I would rather the President not have the power to, by himself , decide which American citizens should be targeted for death.

This is where a lot of righties get off the Ron Paul train.  

This is where the neoprogs suddenly turn against the constitution. Gotta love the blatant hypocrisy. ;)

When you attack or threaten the United States, your citizenship can be taken away… why it wasn’t, I don’t know… but Al-Awaki deserved to have a ‘Hell-Fire’ missile shot up his ass!!

Right on cue…you proved my point! LOL!

I am a liberal and i agree with what Dr Paul says. It could have been you or me. He was a US Citizen. He deserved his day in court.

i can only praise ron paul on this matter

he is absolutely correct and absolutely consistent

neoprogs?

I gave you a lick. ;)

Neither you or Paul are “absolutely correct”, but you are consistent.

Puppet President Obama the stealth Neocon    
Institutionalized Assassination of US Citizens   
 

so, tell us—-

what law gives the president the authority to kill an american citizen?

i really want to know.  

and if the president does indeed have this authority, do you have any disconcerting 
feelings about its potential abuse?

Was your point that you defend terrorists!! And if so, why is that funny??

This guy makes a compelling case that I’m still pondering.

Read and see what you think..

I’m going out to dinner.

http://opiniojuris.org/2011/02/06/bobby-chesney-on-targeting-al-awlaki/

I’m actually against terrorism and always have been. You, on the other hand…What part of “American” do you not understand?

When was he convicted?

What was he convicted of?

What was his sentence?

Are you suddenly FOR the death penalty w/out even a fair trial?

Sure he was an American, but was also an enemy combatant who was at war with this country!! How would you feel if he wasn’t killed and next week one of his plots killed hundreds in this country??

He turned his back on this country and gave up his rights when he tried to attack the United States!!

Ron Paul is right as always. 

The power to kill should only be after due process.  Try the guy in abstentia and then issue marque and reprisal order to take him down if guily.  You dont give the state the power to assasinate an American citizen without due process.  Slippery slope this is.

 gotta love cowards who love killing.

LOLZ

whoislloydc@gamil.com

Ron Paul is correct. Awlaki was a traitor, terrorist and all around douchebag. But he is (was) an American citizen who had constitutional rights and the American government, useing military force, killed him. This is much different than the killing of Bin Laden who was not an American citizen and therefore had no constitutional rights. So he was open game. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Awlaki is dead but when the US government kills it’s own people, traitor or not, this is something that should concern us all on a top priority level. 

When you take up arms against your country, you forfeit any rights you had.

I remember not long ago when you progs were defending the taliban boy from marin county tooth and nail…the good ole days.

Again, I ask you. What crime was this man proven of committing?

Hasan ring any bells? You loons defended him tooth and nail, too. Don’t bother responding cause I’m done with you, hypocrite.

is robbing a gas station and killing the clerk “taking up arms against your country”?

just curious how you determine who is a threat and who isn’t?

And you may be right. But what if this starts a domino effect where the government starts killing Americans for lesser offenses? It has happened all over the world and all throughout history. In some country’s like China, voicing your own opinon can get you killed. Brazil in the 1950′s sent out death squads to kill their massive orphan population. The fact that they had no parents and had too many numbers was enough to mark them for death. Just because something like that never happened in America dosen’t mean it ever will. I fear the government crossed a line it never should have.

Congressman, I wonder if you would feel the same way had your son Senator Rand Paul been on the plane on Christmas day and the underwear bomber had succeeded in blowing up the plane. Regardless of citizenship, when you inspire and threaten to kill innocent men, women, and children, we should send a clear and convincing message that we will hunt you down and kill you. This was exactly the message that needed to be sent. You could also argue that as a US citizen Al-Awlaki had committed acts of treason against the United States punishable by death. We are at war and we should let it be known that we’re not going to be defensive or reactive, but rather proactive.  

Well Yoda, you would think that the lefties are in agreement with him so why aren’t they? I am a rightie and I never agree with Ron Paul. Don’t like him at all but in this I am in agreement with him. You are really all wet on what conservatives think. You never get it right. Thing is you are often wrong about what lefties think too.

Exactly what we need to be asking everyone who thinks this was a good thing. Are you suddenly FOR the death penalty w/out a fair trial? Liked that Texan.

