Obama Executes Brown American Without Trial

[gnadfly]

per below American cleric Anwar Awlaki was blown up a couple of days ago via a drone strike in Yemen per "Kill or Capture" order signed by President Barack Obama without the benefit of due process or trial by a jury of his peers.

What's strangely hypocritical is all the back tracking and hand-wringing by the Democratic Socialists particularly those Obama Apologists on MSNBC. If you watched Hardball or Rachel Maddow the night the execution was announced you'd be hard pressed to find an acknowledgement that Obama ordered it. They both featured more Republican reaction that mentioning the name "Obama." This especially after Obama and the Democrats made such a fuss over "Predator Strikes" and "National Sovereignty" and "Enemy Combatants" and "Holding Brown People Without Trial" in the run up to the 2008 election.

Matthews said that the Republicans praised the execution (which he agreed with) for "all the wrong reasons". Maddow had her "terribly concerned" face on during the entire segment and interviewed an ACLU rep but did her best not to draw much attention to Obama's crucial involvement. My guess is that their usual "Obama cares too much" approach wouldn't work this time so they decided not to draw attention to him.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/worl...tary-says.html

REPORTING FROM CAIRO -- The Yemen military has announced that an airstrike has killed Anwar Awlaki, a radical U.S.-born cleric and prominent voice in an Al Qaeda affiliate that spread Islamic extremism across the Arabian Peninsula and was behind failed attempts to blow up American airplanes.

It was later revealed that it was a Predator Strike from a joint CIA-US Army operation which isn't surprising because Obama has upped the once "US liberal disgusted" Predator strikes since he took office with very little, if any, attention by the US media.

BTW, I'm in agreement with the strike. I just wish BHO-and the Demomedia- would have been honest with the American people on how he was going to continue the "war on terror".

[Laz]

This is one of the few things that I think Obama is doing right. The only valid criticism I have heard is that the dead can't be forced to talk and reveal plans. While that is something that should be considered it is not a reason to stop killing these maniacs.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I just wish BHO-and the Demomedia- would have been honest with the American people on how he was going to continue the "war on terror".

Where in the hell have you been for these last few months? Have you been hiding in the friggin' caves with the scumbags who used to report directly to OBL?

Earth to Gnadfly --- OBL and several of his closest Scumbags are DEAD! Damn Dude, quit listening to Rush and turn on the fuckin' news! Do they not discuss Current Events in your Junior High School?

It is pretty damn apparent what the current Administration plans to do. The Administration has taken "The War on Terror" into al Qaeda's backyard rather than focusing on WMD's, that no longer exist, thousands of miles away from the perpetrators of 9/11.

Oh I almost forgot, you slobbered all over Bush and Cheney while they were searching for WMD's that no longer existed! Why didn't you ask GW 8 years ago "how he was going to continue the war on terror," by invading Iraq? Why would you expect the current Administration to answer the question today when you didn't have the balls to ask the same question to GW during the spring of 2003?

Geez, you want the current Administration to answer all of your questions today but you were too busy slobbering on GW's dipstick to ask the same questions of Dubya!

What a dipwad!

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

per below American cleric Anwar Awlaki was blown up a couple of days ago via a drone strike in Yemen per "Kill or Capture" order signed by President Barack Obama without the benefit of due process or trial by a jury of his peers.

What's strangely hypocritical is all the back tracking and hand-wringing by the Democratic Socialists particularly those Obama Apologists on MSNBC. If you watched Hardball or Rachel Maddow the night the execution was announced you'd be hard pressed to find an acknowledgement that Obama ordered it. They both featured more Republican reaction that mentioning the name "Obama." This especially after Obama and the Democrats made such a fuss over "Predator Strikes" and "National Sovereignty" and "Enemy Combatants" and "Holding Brown People Without Trial" in the run up to the 2008 election.

