US citizen murdered by government without trial

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Mrs.Lucysnow, Oct 2, 2011.

  1. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    If he encouraged people to join Al Quida or similar organizations who kill Americans and their allies, then he's just as much a killer himself.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Grim_Reaper I Am Death Destroyer of Worlds Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,349
    Ok sorry he was killed for not instructing people on how to kill inocent people of an other religion but why to kill inocent people of another religion. Yes I would agree that is a big difference when you get down to it. Just like Hilter he said he had a problem with the Jews and that his commanders were to deal with it. He did not instruct them in the building of the gas chambers and ovens he just said get rid of the problem so does that make itler an ok Guy as well that was just misunderstood?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    Wait a minute, how did you get from a guy who sermoned over the internet to the leader of nazi germany? cleric vs leader of a nation. See any difference in power there? And by the way how do you know what he sermoned? Did you go on facebook or youtube and take a look at his hate speech?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfeDh8NWPlQ&feature=related

    Why didn't the US government arrest him when he was in the US? Anyway what I would like to know is why the american jihadist Isa Abdullah Ali hasn't been killed, why does he get to leave and return to the US all the time undisturbed. Here you have an ex-US soldier, muslim convert who fights in lebanon in the name of jihad, fights in Chechnya in the name of jihad, he even went into yugoslavia when the shit hit the fan to train muslim rebels in the name of jihad. Yet he comes and goes as he pleases and no one lays a hand on him. Interesting.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Maybe he's a double agent. Interesting.
     
  8. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,835
    Botch job

    It is an implicit condition of the first of those statements—

    "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?"

    (Boldface accent added)

    —and nearly explicit in the second:

    "... he wasn't a major player in Al Qaeda, in fact he was nothing more than a propagandist from all accounts."

    (Boldface accent added)

    I agree that you don't put out a hit on someone for speaking their mind, or even being a propagandist. I just think, as I noted at the outset, that you're pushing it—oversimplifying the case, to be specific—with the free speech bit.

    Everything else is only what you botched in your response.
     
  9. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    And where is the proof that he encouraged people to join al qaeda? You know that fort hood guy, he wasn't a member of al qaeda, neither was underwear man, they all worked independently based on whatever beliefs they had. And what's even more interesting is that the fort hood shooter was able to contact alwaki but when he tried to get into contact with someone from al qaeda he couldn't. What I think the military is doing is attacking alwaki not because they think he's an important al qaeda operative but because he was an inspiration to the fort hood shooter, a kind of revenge. But check it out, these people are not afraid to die. You kill one and its all praise allah and there is another preacher or soldier or suicide bomber in their place. So if you don't find some other way of fighting what is essentially an ideological war you may find yourself doing what your doing for years and years to come...as you go bankrupt. Because you know, they are here, they are there, they are everywhere. They're in Europe, they were hanging around in your military, they are in london university. You have to give them a reason to stop believing that you are their enemy and the only way you can do that is by stopping the war, because its the war that made them believe you were their enemy to begin with. Get your troops out, get out of the middle-east, stop giving Israel so much money every year, leave the fucking muslims alone to do whatever they do in the desert. Then you can deal with the inevitable cultural religious chasm there is between muslims and secular society in the west. All you are doing at the moment is radicalizing more and more people.

    Here is one of his sermons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_bHPtTGgqA&feature=related


    But anywho no matter what reason they had to kill the cleric you are still left with a law that allows for your president to kill americans anywhere if he believes they are a threat and he doesn't have to show any evidence nor does he need any oversight.
     
  10. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    There was speculation about that but Robert Baer who operated in that region at the time says its not possible because he would have known it. There's a mind-blowing documentary about the guy called 'American Jihadist'. I saw it on netflix, check out the 2 minute clip from the film, its a little disturbing: http://www.americanjihadist.com/
     
  11. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No it's not.

    Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being.

    This wasn't unlawful.

    He said he didn't look into it because getting on the list did not come under Judicial review.

    How do you know that no Israeli citizen has ever joined the Palestinian cause and then been killed in a firefight?


    The judge wasn't stupid. He just pointed out that the Constitution doesn't provide for judicial review of Military matters.

    And it doesn't.

    As to the guy from the Atlantic, the problem is that he is saying that any American who joins Al Qaeda gets SPECIAL TREATMENT just because they are an American.

    Taken to it's logical ends, that would mean that we would have to insure that when we targeted any Al Qaeda members that we were sure none of them were Americans.

    We didn't do it in WW2, we don't need to do it now.

    Just what I said already happens.