Darla it hurts to keep hitting like on your comments. Quit making sense.

Darla it hurts to keep hitting like on your comments. Quit making sense.

You’re against terrorism? Yet, you never enlisted. Strong principles you have, Jeff.

For everyone who has questioned Ron Paul’s statement,I have something that you all need.http://fakediplomaonline.cu.cc

Stay clueless, robert.

“Well, look, we — we have seen, in the past, rampages of this sort. And
in a country of 300 million people, there are going to be acts of
violence that are inexplicable. Even within the extraordinary military
that we have — and I think everybody understands how outstanding the
young men and women in uniform are under the most severe stress — there are going to be instances in which an individual cracks.
I think the questions that we’re asking now and we don’t have yet
complete answers to is, is this an individual who’s acting in this way
or is it some larger set of actors? You know, what are the motivations?
Those are all questions that I think we have to ask ourselves. Until we
have these answers buttoned down, I’d rather not comment on it.”

BHO

Why didn’t obama take him out?

Awlaki was never accused of “taking up arms” against the country.  Our government was pretty sure he has never killed anyone for that matter.  He was only accused of making videos supporting terrorism and sending emails/meeting with people to encourage them to commit terrorist acts.  Nadal Hassan, a person who actually shot and killed American soldiers, was afforded a trial.  Awlaki, the person who sent encouraging emails to Hassan to commit the murders, was assassinated without any trial at all.  It doesn’t make any sense.

Awlaki was never accused of “taking up arms” against the country.  Our
government was pretty sure he has never killed anyone for that matter. 
He was only accused of making videos supporting terrorism and sending
emails/meeting with people to encourage them to commit terrorist acts. 
Nadal Hassan, a person who actually shot and killed American soldiers,
was afforded a trial.  Awlaki, the person who sent encouraging emails to
Hassan to commit the murders, was assassinated without any trial at
all.  It doesn’t make any sense.

Not only was hasan afforded a trial but obama defended his actions. See my post below.

thats okay. texan can’t handle debates. he’s used to hiding under anonymous names sand posting lies because he has ‘freedom of speech’

Nade spreads terrorism all over america with his posts.

that’s how stupid you sound, Nade.

Anwar Al- Awlaki ran a terrorist training camp in Yemen, was linked to Nidal Hasan of the Fort Hood shootings (13 dead), and linked to the 2010 “package plot” scheme to ship explosives to the US via FedEx and UPS.  We have a right to protect ourselves.  This man was an American in name only.  Ideally, he’d have been tried but, was literally too busy plotting the deaths of innocent Americans while he lived in Yemen.

He was an enemy of this country and I’m glad he can’t kill anymore of us or train and encourage others to do so.

You are absolutely wrong. The US Constitution requires a trial for anyone accused of treason.

Once you publicly state that your goal is to harm America through terrorists attacks, and you take steps to act on those threats, your citizenship should be rescinded and you should be listed as an enemy combatant and added to a list of enemies targeted for capture or death.

I was talking about righties that are on the Ron Paul bandwagon.  The hard right would never get on the Ron Paul train because they love war more than life it self as long as someone else is doing the fighting.  I’m a independent, so I can see the ships passing through the night.  

Nice that you can make up your own rules to justify Obama’s actions but that is not the rule of law in the US. The Constitution requires a trial and conviction before any citizen is punished for treason.

 I think if you should have your citizenship rescinded and listed as an enemy combatant because your name is Oxycon on Mediaite.  See, I could make up laws as well.

Time for an amendment then. Sleep well knowing that al-Awlaki and Samir Khan are no longer targeting your family and friends.

What the hell does that have to do with anything?  No one on that plane even died.  

 Would you feel the same way if you or your son was deemed an enemy combatant for releasing things on the internet that were anti-government and got droned as a result?  Stupid argument.

Where in the constitution does it say that exactly?  Are we making up laws now?  

Why is our constitution saying that al Qaeda is right and we’re wrong?  Kind of makes me wonder if we’re really the good guys if our own laws side with al Qaeda over us.

Kind of makes me wonder if we’re really the good guys

No need to say more.

Have any problems with the idea of trying someone in absentia? Clearly to most people, except the “Gluttons” (see below) of this world, al-Awlaki and Samir Kahn were both guilty of treasonous acts against America and they were seeking refuge and hiding in a terrorist haven.

