Anwar Al-Awlaki Killed

[Winchester]

AMF

Cheers

One more "Plus" in the Pros column for New Mexico!

[noxnatio]

I regards to the 5th, the amendment makes a special consideration for "when in actual service in time of War or public danger." I might be skeptical about using the war as a scapegoat to shoot people in the face but I think this reasonably falls under the public danger clause.

[Buddy Spike]

I regards to the 5th, the amendment makes a special consideration for "when in actual service in time of War or public danger." I might be skeptical about using the war as a scapegoat to shoot people in the face but I think this reasonably falls under the public danger clause.

I think that means people in the military being subject to UCMJ during time of War, not just anyone.

[raimius]

Like I tried to say before, I'm not too concerned about this situation. The guy video taped his ideas and plans. It was obvious what side he was on, and that he was committing treason. I don't have a problem that he was blown up.

I do have some concerns over the procedures used, and how they will set the pseudo-precedence for less clear-cut situations in the future.

Obviously, I don't sit on the NSC, so there is a lot of information and procedural stuff I don't see. I have to go off what I can read in the media, which is far less than perfect.

[zrooster99]

Like I tried to say before, I'm not too concerned about this situation. The guy video taped his ideas and plans. It was obvious what side he was on, and that he was committing treason. I don't have a problem that he was blown up.

I do have some concerns over the procedures used, and how they will set the pseudo-precedence for less clear-cut situations in the future.

Obviously, I don't sit on the NSC, so there is a lot of information and procedural stuff I don't see. I have to go off what I can read in the media, which is far less than perfect.

Know alot about the procedures used, do you? I submit that you do not.

[jcj]

When one plans terrorist operations against US citizens, on US soil. Whether or not the exact verbiage exists in codified law should be irrelevant. You wanna target Americans? You deserve to eat a Hellfire.

this

by his own choices, he made himself an enemy combatant, and therefore a legitimate military target. Had he chosen to avail himself of his rights as a U.S. Citizen, all he needed to do was turn himself in to the U.S. Embassy of his choice.

Well Done to the team...

to the targets, AMF & have a blast in hell...

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I am concerned about the precedent though.

We didn't send out the cops, arrest and try all the dudes who signed up for the Confederate Army back in 1861 either. We sent the US Army and Navy after their asses. Precedent? I think there's plenty of precedent in our past demonstrating we can and will use military action against citizens who equally take up armed insurrection of any type against our nation.

[TrainerModel]

We didn't send out the cops, arrest and try all the dudes who signed up for the Confederate Army back in 1861 either. We sent the US Army and Navy after their asses. Precedent? I think there's plenty of precedent in our past demonstrating we can and will use military action against citizens who equally take up armed insurrection of any type against our nation.

Agreed, you cant expect the protections/rights of a citizen if you don't want to be one and are engaged in open conflict with a country who only still considers you a citizen because you didn't officially revoke it.

[Skitzo]

Anyone doubting this victory does not have the proper perspective on this guy. Next time you feel nature calling, grab the latest copy of Inspire and start reading. Rot in hell douchenozzle.

[Vertigo]

Also, the constitution does not give rights.

So... the Bill of Rights does not give rights? Interesting.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That sounds like a right... as a matter of fact it used the word right and refers to the people having that right.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

Again another use of that pesky word right.

"the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation... to be confronted with the witnesses against him... have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

I think you see my point. The Constitution not only limits government powers, but also gives rights.

I thought I posted this earlier but apparently I didn't.

If someone ever seriously raised this as a Constitional violation it could easily be defeated by stating that Al-Awlaki wasn't the target. Another non-citizen scumbag in the same vehicle was the target... Al-Awlaki was collateral damage of that strike.

[Dewey...BoneDriver]

I think you see my point. The Constitution not only limits government powers, but also gives rights.

Dude, the constitution doesn't grant rights, it lists them. You missed the quote in the Declaration of Independence where the Founders said that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."

That is the point he was making. This is a fundamental problem, when people start to think that the Government grants rights not the Creator. The bill of rights isn't about the government being nice to us. The Founders just wanted to enumerate rights not grant them to us.

[Buddy Spike]

So... the Bill of Rights does not give rights? Interesting.

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That sounds like a right... as a matter of fact it used the word right and refers to the people having that right.

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

Again another use of that pesky word right.

"the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial... to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation... to be confronted with the witnesses against him... have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor... and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

I think you see my point. The Constitution not only limits government powers, but also gives rights.

I thought I posted this earlier but apparently I didn't.

If someone ever seriously raised this as a Constitional violation it could easily be defeated by stating that Al-Awlaki wasn't the target. Another non-citizen scumbag in the same vehicle was the target... Al-Awlaki was collateral damage of that strike.

Constitutional Law not your thing, huh?

http://constitutionality.us/TheConstitution.html

The Constitution does not give you rights. The founders considered your rights to be "God-given" or "natural rights" — you are born with all your rights. The constitution does, however, protect your rights by:

• Limiting the powers of government by granting to it only those specific powers that are listed in the Constitution; (This has not proven to be effective of late.)
  
• Enumerating certain, specific rights which you retain. These are listed in the Bill of Rights.
  