Matthews said that the Republicans praised the execution (which he agreed with) for "all the wrong reasons". Maddow had her "terribly concerned" face on during the entire segment and interviewed an ACLU rep but did her best not to draw much attention to Obama's crucial involvement. My guess is that their usual "Obama cares too much" approach wouldn't work this time so they decided not to draw attention to him.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/worl...tary-says.html

It was later revealed that it was a Predator Strike from a joint CIA-US Army operation which isn't surprising because Obama has upped the once "US liberal disgusted" Predator strikes since he took office with very little, if any, attention by the US media.

BTW, I'm in agreement with the strike. I just wish BHO-and the Demomedia- would have been honest with the American people on how he was going to continue the "war on terror".

The following is a pretty clear policy statement.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/j...amo_03-07.html

JEFFREY BROWN: Closing down Guantanamo was a top priority for the new Obama administration two years ago. But it ran into repeated opposition over holding or trying terror suspects in the U.S. And, today, the president issued an order that will allow military trials to resume at that U.S. base on the tip of Cuba.
Here to tell us about is Scott Shane of The New York Times.
Scott, was this expected? Did the White House feel it had no choice, really, given the strong opposition?
SCOTT SHANE, The New York Times: This has been speculated about in news reports. So, it wasn't a complete surprise.
Since Congress has essentially banned the administration from bringing any of these 172 detainees left at Guantanamo to the United States for trial, the administration really had no choice but to -- if it wanted to have trials, to renew military commissions down at the base in Cuba.
JEFFREY BROWN: Now, what's the immediate impact? I understand there are 172 prisoners still held there. Is there any sense of when trials would resume and who might be first?
SCOTT SHANE: There's no precise idea. And they didn't say who would be first. Specifically, they wouldn't say what will happen to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is, of course, the chief planner of the 9/11 attacks.
The Obama administration had wanted to bring him and his 9/11 co-defendants to the United States, to New York, actually, for a regular civilian criminal trial. But New York protested. And now they cannot be brought to the U.S. It's unclear whether they will be just be held there or will go for military commissions.
There is another man named Nashiri, who is the accused plotter of the attack on the USS Cole, the destroyer attacked in Yemen in 2000. He is queued up for military commission and is likely to be one of the first people to go before a military commission, now that they're starting up again.
JEFFREY BROWN: Now, the president at the same time reaffirmed his desire to try terror suspects in federal courts, right? I mean, he's resuming the trials at Guantanamo, but he's still making his own position as clear as he can.
SCOTT SHANE: Well, that's right.
The vast majority of terrorists who have been convicted, of course, since 9/11 have been in federal courts. I believe there are six convictions now in military commissions versus, you know, a couple hundred in federal courts.
But, at least for the moment, the 172 people in Guantanamo will stay there. And none of those guys will be available for federal trial.
JEFFREY BROWN: Now, this order also outlines some procedures for reviews of prisoners who -- who are held without charge or trial to be reviewed at least every four years, right? Tell us about that.
SCOTT SHANE: Yes. Yes, I believe it's that each one has to get -- each detainee has to get a review within a year of today's order. And then there has to be a review every three years after that.
And it's by a group of -- a panel made up not only of folks from the Defense Department, but representatives from State and Justice and other departments.
You know, in general, I would say that civil liberties advocates, who have, of course, been very critical of Guantanamo, said that at the -- at the procedural level, this is an improvement compared to just letting people sit there forever without trial, but they still certainly object to the use of military commissions, as opposed to civilian trials, and to the ongoing use of Guantanamo, which, of course, President Obama had pledged to close in his first year in office.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, going to some of that, I mean, what -- there was always these questions about these trials beforehand, what evidence was admissible, et cetera.
Anything -- anything new on what we might see process-wise once these trials do resume?
SCOTT SHANE: There were some changes made in the procedures for military commissions by Congress in 2009.
And the combination of that with these periodic reviews that are required by the new executive order, I think, in general, legal authorities say that -- that they have moved in the direction of an ordinary criminal trial, even if they're not all the way there.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, as you said, I think, in this order, the president reiterates his commitment to closing Guantanamo once again. But this certainly makes it seem as though that day is -- is further away than ever, right?
SCOTT SHANE: Well, that's right.
Part of the problem is that the largest remaining group of detainees is from Yemen. And, of course, Yemen is in turmoil. And they're afraid to send anyone back there. And many countries, including countries that have been very critical of Guantanamo, have refused to take any of these detainees or have only taken tiny numbers.
JEFFREY BROWN: And, very briefly, he's already getting some pushback from civil liberties groups and some allies. Senator Leahy put out a statement quickly, saying, this really is not good for civil -- civil liberties.
SCOTT SHANE: That's right.
I mean, I think people see it as a mixed bag, and they're still studying it. But the underlying reality is that Guantanamo stays open, that some -- some of the people there will be held indefinitely without trial. And others will face military commissions, which, even with the improvements, some civil libertarians don't -- don't like.
JEFFREY BROWN: All right, Scott Shane of The New York Times, thanks very much.
SCOTT SHANE: Thank you.