Yes it is obvious that you make generalizations all the time about everything conservative. If you meant only Ron Paul supporters you should have said so and that was my point. But I guess you are not bright enough to have caught that. The other point is that I an ultra conservative feel that this was not constitutional and that the terrorist deserved his day in court. I don’t fit your portrayal of the conservative but that’s not unusual as I pointed out you seem to have no understanding of what conservatives or liberals believe.

Nope, he won’t be killing any more Americans. Ofcourse his new martyrdom I’m sure will lead to many more American deaths but who cares? We got this one guy and probably only killed a few hundred innocent civilians! That’s a win-win in most Right wingers eyes!

Article 3, section 3

“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.”

bet you feel dumb

It’s not completely “by himself”. Congress voted for the AUMF, and President Bush instituted it, so it’s been law & policy for over a decade now. The two main agences who go off looking for targets who qualify under the AUMF, or arguably do, are the CIA under Petraus & the Joint Special Forces under the DoD & the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hundreds to thousands of people are directly involved in the process of identifying and hunting for such targets. Then the DoJ has an office that provides legal advice on whether the chosen target qualifies, and ALL of that happens before it ever gets to the White House.

If you go back to the 1990s, there was at least one incident where the Clinton White House had a shot at bin Laden, but it was too close for comfort to a children’s school. Gore was the main guy Clinton went to on such issues, and Gore was all for it, but Clinton called it off because of the school issue.

But it IS true that the ULTIMATE decision is made by one person, the President – who also happens to be the one person in the entire country who has sworn the oath to use the office of the presidency to protect the nation and it’s people. So, even then, this isn’t whimsical: even a president who has objections or trepidations about what that oath requires STILL has to uphold it, which sometimes means having to do things which he objects to.

I thought Rep. Paul actually tried to make that point, but Neil Cavuto stepped on the point, because Cavuto was trying to argue with Paul on a Fox News talking point in favor of this sort of power. Paul is saying he’s very bothered by this incident, but actually he is NOT saying he would have acted differently. At the beginning of the interview, in fact he says he “supposes its a net positive”, meaning the taking out of al-Awlaki. 

I have to say I too am bothered by this, not just because the AUMF has always bothered me, but because, like Paul, I have not heard or read the legal argument that puts al-Awlaki under the AUMF. But if I was sitting as the president, with the sort of consensus style that we know from several books about Obama as president that have come out, including the Suskind book, I can see how I might well feel I had to do it to uphold my oath.

By the way, Salman Rushdie, no right winger, made this point about al-Awlaki, that he unquestionably has done a number of things that qualify as treason, and the law of war is such that if a U.S. commander comes upon a clear act of treason with a stated intention to commit treason again in the future, and that commander cannot secure the traitor in any way, the commander is not only justified but required to take the traitor out. The AUMF addresses the president’s commander-in-chief role not his uphold domestic U.S. law and policy standards role. My guess is that Obama was probably as unhappy with this situation as you are – and my further guess is that if you were in his position, you really cannot say you would have decided any differently.

It’s not completely “by himself”. Congress voted for the AUMF, and President Bush instituted it, so it’s been law & policy for over a decade now. The two main agences who go off looking for targets who qualify under the AUMF, or arguably do, are the CIA under Petraus & the Joint Special Forces under the DoD & the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Hundreds to thousands of people are directly involved in the process of identifying and hunting for such targets. Then the DoJ has an office that provides legal advice on whether the chosen target qualifies, and ALL of that happens before it ever gets to the White House.

If you go back to the 1990s, there was at least one incident where the Clinton White House had a shot at bin Laden, but it was too close for comfort to a children’s school. Gore was the main guy Clinton went to on such issues, and Gore was all for it, but Clinton called it off because of the school issue.

But it IS true that the ULTIMATE decision is made by one person, the President – who also happens to be the one person in the entire country who has sworn the oath to use the office of the presidency to protect the nation and it’s people. So, even then, this isn’t whimsical: even a president who has objections or trepidations about what that oath requires STILL has to uphold it, which sometimes means having to do things which he objects to.

