0+ / 0-)

              the title of the diary is self evidently correct as demonstrated by recent events in Yemen.  The title "Yes, We Do Assassinate Americans " is of itself a statement of irrefutable fact which you may not appreciate as such, but is not of itself an endorsement.  The opinions expressed in the diary do endorse the fact of the matter, but that doesn't seem to be your beef in the above comment.

              I am the neo-con nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

              by bhfrik on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 09:47:00 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Sure it's a statement of irrefutable fact. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                lawman

                And it's double entendre on a now ongoing de facto policy.

                We do assassinate Americans.  As if this is quite a normal situation.

                It is not. It is illegal, against our Constitution and unacceptable by any president.  It is a kind of war itself on our Laws and on our peoples.  We are a nation with a rule of law. No president, whether it be a Bush or an Obama is above these laws.
                Our country was founded on that rock bottom principle.  And I guess now we know why Obama didn't prosecute Bush for his crimes.

                Having that in the title is basically a slap at what progressive politics is all about: protection and promotion of our civil rights.

                NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 11:29:40 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  It's a valid opinion to have (0+ / 0-)

              It may be right or it may be wrong, but I don't think it is a viewpoint that should be automatically dismissed from the conversation as not even worth debating.

        •  That's kool. (0+ / 0-)

          Setrak though is not entitled to be an idiot when it comes to posting an upfront insult at the community he disagrees with.

          He gets a HR for calling "idiots".  Bad form and all.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:38:07 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You seriously must work for The Onion (0+ / 0-)

            I mean you just did what you hr'd the diarist for doing.  By your own standard you should be hr'd for calling the diarist an idiot.  

            I won't toss you a donut, but look in the mirror and consider withdrawing the hr on the tip jar.   If you are so thin skinned that the diarist proclaiming that people he doesn't agree with have the right to be an idiot is hr'able to you I can only imagine the near constant state of outrage you must be in on a regular basis.  

            I am the neo-con nightmare, I am a liberal with the facts.

            by bhfrik on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 09:33:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Look, this is hardly a diary. It's an obnoxious (0+ / 0-)

              comment at best starting with a very provocative title and a two paragraph screed at all the "idiots" on dkos who have a problem with this.
              By kos's rules now "anything goes" from that point on when a "diarist" (I'm using the word loosely for Setrak) opens himself up by posting it.

              Highly Hide Rateable.  Unworthy to be Rec'd for the drivel it is.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 11:19:42 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  No different than bin Laden. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wilderness voice, Plubius, erush1345

    He chose to be the enemy.  And thus he was treated.

    "[R]ather high-minded, if not a bit self-referential"--The Washington Post.

    by Geekesque on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 06:43:26 PM PDT

  •  If only we had a constitutional law professor who (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    codobus, skunkbaby, Johnny Q

    would run for president we could get rid of all the atrocities of the Bush administration.

    Meet the new boss
    Same as the old boss

  •  Amazing (5+ / 0-)

    You actually assert that a US president should have the power to murder US citizens without any charge, indictment, trial, conviction, or even the need to present evidence of criminal wrongdoing?

    This "diary" is an ode to moral blindness and pure evil. I'd HR it a thousand times if I could.

     

    "The corporatism that has overtaken our democracy is an ideology that insists on relentless positivism — that's why it opposes criticism and encourages passivity." --- John Ralston Saul

    by skunkbaby on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 07:38:37 PM PDT

    •  You shouldn't HR a difference of opinion (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wilderness voice, Kevvboy, paulitics

      I can accept the rationale of HRing because of insulting other Kossacks by calling them idiots (but you're committing HR abuse if you've rec'ed a different diary that called people idiots or some other blanket term like traitors, especially one supporting the opposite side of this debate).  I can't accept the rationale of HRing the tip jar because you think the diarist is wrong.

      •  I see (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CaliSista, Johnny Q, Aeolos

        So calling someone an idiot is worthy of an HR, but advocating murder is not? I'm glad I'll never have to rationalize that.

        My HR stays, as a matter of honor. I'd be ashamed to not HR this. In addition, it serves to draw a distinction between me and those who have no moral values. If I'm banned for slapping an HR on a call to murder people simply because the president says they should die, I don't belong here anyway.

        "The corporatism that has overtaken our democracy is an ideology that insists on relentless positivism — that's why it opposes criticism and encourages passivity." --- John Ralston Saul

        by skunkbaby on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 09:03:37 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's fairly easy to rationalize (0+ / 0-)

          HRs are supposed to be used to flag violations of site policy, not to signal strong disagreement.  Whether a diary is right or wrong is supposed to be outside the jurisdiction of proper ratings usage unless the diarist is an obvious troll who is only trying to stir up trouble.

          The site rules are more to address civility than content.  This is obviously an issue with some people on each side.  It should be a topic of debate, but if that debate occurs here, it is subject to some ground rules.  The way you distinguish yourself from those who disagree with you is through arguing for your side (in a civil manner).  

          If get punished for incorrect usage of a HR, you wouldn't be banned;  you'd just have your ratings ability taken away.