    Arthur
     
  12. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    No its not implicit, you have this idea in the US that a person is innocent before proven guilty. I'm saying that you should try a guy at least before you kill him, you should show evidence before you call out a hit. I'm saying that you are one of the few countries in the world and the only one in the western civilized world that allows for an executive order to kill its own citizens without judicial and congressional oversight.

    I mean check it out, even you react to the pavlovian cue, all you had to hear was terrorist and you no longer question anything. You immediately assume he's guilty, they don't even have to show you any evidence. Meanwhile you are still left with an executive office that can kill an american citizen without oversight if it deems that american to be a threat. God forbid if they have to answer to you! They don't big brother tells you what's necessary and the rest of you hum in tune. That's how much you guys naively trust your government.
     
  13. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    That's a good reason. If he was inspiring freelance terrorists, then he's just as responsible for terrorism. Maybe we could not wait for him to inspire another terrorist.

    And we shouldn't be afraid to kill them.

    We have soldiers too.

    No. They are the enemy and I hope they know that when a rain of hellfire falls down upon them.
     
  14. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    @Adoucette

    In order for it to be lawful you have to concede to the law. When you can kill people without oversight I don't know if its lawful or not. All I know is that it was done.
     
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Our top law is the Constitution.

    What Obama did was within his Constitutional rights as CIC of our military.

    Thus is was NOT murder.

    Arthur
     
  16. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    You say its a good reason but what if there wasn't enough evidence to prove it, what if they didn't have a law that made it illegal per se. What if it was like "yeah we know he had a hand in this but we don't have the evidence" would you still condone the killing?

    I don't think you will ever run out of inspiration for terrorists as long as you have a radicalized ME. You say you have soldiers too but you are engaging in a war you cannot win with soldiers. Afghanistan is proof that you are losing with soldiers, and now you have radicalized Pakistan too.
     
  17. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    You didn't defeat al qaeda in Iraq. There was no al qaeda activity in Iraq until you entered the country catapulting it into chaos allowing for foreigners to cross into the border and then you had a new world of terrorists. You don't even know what you did there and you have the nerve to pretend you know what my argument is. It was your boots on the ground that turned into a homing signal for jihadists, its your presence that brought them in. And in the end you were left fighting an insurgency. Saddam was hated by bin laden and Saddam didn't buy into the religious state nonsense. Saddam never helped al qaeda because it was never in his interest to do so.

    You didn't have a win in Iraq. You left the country with radical gangs controlling various neighborhoods, and you left a country open to the influence of Iran. Well done. You're still an idiot.
     
  18. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    No Lucy,
    We knew going in to Iraq that it would bring on Al Qaeda and that they would make a stand there.

    They did, and they lost.

    And yes we knew what we were doing there. Indeed, Iraq is doing quite well, much better than under Saddam.
    Or are you against the Iraqis having their own Constitution and elected governement?

    Oh, and as far as you calling me an idiot, by someone as clueless as you, I take that as a compliment.

    Arthur
     
  19. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    You are so stupid! No you didn't go in there with that in mind, in fact you didn't give a shit about al qaeda at all, you went in because of the oil interest. Just ask a soldier who served there because they had commanding officers who told them that! Yes, that's right! This is why the troops you have there now guard oil refineries and nothing else.

    So you lost the insurgency, because you were forced to allow the radical leaders to control their neighborhoods, you couldn't fight and win the insurgency, you had to cede power and that's what you did. So you no didn't get to fight it out with al qaeda and win. If I am so clueless why is it that I know what you do not? That kind of makes you dumber than dumb doesn't it?
     
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Are you daft?

    The oil is the main source of the Country and the Govt's revenue, so yeah, Al Qaeda has continually attacked Iraqi oil pipelines and infrastructure as a way to undermine the govt of Iraq.

    Gaurding it makes total sense.

    Well except to people as clueless as you appear to be.

    Arthur
     
  21. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,879
    @Adoucette

    Here read about your much better off Iraq:

    BAGHDAD: As a Shiite Muslim who was interrogated by Iraq’s secret police and lost her job because she would not join the regime’s Baath Party, Fawzia al-Attia should feel safer now that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power. She does not.Death threats and Baghdad’s daily bombings have made Attia more afraid than she was during Saddam’s reign of terror, she says.

    Read more: http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mi...gly-anxious-about-security.ashx#ixzz1ZqVuvdgb
    (The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)
     
  22. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    You're a moron if you think Iraq was better off under Saddam.
     
  23. The Esotericist Getting the message to Garcia Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,119
    You better watch your views and what you say Lucy. It seems from the way people think around here, and how they swallow everything the media says. . . you may be next on the predator drone list. . . . or me. . . or S.A.M. lol

    And me thinks with the attitude displayed here? Everyone would just say, "well, she had it coming. . . "
     

Share This Page