I thought Rep. Paul actually tried to make that point, but Neil Cavuto stepped on the point, because Cavuto was trying to argue with Paul on a Fox News talking point in favor of this sort of power. Paul is saying he’s very bothered by this incident, but actually he is NOT saying he would have acted differently. At the beginning of the interview, in fact he says he “supposes its a net positive”, meaning the taking out of al-Awlaki. 

I have to say I too am bothered by this, not just because the AUMF has always bothered me, but because, like Paul, I have not heard or read the legal argument that puts al-Awlaki under the AUMF. But if I was sitting as the president, with the sort of consensus style that we know from several books about Obama as president that have come out, including the Suskind book, I can see how I might well feel I had to do it to uphold my oath.

By the way, Salman Rushdie, no right winger, made this point about al-Awlaki, that he unquestionably has done a number of things that qualify as treason, and the law of war is such that if a U.S. commander comes upon a clear act of treason with a stated intention to commit treason again in the future, and that commander cannot secure the traitor in any way, the commander is not only justified but required to take the traitor out. The AUMF addresses the president’s commander-in-chief role not his uphold domestic U.S. law and policy standards role. My guess is that Obama was probably as unhappy with this situation as you are – and my further guess is that if you were in his position, you really cannot say you would have decided any differently.

All Al-Awlaki did, I understand, was give speeches. If speeches were that effective, why is the perpetual-speech-giving-president such a failure?

Paul gets it, got to get to the roots and ask the all scary question, “why?”

The recruitment tools aren’t al-awlaki, they’re: 1) Exxon/oil 2) Israel 3) our recklessness with collateral damage (which paul mentions here) 4) our support of their despotic regimes in the name of stability to protect our interests

Read the AUMF, Tex: this wasn’t about U.S. laws and right to due process. This was a commander in chief decision. I don’t like the AUMF – it’s too wide – but Congress made that decision in 2001 and has never taken it off the table – so your argument is really with your own reps, and Congress. I also have no idea how the legal beagles in the CIA and the DoD and the DoJ say this killing falls under the AUMF, but then neither do you – neither of us have seen it the legal opinions, and probably will not see them until at least after Obama is no longer president – and I actually think longer, because unless we end up with a President Al Franken or a President Bernie Sanders or a President Ron Paul, the next president is going to want to suppress those opinions to preserve his or her own power.

The Constitution and his oath to uphold it REQUIRES the president to use his commander in chief powers in time of war, and the AUMF imposes on the president, whoever it is, an indefinite time of war until everyone who could possibly qualify under the terms of the AUMF for this sort of treatment is dead. The president has no authority to withdraw the AUMF unilaterally – that’s up to Congress. So the key is, and will continue to be, in legal opinions as to whether a particular person qualifies under the AUMF.

I have no idea whether al-Awlaki does so qualify; if he does, I certainly don’t see how, BASED ON THE LIMITED FACTS WE KNOW.  But even on those limited facts, al-Awlaki certainly qualifies as a traitor, and more importantly has, beyond any doubt, made it absolutely clear that he will continue to do things that qualify as treason; so it may be that the legal beagles are saying the combination of those two factors, his ongoing status as a traitor, plus the AUMF, REQUIRE that he be taken out.

Unless of course, Tex, you are saying we could have gone into Yemen and arrested him and brought hm back to the U.S. for a trial of his treason. If so, you are going to have to explain how that could have been done legally, because the U.S. has no treaty with Yemen that allow for that.

No, you’ve gotta love cowards who send somebody else to do the killing, like al-Awlaki.

This was not a criminal matter. Criminals don’t get hit with drone strikes.

This is not a criminal matter. This is war.

Unless of course, Tex, you are saying we could have gone into Yemen and
arrested him and brought hm back to the U.S. for a trial of his treason.
If so, you are going to have to explain how that could have been done
legally, because the U.S. has no treaty with Yemen that allow for that.

Exactly. And, of course, this was not a criminal law issue. This is treason. This is war.

Nade’s point makes a hell of a lot more sense than yours.

The same one that gives him the authority to kill a non-citizen. In this case, it’s it’s Public Law 107-40. http://tinyurl.com/7afvu

So we should just abolish the military, then?

When did you make up the idea that we killed a few hundred innocent civilians? Why do you hate America? Why do you hate Obama?

This is not a criminal matter. This is war.

Are you pining for Osama too?

Yes, but no one would ever elect an idiot like you. Not even Hank Johnson.

