US citizen murdered by government without trial

I know its a long shot but I'll try. Does anyone here care that Anwar al-Awlaki, an american citizen, was targeted and killed by a drone for basically exercising his freedom of speech outside of the US by hosting an Al Qaeda inspired english speaking magazine?

Is there anyone left in the US besides the measly 6 congressmen who signed Kucinich's 'the government should not be able to kill its own citizens without due process' bill, care about the fact that the government, Obama's government, feels its okay to kill its own citizens without even a public trial? Hell even Bush never took such liberties.

It seems the punishment laid out against Osama is being unleashed all over the place.

If you believe that the tyranny you allow to be unleashed abroad eventually boomerang's back to the home-front then you should be concerned that a US citizen can be targeted and killed for his ideas.

Anyone? Anyone still in the land of the living? Or is pod action almost complete in creating zombie nation?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why did they employ a drone?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Cause they have them, cause its easy, cause there are whole bunch of american hating people running around the streets of Yemen trying to oust their government. You know, the usual.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We have a problem with this reasoning that you have stated. He was the man that tried to kill many people aboard an airplane with his homemade weapon. He was also instrumental in making other weapons that did kill others and also sent terrorists out to kill others as well. He was living in a foreign country not in America so wasn't under Americas protection any longer as a known terrorist and murderer. Freedom of speech can be had when living in America but once you've started living in another country those laws are not enforced, only the laws where you are at are. So if he wanted to express himself he could have very easily by coming back into America and stating his views just as we do here on this forum. No one made him stay over there, he chose that country.

 

Your mistake here is in thinking this is innocent, protected speech. It's NOT. It's actually aiding and abetting the enemy.

 

This is disputed, there is no evidence that he was guilty of anything except his propaganda broadcasts and magazine but let's say it is true cosmic, are you saying its okay to assassinate people on hearsay? That you don't need to have a trial? Government says this or that about someone and then its okay to kill them? How about Julian Assange? There were those who called out for his death too. Where do you see it that Alwaki was a 'known terrorist and murderer'? Where is the evidence? Do US citizens who are murderer's deserve trials? Or should we just execute them on hearsay? Are you also saying that someone stops being a US citizen the moment they are accused of murder or terrorism? Is it your contention that all the government needs to do is make a call and say such and such has done this or that and order their execution without any oversight? Is this what you call 'constitutional'? 'American'?

I know you probably do not travel a lot so you probably don't understand that a US citizen is protected under the auspices of US law which is why we have extradition laws. Yemen would have handed him over as they have been cooperating with the US for a while now on the issue of terrorism.

 

So you kill him? No trial. And what in his speech makes him worthy of death? He makes a magazine or videos that the US government doesn't like and so he's just snuffed out? Is that what you're advocating? I never said he was innocent I asked since when has US citizens been executed without a trial...

I can see that the pod action has almost completed its process.

 

Disputed by who? From my reading about him he has always said that he wanted to kill Americans anyway he could. Isn't that at least just one significant thing, among many others, that this man wanted to harm others anyway he could? I've never read anything by him unless it was to overthrow or terrorize America.

 

Well here for one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBb63rSj6M&feature=player_embedded in s


So you are saying that saying or suggesting you want to harm someone else, not doing anything to cause harm but simply saying so in print or on video makes one a target for execution? If he was guilty of all this then why not a trial? Are people who use speech to threaten someone not entitled to a trial? Again is this what you think your founding fathers had in mind?

 

But he actually did what he stated from what the underwear bomber said when he was arrested and started talking about who had put him up to this terror plot. I guess you have forgotten him? Again I want to say that he wasn't living in America when he made his comments and therefore wasn't under the protection of the laws here.

 

Did he? Why no trial? Again are you saying that all you need is for the government to allege this or that about someone and then call for their execution without trial and that's okay with you? I mean is this some new form of american justice? Where in your constitution does the executive office draw these extrajudicial powers?

So you're saying that since he wasn't in the US the US government does not need to follow US laws? And where may I ask do you get your weed. I mean seriously is the US government bound by US laws? Why do you bother to have extradition laws? What's wrong with having a trial?

 

Open your silly eyes AND brain! I never said HE was innocent either - I clearly said his SPEECH wasn't innocent.

Yes, kill the SOB - I'm VERY glad he's dead. I don't want *anybody* left alive that's supporting that terrorist organization!!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Do YOU support it???

 

They wouldn't extradite him from where he was.