[Guest040616]

I find it humorous as hell to witness Gnadfly trying to take the high road with his childish act of presumed disgust over the Obama Administration's handling of the "War on Terror." He and I have a very long history that dates back to the very beginning of the the War in Iraq! Never once did he challenge the Bush Adminstation during the entire period GW was in office. He was too busy humming on GW's knob to find time to criticize his hero. But he was one of the first to criticize those who did. I know because I was one of the few that regularly challenged the Bush Administration's handling of the "War on Terror." each and every time I did challenge, he criticized me for doing so.

Now fast forward to the Fall of 2011! He has the audacity to write garbage, as he did in the first post of this thread, to ask something of the Obama Administration that he failed to ask of their predecessors. And to make it even worse he has the fucking gall to act as though he is now disgusted!

If they would have killed OBL on GW's, Gnadfly would have been Dub's Monica Lewinsky. Now that there have been several high ranking terrorists scumbags killed, including OBL himself, he finally finds the time to ask the question he should have asked 8 years ago!

Gnadfly, welcome to my world. Better late than never!

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by bintex

two posts of dribble

bintex, your two posts just show your faulty memory, poor reading comprehension and love of male homosexuality.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by turdfly

two posts of dribble

Turdfly, after 8 long years we finally found something we can agree upon. Your two posts in this thread are nothing but dribble!

But those two posts merely follows your 8 year trend of multiple "dribble" posts!

[gnadfly]

Wow. Even more hypocrisy. Obama refuses to release the DOJ ruling that allows him to execute an American citizen without due process. Apparently the memo is classified and the public is NOT allowed to see it. I wonder if Awlaki's father and his counsel were allowed to scrutinize the document when he brought a suit to Federal Court to have his son spared from the "Kill or Capture" order sign by Obama.

Obama and his crew are the same guys who bemoaned all the foreign detainees "rights guaranteed by the US Constitution" be observed when he was running for office...and beyond.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ricans/246004/

(most of the article)

"The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials," the newspaper reported. "The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said."

Isn't that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It's secret. Classified. Information that the public isn't permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they're asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn't a military secret. It isn't an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress' post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."

Obama hasn't just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It's time for the president who promised to create "a White House that's more transparent and accountable than anything we've seen before" to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, "The legal questions are far from clearcut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion." And then there's the fact that "a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department -- rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example -- had gone out the door along with the Bush administration," he adds. "But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution's restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers' arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine."

I wonder what TexasTushHog's legal opinion is on this if true?

Again, I'm OK with Obama having Awlaki killed. But Obama is using the same tools, techniques and legal justification that he and the Democratic Socialists condemned when Bush fought the War On Terror. And for the most part, the media is giving him a pass on this.