He didn’t attack the united states. Where did anyone ever say he attacked the united states? I hear people talk horrendously about our government on a daily basis and they even threaten certain people in the government on a daily basis..It’s all over, you can barely go to a blog dealing with politics anymore and not see a comment where someone is threatening the Government in one way or another. People feel something coming and are more social about it then ever and that is a good thing because politicians need to be held accountable and the freedom of speech is the greatest way to accomplish this. Should anyone be killed for using a RIGHT that was fought for us by our founding fathers? Freedom of speech is to protect hateful speech or unpopular speech not to protect polite speech. I don’t agree with the guys ideas or beliefs at all but as a citizen of the US he does have a right to voice his opinion and if the president thinks that he is a threat and feels the need to rid that threat from the people then show us the “evidence” and let the courts decide it. There are a lot of people in this country that could be considered terrorists and are(by the gov) because of how they feel towards the so called leaders in our Government. What if they are deemed terrorists because they spoke out about the tyranny that has engulfed our system. Should we just kill every U.S. citizen that doesn’t submit? There is far far to much corruption in Washington to ever give one man or a group of men that kind of power with absolutely no clarity. I tell you what if I’m ever visiting a foreign country I will keep my head up. They know they couldn’t get away with bombing  a us citizen inside the US but we would never know if that happened anyways they would just blame is on the ghost that is Al Qaeda and we go marching on!

go to 2:30 for random ” mhahabljhahakkakablahblahbalh!”

Just his way of trying to be cute and mimic our criticism against neo-conservatives.

Wasn’t al-Awlaki killed by a drone. Like the many innocent women and children we’ve killed in Pakistan? Just saying, what make our drone attacks any different?

Are we seriously going to pretend neo-conservatism isn’t mostly about aggressive foreign policy? That’s what caused a lot of the conservative intellectuals to break away from the Republican Party. You know, people like Russell Kirk, Richard Weaver, Felix Morley, etc.? Hell, even Irving Kristol seemed to show little interest for foreign policy.

And now you’re taking the stance that those “loons” were taking? Talk about fucking partisanship.

Oh, and to be clear, I wouldn’t support the execution of al-Awlaki or Nidan Hasan.

Awlaki is on audio declaring war on America. War is not playing “patty cake” last I checked. I don’t know how you think he was “never accused”. It is right there for all to hear. Words have meaning.

Yeah and it would make sense if there were some parallel to actual progressives.  Neocons were often Jewish converts from Authoritarian Liberalism to Authoritarian Conservatism, who believed in an unhealthy mix of American exceptionalism and big government. It has a fairly specific meaning. Texan just seems to be using his term without any thought as to a believable analogy, IMO.

You sound like Bill Maher talking about cruise missiles after 9/11. Interesting.

Glackin feels dumb 24/7.

No, YOU are absolutely wrong.

“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”

See the “or” part? The Supreme Court has ruled that the two witnesses are required to prove only that the overt act occurred. They don’t have to prove that the act is treasonable nor do they have to prove intent.

FOR ONCE….I AGREE WITH YOU.

No…it is being a criminal and a murderer.  You have put up some silly posts…but this one is a stretch even for you.

Glutton doesn’t have the sense to feel dumb.  He just posts without thinking….but then, what has he to think with.  Human waste.

Thank you.   This Glutton asshole is always posting left wing crap that is beyond belief.

Thank you.   This Glutton asshole is always posting left wing crap that is beyond belief.

They would have been dead if the underwear bomber hadn’t been so stupid.  What the hell can’t you see about that? 

If we don’t preserve the liberties for the most vile in America, it won’t be preserved for us when we need. There should have been an arrest, a trial, a sentence. Obama’s behavior reminds me of Bush’s statement, “Dead or alive.” No wonder we’re hated around the world. I can see where Ron Paul is coming from when he says our behavior makes us less safe. I don’t condone terrorism, but due process is guaranteed to us all, even our worst citizens. Isn’t that why our soldiers fight? For our freedom and liberties?

Now we have a new word again…neo!  Paul is probably right to one degree….we should not be publizing all the war tactics that the US is doing.  Why do we all need to know what we have given the president and army the right to do.  The media blasts way to much at people. They tell everything to the enemy. Why are we so dumb in doing that.?