Again I was only saying that the underwear bomber pointed him out as his "handler" so therefore that plus other evidence that he did was enough to put him on the endangered species list. I mean an eyewitness that testified who made the weapon and sent him on his way isn't enough proof? There's more proof if you'd look for it. Evidently you don't want to see the whole trurth but only what you want to see.

 

Oh so not so nice speech means he deserves death? Is that some new take on human rights or is it the constitution that allows for this? Tell me you oh so open minded person who has eyes to see, tell me the blind and deluded why there was no need for a trial? Please elaborate on how the executive office can simply announce an execution of one of its citizens without extradition and trail? What gives them the authority? And is this how you plan on dealing with speech in the future? Just snuff out someone for a youtube video or some computer print out magazine? Is saying "all americans should die" a reason for your stazi to come through my doors now and execute me? Is this your enlightened opinion? Again without a trail all claims are simply hearsay, you know 'alleged'.

 

Why not the Yemen government is practically a puppet government for the US which is one of the reasons why the people of Yemen are trying to oust his ass. This guy was not a citizen on Yemen but an american citizen, the government in Yemen has cooperated with the US government with everything to the point of allowing US soldiers on their turf for secret counter terrorist operations so why would they all of a sudden deny an extradition of a US citizen when they themselves saw no reason to even arrest the guy. In other words if he was so guilty they could have just given him to the americans, that wouldn't have cost them anything.

No one has heard a word from the underwear caper guy. All you are saying is that if the government states such and such you will simply believe it. The reason your founding father's demanded trials is that they emphatically did not trust government without public scrutiny. Eyewitnesses can only testify in a trial Cosmic and there was no trial.

Why are you saying I don't see the truth? I am asking why he wasn't extradited and deserving of due process. Are you saying that people who use speech that is considered violent or seditious do not have a right to due process?

 

I love Read-Only's 'Do YOU support it?' rant, its so reminiscent of Bush's you are either 'with us or against us' strategy. When you cannot justify something you try and make it politically incorrect to question it. So if you question why someone is executed without a trial it automatically means you support terrorism. Such reductive reasoning is so cognitively limiting and defensive that it almost screams SOMETHING IS VERY VERY WRONG! Ha! Its has such a proto-fascist group-think ring to it all.

Where's Adoucette? You two are amateurs at this I want some trained Adoucette action. He has no shame when it comes to things like this

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Simply pointing out how brainless you're making yourself appear in this thread. You still do not understand the very basics about supporting someone who had openly called for the killing of Americans. :shrug:

 

And that's your argument? Attack the person and not the argument? Is that because you really cannot attack the argument? Because there is no excuse for subverting justice? Or a pretense at justice? Is that why you use the ole 'wid us or aginst us' tag? Sweet. I love it when the emperor covers his anus because he's feeling a tad bit cold.

Let's take it from the top shall we:

A person is only 'alleged' to be involved in something until proven in a court of law

Where is the legal statute that allows the executive office to execute its own citizens without a trial?

What would have been wrong with a extradition and trial?

By what legal standard has it become legal to exact death on someone for their odious speech?

 

Isn't it considered self-defense to kill a member of an active terrorist group?

His excellent grasp of the English language and culture made him a very effective recruiter for more terrorists. His group isn't only a threat to Americans. Why should him being American born give him special treatment over all other terrorists? Its selfish to only care about him being American and not the threat he posed to others around teh world.

 

You can kill a combatant on the battlefield but you have to prove someone is an active terrorist. A driver can be a member of an active terrorist group like the person who chauffeured Bin Laden but you don't simply execute them for that role or the assumption he's in that role. As a matter of fact even if you had 100% proof you would still have to allow for due process. What I am asking is since when is it okay to not allow an american due process. Walker who was caught in Afghanistan and had been trained in one of their training camps and met with Bin Laden wasn't executed, he was brought back to the US and was given due process and given a prison sentence, with this guy they just went out and smoked him.

Allowing for due process isn't 'special treatment' its the LAW, its the ethical guiding principles behind justice in your country (or at least it used to be). Allowing for due process means you cannot simply accuse someone for something without giving them a chance to defend themselves or without a other rmembers of society seeing and hearing the evidence, due process is what separates civilized nations from those ruled by tyrannical governments. Now I know americans have forgotten a lot about what it means to be american and all since the body snatcher pod thing has occurred but I would have thought that there was at least a shadow of the rule of law lurking somewhere in your changed beings.

Turns out I was wrong.

If there is no due process then you are convicting a man to death based on hearsay. Because until there's a trial the person is only 'alleged' to have done such and such. Hell you found body parts in Dahmer's apartment and you still gave the fucker a trial!!!