[CuteOldGuy]

As long as it is ok to assassinate American citizens abroad, soon it will be ok to assassinate American citizens here. This is an awful example, because this Alweirdi, or whatever the hell his name was, was a reprehensible person, but he was still an American. There are lots of reprehensible Americans, TTH and Munch come to mind, but I digress. (Just kidding, only having fun). In any event, we become comfortable with the assassination of American citizens at our peril.

[TexTushHog]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

I wonder if Awlaki's father and his counsel were allowed to scrutinize the document when he brought a suit to Federal Court to have his son spared from the "Kill or Capture" order sign by Obama.

They were not. Very disappointing.

[Whirlaway]

Awalaki was an admitted enemy of America; a leader of the army that has declared war against us.

I think Obama deserves praise for ordering his assassination.

To say the next step is assassinations of citizens on US soil is wacko speak.

[Af-Freakin]

Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Awalaki was an admitted enemy of America; a leader of the army that has declared war against us.

I think Obama deserves praise for ordering his assassination.

To say the next step is assassinations of citizens on US soil is wacko speak.

if this was WW2 & we had a us citizen fighting with the nazis, nobody would complain about killing him on the battlefield.

[Jackie S]

I do not agree with President Obama on many things, but this, he has my full support.

I would call this the "cut the head off, and the snake dies" doctrine. I think that every terrorist on the planet now knows that if you are known to be in some type of leadership position, we will kill you. Not only that, but any body who happens to be hanging with you at the crucial moment just might get theirs as well.

This Preditor Drone thing is pretty good. Mr. Terrorist Leader might be getting out of bed, taking a stroll, or even participating in his evening prayers, and the wrath of Uncle Sam suddenly, without warning, ends his role as "leader".

Next.......

[CuteOldGuy]

Trying to kill all Al-Qaida is like playing Whack-A-Muslim at Chuck E Jesus. Another one always pops up. Killing their leaders only empowers them. We have to have another strategy. Many of them WANT to die in Jihad; they are promised all sorts of privileges in the afterlife. Once they get there and find out it ain't happening, it's too late, the ones remaining still think it's true.

If Al Weirdi were killed in a firefight, that would be different. But he was an American citizen, granted, a reprehensible American citizen, targeted for assassination by our government. If we allow that just because this guy was reprehensible, then maybe it's ok to kill someone less reprehensible without giving him/her their rights. And on and on, you see where I'm going. When they start coming after you, you may wonder where all the people are to defend you.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Trying to kill all Al-Qaida is like playing
Whack-A-Muslim at Chuck E Jesus. Another one always pops up. There is a difference. The ones hit with the mallet never pop up again. Killing their leaders only empowers them. We have to have another strategy. Going after C and C is a strategy the US is the best in the world at and has used to great effect many times. I wonder what Adm. Yamamoto said when he saw an actual P-38 for the first time? Or if he ever did see one? My point is we'll never know. Many of them WANT to die in Jihad; they are promised all sorts of privileges in the afterlife. Then a Hellfire is really foreign aid. Once they get there and find out it ain't happening, it's too late, the ones remaining still think it's true. I don't think the leadership really believes in the perks.
If Al Weirdi were killed in a firefight, that would be different. He was killed in a firefight. Too bad he brought a jeep to Predator fight. But he was an American citizen, granted, a reprehensible American citizen, targeted for assassination by our government. If we allow that just because this guy was reprehensible, then maybe it's ok to kill someone less reprehensible without giving him/her their rights. And on and on, you see where I'm going. When they start coming after you, you may wonder where all the people are to defend you.

We now have plenty of time to discuss this issue. We even have a type of benchmark event to use as future indices. Tough to argue this will be an everyday event. That doesn't really change things though. The issue remains he was a US citizen. So we need a way to strip his/hers citizen rights in a similar situation. How would we define the situation? We can use Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's opinion from Jacobellis v. Ohio.