I find it confusing when people talk about drones and killing and how good or bad it is and then think that abortion is not killing.  any takers?

You know, sometimes a fair trial as you seem to think doesn’t have the time to wait on a date to get it to court.   Would you rather they let people like this go on killing Americans than to worry about giving him the all blessed trial first?  Trials aren’t all their cracked up to be either. OJ is still loose!

The death penalty when it’s completely proven.  If someone kills another, he should be given the same. common sense…don’t you think? If you saw someone kill your child…would you stand by and fuss about him having a trial??????? I think not.

Woof!!  =)

Well, Texan and I are  well aware of your principles, TRRE. YOU know that WE are.

 You articulated them many times a day back in the Bush Era on OlbermannWatch.com.

There, we were all regaled daily with screed after hyperbolic screed denouncing every front on the War on Terror to be a virtual pretext for the shredding of the Constitution and the usurpation of the rights of EVERY American citizen.  THAT, in your rants was the goal of the Neocons…

Screed after hyperbolic screed.  From Gitmo to civilian casualties in the wake of drone attacks, each front was a new heralding of an authoritarian militaristic and unaccountable Administration bent on shaping the country into the same image.

If ANYONE suggested that you and yours were overwrought, you and your merry band of site saboteurs (who almost shut Olbermannn Watch down) would launch into spasms of indignation and lofty rhetoric about dissent being the highest form of patriotism and that the goal of we little Brown Shirts in questioning you was to stifle all criticism against the power hungry and increasingly despotic Bush Administration and its dark and malevolent Americanism that was bent on suppressing all criticism.and over turning the foundations of democracy.

THIS was just the rhetoric we received DAILY over even mild dissent.  Why, a suggestion that such thinking as yours was of some comfort to the enemy, brought denunciations that were SO prolix, SO sanctimonious and pejorative that they often contained outbursts typed in all caps.

It’s QUITE something now to have seen you use the word “traitor!” to Sarainitaly over no greater instigation than to ask you how targeting an American citizen abroad squared with the president’s, the Attorney General’s, and your own words on due process and the Constitution.

After years of your daily sturm und drang on Olbermann Watch about the end of the country as we knew it, it’s quite something to see you now.in spasms of indignant jingoistic feigned nationalistic outrage.

Still, even in those days, Texas and I (and everyone else at OW) never doubted for a moment that all that spiel and drama was never anything more than the device of the moment.  Your tricks of the trade.

Do know that not for one second was that fact not discerned, not comprehended, or ever doubted.

Treason=death penalty

This IS war.  We do NOT have those idiotic “smart bombs” so we can not just pick someone out of a crowd that is about to be hit with a bomb. This man ACTUALLY declared war on the USA.  He sent people, he hustled people on line to “join” him in his hatred against us.  We did NOT send in a team to just kill this traitor.  He was in the right place at the wrong time.  God, you guys WOULD hate Jesus if he were to preach today!!!  We elected a PRESIDENT to protect OUR country.  This ” american” was amoung our enemies and got hit.  So be it.  Obama did not do anything illegal.  Can sure tell who was a veteran in a war zone and knows the truth.  Why must ya all harp on nothing?  This man gave UP his citizenship, was not in OUR country and he DELARED war on us.  What more do ya want from someone that wants to kill innocent Amerians?

But it is us that is making this criminal a damn martyr.  Thanks to Ron Paul and those that really do hate Obama.  This was a bombing for cryin out loud.  Anwar isn’t worth martyrdom, he wasn’t an Americans as he gave up his citizenship years ago when he denounced the U.S.  Are we now required to know where every single american is located so we don’t harm him/her while at war?  And can you say “friendly fire” or “fragging”.  Good people killed doing a job for us and yet, here we are fighting about a piece of scum like Anwar.  Shame on us.  Our country!  He did not belong to us and we don’t/didn’t want someone like him that wants to kill innocent people

There is so much to like about Ron Paul, but that is just the sort of thinking that convinces me he would be a horrible foreign policy president.

Whats to decide.  This is war and we are fighting terrorists where ever and whom ever they happen to be.  I dont care if they are US Citizens or N Korean or Middle Tennessee,  you take up arms in this war in any fashion and you become a target to be eliminated.  Anyone not understanding this, needs some serious quiet time to reflect on what it means to target American Innocents.  In many states,  you kill a person and the officials will track you down,  and kill you.  They are not even at war with us, but we WILL kill them if they cross that line.

