Obama Assassinates Two Americans

Dammy

Dammy

Member
Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
1,487
Reaction score
31
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ngside-aulaqi/2011/09/30/gIQAYhcdAL_blog.html

So are the Progressives going to protest at the White House this weekend demanding that Obama be impeached? Or do they accept this is a signal to the Tea Party to shut up before it's too late? Between an ex-Obama white house guy saying we need less democracy and Gov. Perdue saying we don't need Congressional elections next year, sure does put a different tone on Obama's action today. What is a Progressive to do!
 
Foreign policy: Kill with bombs. Domestic policy: Kill with lethal injection. Only difference: Delivery.
 
Not a peep, except applause by the liberal media. I don't shed a tear here, but you are right that if it was Bush we'd have outrage.
 
redrumloa said:
Not a peep, except applause by the liberal media. I don't shed a tear here, but you are right that if it was Bush we'd have outrage.
Click to expand...
Not from me you wouldn't. They were traitors actively at war with your nation (and others). The state of war takes this outside the realm of law and justice as far as I'm concerned.
 
Glaucus said:
Not from me you wouldn't. They were traitors actively at war with your nation (and others). The state of war takes this outside the realm of law and justice as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
Which is why war is always wrong and all war is a crime. Only legitimate immediate self defense is justified. All others committing acts of war should go before the bench.
 
redrumloa said:
Not a peep, except applause by the liberal media. I don't shed a tear here, but you are right that if it was Bush we'd have outrage.
Click to expand...
He already supposedly assassinated Osama Bin Laden. These powers came in under Bush. Progressives protested them then, of course, and protest them now - but progressives don't get on TV much. They get shunted aside by the "liberal" media, of course, because the "liberal" media love authoritarian US Imperialism. It don't matter who the President is, the "liberal" media has always celebrated presidents using the military/intelligence to go after ... well, anyone really. Guilty, innocent? The media doesn't care.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Which is why war is always wrong and all war is a crime. Only legitimate immediate self defense is justified. All others committing acts of war should go before the bench.
Click to expand...
Even under such a tight restriction, I'd consider this fair hit.
 
Glaucus said:
Even under such a tight restriction, I'd consider this fair hit.
Click to expand...
So, if the Taliban manage to put a bullet in Obama then that is a fair hit because he is a high value target and there is a war between the two parties?
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
So, if the Taliban manage to put a bullet in Obama then that is a fair hit because he is a high value target and there is a war between the two parties?
Click to expand...

The President is the Commander in Chief
 
Leaders have always been targets. Why do you think officers hate it when you salute them in a battlefield setting? Leaders are usually well protected though, making them tough targets. It just so happens that Al-Qaeda doesn't have the means to properly protect them. There may be reasons why one side may choose not to target leaders, but that's beside the point.

In ancient Greece, the leaders were on the front line. And by leader, I mean the king. Which meant battles were often short - once the King was killed (or wounded) it was pretty much over and everyone else went home. Maybe that's the trick - let the leaders do all the fighting.
 
Everyone, including Americans, deservers a trial. While I don't shed much of a tear of an American who camps out with terrorists the preferred method should be capture and face the court of law
 
faethor said:
Everyone, including Americans, deservers a trial. While I don't shed much of a tear of an American who camps out with terrorists the preferred method should be capture and face the court of law
Click to expand...

They notified them of their Miranda rights by writing "you have the right to remain silent" on the nose of the bombs.

Since Obama became President there is no longer any attempt being made to capture anyone, he doesn't want anyone else to be sent to Club Gitmo, and be forced to live on only 4000 calories per day, and endure the brutal Cuban winters living in open huts, like Bush did.
 
metalman said:
Since Obama became President there is no longer any attempt being made to capture anyone, he doesn't want anyone else to be sent to Club Gitmo, and be forced to live on only 4000 calories per day, and endure the brutal Cuban winters living in open huts, like Bush did.
Click to expand...

Good point. Bush would capture and give a military trial and there was outrage on the left. Obama just blows them up from a drone and there is applause from the left.
 
redrumloa said:
Good point. Bush would capture and give a military trial and there was outrage on the left. Obama just blows them up from a drone and there is applause from the left.
Click to expand...
Good thing Obama had the powers that Bush put in place. Wonder which other Americans he can designate as terrorists. Maybe the Wall St. protesters?
 
Speaking of Anwar al-Awlaki (spelled Aulaki in the article, but also spelled Aulaqi) who was also killed in this strike (supposedly)

The US state department said Awlaki had a right to privacy, but, it seems, not a right to life. Privacy, at least, is the reason the State Department says is why it can't release any files it has on him.

The US put Awlaki on the kill list in 2010 outside of any usual legal protections:

Al-Awlaki has never been publicly charged or indicted in the United States, but he has been named a "specially designated global terrorist." That makes it illegal for lawyers to represent him, even at no charge, without a license from the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control.
Click to expand...
AOL News

Glenn Greenwald, a prominent civil liberties lawyer and commentator, said there had been no effort to indict Al-Awlaki on any crimes and that there was “substantial doubt” about his involvement in any crimes.
“He was simply ordered killed by the president: his judge, jury and executioner,” Greenwald wrote on salon.com.
“What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the US government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process,” he added.
Click to expand...
Times of Ummah

Greenwald is right, it seems. We have moved so far from the ideal of rule by law to rule by Emperor (even if only a 4 year Emperor) that we are compelled to love and thank Big Brother for his benevolent protection and his righteous vengeance.

But how Awlaki's fortunes have changed. In the period following the 9/11 attacks he was invited to lunch at the Pentagon.
Yes, it appears that the Pentagon wasn't informed by the FBI that Awlaki had ties to the hijackers. Or, maybe they already knew. It seems that he may have had OK relations with the CIA while he was working in Yemen, at least for a while, as they seemed to have protected him to a certain extent. Yemen had asked for help tracking him down.
The CIA concluded that it could not assist the Yemenis in locating Aulaqi for a possible capture operation. The primary reason was that the agency lacked specific evidence that he threatened the lives of Americans -- which is the threshold for any capture-or-kill operation against a U.S. citizen. The Yemenis also wanted U.S. Special Forces' help on the ground in pursuing Aulaqi; that, too, was refused.
Click to expand...
Or it's just regular bureaucracy at work. Whatever the case, if he was of help to the CIA at some point it's now moot as he has been cleaned up. The big question is why did they not simply arrest him years ago for his involvement with the 911 hijackers instead of letting him go on and on for years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top