          •  The title right off is Hide Rate worthy. (0+ / 0-)

            I believe that is what skunkbaby is driving at. This is a progressive blog. Setrak can have his opinions but he has to mind his manners on how far he couches it to provoke and insult the intelligence of the members here.

            This is not Red State or Little Green Footballs or Drudge where you bludgeon people with your contrarian Billboard titles and expect this to pass.  Then go on calling kossacks, idiots.

            Apart from al-Awlaki and the GWOT, NO WE DON'T ASSASSINATE AMERICANS.  See?  You have to start there to even begin to unravel the reasons why this killing is so controversial.  If you start at the very un-progressive and anti-Constitutional level of a Setrak then you immediately lose all resistance and quickly accept a rational such as "half-american" as a sole justification for elimination without any say of the due process of our courts.

            This diary defecates with glee on the basis of America on so many levels.

            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

            by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 08:01:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  It's a partisan Democratic blog (0+ / 0-)

              Where progressives participate, not an exclusively progressive blog.  Even if it were, you don't get to assert that your opinion is the factual definition of what it means to be progressive.

              The title in and of itself doesn't strike me as hide-worthy.  The subject matter isn't hide-worthy.  Being insulting within that diary may be hide-worthy, but you probably shouldn't HR the tip-jar unless you would also do so for a diary that calls people like Setrak "idiots".

    •  Treason (0+ / 0-)

      You don't know know much of the world.

  •  I don't cheer (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    paulitics, sewaneepat

    Al Awlaki's death. But I believe he fully proved himself to be a clear and present danger to the United States.

    Given the circumstances and his location, I also don't believe there was much of a chance of capturing him alive, even though it would have been preferred.

    Right many are called, and damn few are chosen.

    by Idaho07 on Sat Oct 01, 2011 at 10:59:42 PM PDT

  •  "half american"? (0+ / 0-)

    The entire premise of this diary is reprehensible.

    I'm one of those lucky homos in a bi-national relationship - at the age of 49, all I had to do was give up my career, leave behind my dying father, my aging, diabetic mother, my family & friends and move to the Netherlands. Easy peasey!

    by aggieric on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 12:31:33 AM PDT

    •  And check out the Rec'd Roll: (0+ / 0-)
      wilderness voice, NewDealer, sunbro, t olsen, Rich in PA, mim5677, bhfrik, Mother Shipper, Prinny Squad, kalmoth, killjoy, BFSkinner, BarackStarObama, Geekesque, erush1345, Plubius, Danjuma, Dave in AZ

      Though t olsen was "assassinated" as a Zombie soon after his Rec'd.

      Mark the names who recommend such reprehensible material and wonder what goes on her at dkos under the radar.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 07:38:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  the issue, as it has always been (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Johnny Q, Aeolos

    is if one accepts this assassination under Obama, would they accept it under Bush.  If not, then they are hypocrites.

  •  I do wish you would take out the "half American" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Aeolos

    part. He was an American. I don't understand how anyone can be a "half" citizen. Dual citizenry is still full citizenry of both countries.

    You can't scare me, I'm sticking to the Union - Woody Guthrie

    by sewaneepat on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 05:14:39 AM PDT

    •  He's being cute with the dual citizen crap. (0+ / 0-)

      Setrak knew exactly what he wanted to impart with the jibe at least four times, then calls Kossacks "idiots" who would disagree with his assumptions.

      Unbelievable what passes here.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sun Oct 02, 2011 at 07:43:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You are certainly.... (0+ / 0-)

    ....more trusting of the government than I am.  There wasn't even the figleaf of a trial in absentia.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Mon Oct 03, 2011 at 03:07:48 AM PDT

  •  I think you can make an argument that he (0+ / 0-)

    should have been tried in abstentia and sentenced to death first, but that's about as far as I'm willing to go on this.  The problem here is that many people don't realize that we are responsible for the deaths that result from our crimes of omission as well as those of commission.  If we had failed to take him, as apparently we failed to take out Bin Laden before 9-11 (I have heard that there was a children's swing set at his compound in Kandahar and that no one wanted to be responsible for collateral damage).  So maybe there were kids there and maybe there weren't, but whatever the case, the decision not to bomb the place was one of the bloodiest costliest mistakes in American history.  How many children died as a result of our not dropping a bomb on that compound?  Probably thousands, let alone the number of adults that joined them leaving tens of thousands of children without parents.

    I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Oh, yeah, and Ronald Reagan was an idiot and a lousy president.

    by journeyman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:39:18 PM PDT

  •  Moral Narcissism. (0+ / 0-)

    "Moral Narcissism" is a good description of those that would put their own moral purity above the safety of their neighbors.  Anyone who insists that we look at something that is, arguably, a violation of the letter of our laws without materially endangering their spirit, especially when lives are at stake, is a moral narcissist.  I'm not fond of narcissists generally but at least the physical variety sometimes can claim the mitigating factor of physical beauty.  The moral variety are not morally beautiful.  They're just self-centered.  That's all.

    I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Oh, yeah, and Ronald Reagan was an idiot and a lousy president.

    by journeyman on Tue Oct 04, 2011 at 02:44:10 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site