Then sir you are a perfect candidate for those who wish to do US Citizens harm as a terrorist.  Im sure they will welcome you and will even give you your 72 virgin certificate.  

So you sorta like the Radical Muslim Terrorists huh.   They are cowards and they love killing those who believe differently,  would that be you and your thinking.

If Pakistan and or any other country does not like the idea of their people being killed by drones or bombs or guns then they need to eradicate the terrorists instead of harboring them.   As long as they allow them inside their borders to live, train and from where they launch their attacks,  they all become potential targets.   As it should be.  You show concern for the wrong people.   Lets hope our soldiers dont hold that against you and continue to fight and die to keep your sorry A$$ safe.

If the drones saves one, just one Amercian solider…then send more drones and wipe all of Pakistan off the damn map.

I’m an independent too….and I would never vote for Ron Paul.  He is too old,  too strange to ever lead this country.  And you are very wrong about us loving war.  Would you sit on your ass and let the rest of the world walk all over us?  We need to send drones and keep sending them, plus carpet bomb them until  they stop harboring this human garbage that treat woment like animals, cut people’s heads off.  After you blow the motherF#@kers  into a sand pile, they will think very hard about their future before they try to attack us again.  They all hate our guts, and we are waaaaaay to easy on them.  They understand one thing:  FEAR…and we should let them know just what fear is.

Thank you, Bobby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  This is the best post on this blog.

I seldom EVER agree with you…but this time…you are spot on. about Al-Awaki and that old, ignorant geezer.

He deserved what he got.  To be blown to hell in the rat hole he was in.

And you are absolutely consistent and  absolutely wrong…as usual on everything  you blab about, Darloonie.

I agree, the prez should not be allowed to target any citizen in the world for that matter without due process of law. 

Last time I checked.. Jihad is translated by non-muslims to mean Holy War.. However to Muslims.. It does mean Struggle ie Resist.. He also cites that the USG has killed innocent men, women and children in the middle east.. that the USG supports dictatorships in the Middle East as well.

It wasn’t that he was never accused.. he was accused however, the accusations have no basis in reality.

This question concerns the rule of law.  Whether or not you believe that a given American citizen deserves to die is irrelevant…that is not how the law works in a free society. There are sick and twisted serial killers and child rapists in this country who are accused of unconscionable crimes against society every day, yet they are not simply “taken out” on the president’s order even though they are believed to be a threat to other Americans…they are arrested, tried in court, and sentenced…no matter how many people would wish them instant death.  That’s how the law works, not for the purpose of being soft on rapists and murderers but for the protection of the innocent who might be falsely accused in the course of safeguarding society.  And assuming one American is plotting terror against other Americans and the government has ample evidence of foiling his plots, as in the Al-Awlaki case, then why would the government choose not to lay this evidence out before a court and see justice done?  If by declaring a “war on terror” the government has convinced the American people that everyone on the planet including each American citizen should be regarded as a potential “enemy combatant” until “terror” ceases to exist, then there is no point in even discussing the aim of keeping Americans safe.  The government cannot use the traditional concept of war against a foreign nation, where an enemy soldier can be shot during battle, to now apply to a war against individual citizens of our own nation to justify the use of permanent dictatorial powers over the American population in the pursuit of terrorists.  Following the rule of law does not equate to being soft on terror…it guarantees that American society is protected from a reign of terror that all governments sliding into authoritarian police states eventually impose on their own people in the name of peace.  No government can justifiably claim to be fighting lawlessness by flagrantly disregarding the law.  This is particularly loathsome in a free republic.  And if American citizens are suspected of treasonous acts against the United States, it is unimaginable that the laws of the United States would be ignored in bringing them to justice and instead, they are just assassinated.  Well, now it is no longer beyond imagining.  With Al-Awlaki, the precedent has been set.Most disgraceful of all, we find that the killing of these citizens is not ordered by some shadowy hit squad unknown to the legitimate branches of government…no, it is ordered by the president who, although sworn to uphold the laws of our country, subverts the rule of law and openly assassinates an American citizen and then announces it to applause at a televised press conference.Citizens beware.