The rights deemed most important by the founders are specifically listed in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights also says that, even though a particular right is not listed in the Bill of Rights, you still retain that right. Any powers not specifically delegated by the Constitution to the federal government are retained by the states and the people (you).

So, without the Constitution, the states and the people have all the rights and there is no federal government. With the Constitution, the states and the people keep any rights not specifically delegated to the federal government by the Constitution. The Constitution states this very clearly.

Unfortunately, the government today seems to recognize only those rights specifically listed in the Bill of Rights and even these often receive little more than lip service, when your rights interfere with some government objective.

The Constitution protects our rights (Congress shall make no law verbiage) and structures government. Even in your quote "Shall not be infringed" it is fairly evident.

[Butters]

Does anyone giva shit? We're (Military) paid to execute policy not make it. Dominate the airspace you own and trust that your leaders are making the right decisions. Trust me I am in no way naive but that's the way I see it. Are you a fan of Ron Paul by chance? Plus it demonstrates that we're willing to clean house regardless of affiliation. If you are a US citizen and threaten terroism on the US, you lose said right for a fair trial IMHO. Personal take on the situation, not looking to encite a flame fest.

Cooter

I honestly don't give a shit. I was just making yet another poor attempt at a joke, aimed towards the departed PYB. He discussed this at length in another thread....

ADDED: Not a fan of Ron Paul, but Rainman’s buddy PYB is.

Edited October 4, 2011 by Butters

[nsplayr]

I was just making yet another poor attempt at a joke, aimed towards the departed PYB. He discussed this at length in another thread....

...and stated openly that he would not pull the trigger if ordered to do so on that particular target. Looks like someone else had the night shift in the GCS...good on em'.

[Butters]

...and stated openly that he would not pull the trigger if ordered to do so on that particular target. Looks like someone else had the night shift in the GCS...good on em'.

Or he was and did and is full of shit. Or he wasn't and didn't and is full of shit.

[ClearedHot]

I disagree. I think this case presents some serious questions. When does one forfeit their 5th Amendment rights? The right not to be deprived of life without due process is a pretty serious one.

[GovernmentMan]

Weird...your kid sister looks a lot like me.

Also, ###### that guy. He dedicated his life to inciting wanton violence against innocent people. In 500 years, people will marvel that anybody took the Quran so seriously, in the same way that now we marvel how ancient Egyptians took the Book of the Dead so seriously.

[GrndPndr]

Also, ###### that guy. He dedicated his life to inciting wanton violence against innocent people. In 500 years, people will marvel that anybody took the Quran so seriously, in the same way that now we marvel how ancient Egyptians took the Book of the Dead so seriously.

"2"

[Day Man]

2

3

Except replace "quran" with any major religious scripture.

Edited October 4, 2011 by day man

[pawnman]

3

Except replace "quran" with any major religious scripture.

We can hope.

[cloudraptor]

Awesome. Enjoy being dead, mother######er.

[FourFans]

In 500 years, people will marvel that anybody took the Quran so seriously...

Except replace "quran" with any major religious scripture.

Simply brilliant. The last 2000 years that've seen the Bible as the single best surviving and most accurately translated book in the world were simply a fluk. The Quran isn't all that young either. Yeah, that time was clearly confused and chaotic, the next 500 years will show us what's up.

I think what you meant to say was that in 500 years people will look at men like Anwar Al-Awlaki and wonder how they managed to mess it up so bad. I hope he's enjoying his 72 virgin dudes.

FF

Edited October 5, 2011 by FourFans130

[Guest]

I hope he's enjoying his 72 virgin dudes are enjoying him.

FIFY

[HossHarris]

Weird...your kid sister looks a lot like me.

Also, ###### that guy. He dedicated his life to inciting wanton violence against innocent people. In 500 years, people will marvel that anybody took the Quran so seriously, in the same way that now we marvel how ancient Egyptians took the Book of the Dead so seriously.

Meh ... This is just Islam's Dark Ages ... the analogy fits and the timeline is about right.

(imagine christianity's dark ages with cars and guns and heavy industrial construction equipment)

[Day Man]

Simply brilliant. The last 2000 years that've seen the Bible as the single best surviving and most accurately translated book in the world were simply a fluk. The Quran isn't all that young either. Yeah, that time was clearly confused and chaotic, the next 500 years will show us what's up.

I think what you meant to say was that in 500 years people will look at men like Anwar Al-Awlaki and wonder how they managed to mess it up so bad. I hope he's enjoying his 72 virgin dudes.

FF

Actually, what I meant was that hopefully in 500 years people will be decent to one another because it's the right goddamned thing to do, not because they prayed west every day or didn't eat shellfish or tithed 10% but spent 20% on meth and gay prostitutes. It's one thing to use scriptures as "guidelines" for moral behavior (nsplayr), but it's another to believe dunking your head in "blessed" tap water gives you free reign to sin 6 days a week.

//run-on sentence & religion rant off//

While invoking a little bit of Moore's Law, we have learned A LOT in the the very recent past. Think about your cellphone 10 yrs ago vs now...the progress is amazing. And just because something has been translated doesn't mean it's legit.