Anwar Al-Awlaki smoked! Yee Haw !!

[Fog]

Seems US forces took out Anwar Al-Awlaki around 0200EDT w/ a drone strike. One more snake removed from the Mideast.

 

[DBDubbs]

Outstanding news, especially since he was the American born cleric. Let's get al-Zawahiri next.

 

[Rokovak]

The good news is he'll get his 72 virgins. The bad news is that billions of other Muslims get the same 72 virgins and must remain virgins forever.

 

[nittany03]

The good news is he'll get his 72 virgins. The bad news is that billions of other Muslims get the same 72 virgins and must remain virgins forever.

Steve Martin's take on the 72 virgins . . .

 

[jtmedli]

This is good news. Him being an American makes it that much sweeter. Got a traitor and a terrorist in one hit.

 

[Recovering LSO]

Maybe the next round of presidential candidates will learn something from the current commander in chief: watch what you say on the campaign trail, lest you not fully understand the ugly realities of the world...

On a somewhat related note...How's that Guantanamo closure coming along?

 

[pilot_man]

"He directed the failed attempt to blow up an airplane on Christmas Day in 2009. He directed the failed attempt to blow up U.S. cargo planes in 2010," Mr. Obama said. "And he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda." - President Obama

"Yemeni intelligence pinpointed al-Awlaki's hideout in the town of Al Khasaf, a Yemeni official said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence. "He was closely monitored ever since," by Yemeni intelligence on the ground, backed by U.S. satellite and drones from the sky, the official said."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/501364/main20113732.shtml

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems like we skipped some steps here, why didn't we grab him and bring him back for trial?

I don't think we did skip any steps. " except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger". I'm pretty sure this douche was all about public danger. One less dirt bag. Good riddance.

 

[squorch2]

Maybe the next round of presidential candidates will learn something from the current commander in chief: watch what you say on the campaign trail, lest you not fully understand the ugly realities of the world...

On a somewhat related note...How's that Guantanamo closure coming along?

Frustrated by GOP machinations in the Senate?

 

[Recovering LSO]

what?! redirect your sarcasm at the boss and his campaign rhetoric.

 

[helolumpy]

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems like we skipped some steps here, why didn't we grab him and bring him back for trial?

Well if he was committing treason...
Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_18_00002381----000-.html


He was waging war against the United States, so IMO he is waging war against the Constitution, therefore he forfeits all protections codified in the document he fights against.


I'm pretty sure the Sharia Law he endorsed would call for the death penalty for treason.

 

[Flash]

.....Amendment V........

It seems like we skipped some steps here, why didn't we grab him and bring him back for trial?

Yes, and in rare instances it should be done. While what he was doing was criminal he was also waging an active war against the United States as well, maybe a fine legal distinction to some but the reality is far different. Citizen or not I believe that the right choice was made in determining he was a legitimate target for killing by the US government.

I think those who advocate that he be captured and brought to trial really don't grasp the complexities of ; 1-Actually capturing him, it's not like the US Marshals can work with the local cops to pick him up during a traffic stop. While Yemen is supposedly an 'ally' of the US in the war on terror it is largely out of self-interest than a shared philosophy on the world, large parts of Yemen aren't under government control, or anyone's control for that matter. Any attempt to capture him would have taken a pretty significant amount of resources, that only the military can provide, than it would have to kill him and may have mired us in a fight that would have been hard to extricate ourselves from.

2-Trying him in our current court system (Gitmo included) with the 'evidence' that we had on him. It appears that almost everything we did have on him was 'secret' and would have been difficult to try him in court on. While we may have been able to get him on some generic supporting terrorist charges it may not have been an open and shut case with just those. Trying him for treason would be a tricky prospect too. Trying him on actually leading AQAP may have involved using evidence gained by sensitive methods/sources. Many of the same folks who decry his killing would do the same when trying him with 'secret' evidence. It actually makes a good case for setting up some sort of special 'anti-terrorism court' within our existing legal system and even calls into question whether or not we should still have birthright citizenship, but those are debates for another time.

While I think that killing an American citizen should not be taken lightly or casually I believe in rare instances (which is likely going to be the 'norm' since extremely few US citizens fit in this category) it should be done. He was not just a foot soldier like John Walker Lindh, a middle manager or even just aPR type, he was an active leader in a terrorist group that waging war on the US on the battlefield at the time of his death. He was a legitimate target, citizen or not.

 

[scoolbubba]

The people who believe we should have picked him up and tried him in the US are the same people who rail against US boots on the ground in foreign countries, as well as the interventionist policies of the US government.

Ass clowns like this one don't just surrender to the local sheriff when they get rolled up. If a drone strike keeps US grunts out of one more failed state shit hole, then I'm all for it, regardless of who in the White House made the call.

 

[PropStop]

I don't think we did skip any steps. " except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger". I'm pretty sure this douche was all about public danger. One less dirt bag. Good riddance.

Completely agree. He declared war on the US. We smoked him. No reason to risk more US lives in getting him.

 

[SkywardET]

There doesn't seem to be anything extra-Constitutional about killing this citizen. Seems pretty clear he was engaged in war against the U.S., hence he "shall suffer death," or has suffered death by now.