Let's get to know Anwar al-Awlaki through his own peaceful words...

[DFab420]

Obviously the EVIL EVIL USA just killed a man who was nothing but a puppy hugging citizen who loved all his American brothers and sisters. I mean read these things about him and you'll see how AMAZING of a person he was and how his life was so much more precious..

Oh woe is me, now we are all going to be killed because lets face it this guy was certainly no terrorist......

:sarcasm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

In a video posted to the internet on November 8, 2010, al-Awlaki called for Muslims around the world to kill Americans “without hesitation”, and overthrow Arab leaders. He said that no fatwa (special clerical ruling) is required to kill Americans: “Don’t consult with anyone in fighting the Americans, fighting the devil doesn’t require consultation or prayers or seeking divine guidance. They are the party of the devils.

Mr. Awlaki had been perhaps the most prominent English-speaking advocate of violent jihad against the United States, with his message carried extensively over the Internet. His online lectures and sermons had been linked to more than a dozen terrorist investigations in the United States, Britain and Canada. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had exchanged e-mails with Mr. Awlaki before the deadly shooting rampage on Fort Hood, Texas, in 2009. Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in May, 2010, cited Mr. Awlaki as an inspiration.

Moving to the UK for several months, he gave talks to up to 200 youths at a time.<88> He urged young Muslim followers: "The important lesson to learn here is never, ever trust a kuffar . Do not trust them! are plotting to kill this religion. They’re plotting night and day."

On August 31, 2006, al-Awlaki was one of a group of five people arrested on charges of kidnapping a Shiite teenager for ransom, and involvement in an al-Qaeda plot to kidnap a U.S. military attaché

In December 2008, al-Awlaki sent a communique to the Somalian terrorist group Al-Shabaab, congratulating them. He thanked them for "giving us a living example of how we as Muslims should proceed to change our situation. The ballot has failed us, but the bullet has not". In conclusion, he wrote: "if my circumstances would have allowed, I would not have hesitated in joining you and being a soldier in your ranks".<99>

In March 2010, a tape featuring al-Awlaki was released in which he urged Muslims residing in the U.S. to attack their country of residence. In the video, he stated:
To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim<33><108>
In July 2010, a Seattle cartoonist was warned by the FBI of a death threat issued by al-Awlaki in the al-Qaeda magazine Inspire. Eight other cartoonists, journalists, and writers from Britain, Sweden, and Holland were also threatened with death. "The prophet is the pinnacle of Jihad", al-Awlaki wrote. "It is better to support the prophet by attacking those who slander him than it is to travel to land of Jihad like Iraq or Afghanistan."<109>

On an honest note, people complaining about his death and how it marks the end of the constitution are tone deaf, myopic and silly. He was a member of a terrorist organization. He wasn't just some guy. It would be like you joining the OathKeepers calling yourself a sovereign citizen and being surprised the cops arrest you.

You join Al-Qaeda you stop being a Citizen of any place in the world. The moral high-ground you all (meaning the people who are saying he shouldn't be dead) are trying to stand on is built on the bodies of the innocent people his actions and the actions of the people he influenced and taught killed. I hope your purest ideals can wash that blood off and still be shiny for you.

[ellisonz]

1. K & R

[DFab420]

2. He wrote as well: "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the

We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not."


http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20091129-Imam-s-e-mails-to-Fort-7150.ece

[lamp_shade]

3. Big rec.

[flamingdem]

4. I'm sure Obama was correct in his legal standing and we're safer for his decision nt

[Scurrilous]

5. K & R

:thumbsup:


At Islamic center, relief Awlaki can no longer 'spread hate'

<snip>

"Members of the suburban, Washington D.C., Islamic center where Anwar al-Awlaki once served as Imam condemned his terrorist activities following his death Friday.

"Al-Awlaki encouraged impressionable American-Muslims to attack their own country," said Imam Johari Abdul-Malik, director of outreach for Dar Al-Hijrah Islamic Center, where a large crowd was worshiping in morning prayer. "(He) will no longer spread his hate speech over the Internet to Muslim youth, provoking them to engage in violence against Americans."

<snip>

"Ezeldin Diab, who prayed at the Hijrah Center on Friday morning, said al-Awlaki's radical beliefs dishonored Islam.

"These kinds of people give a bad reputation for the rest of us,'' says Diab, a 56-year-old commercial vendor who moved to the U.S. from Egypt in the early 1980s. "We do not believe in violence."

Wadi Adam Lahrim, a 44-year-old consultant from Falls Church, says al- Awlaki's death should close his still-perceived ties to the center, which hosts thousands of area Muslims in prayer and other activities.

"He's history," Lahrim says. "It was his decision to lead his life as as he did. His death shouldn't come as a surprise. I'm glad we're not going to have someone else with such excellent communication skills (sway) young Muslims."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-30/islamic-center-reaction/50619752/1?csp=34news

[customerserviceguy]

6. Thank you, well said

He was a scum-sucking asshole who repudiated his citizenship every time he collaborated on an attack on Americans, especially civilians. I hope he and Hasan get to be butt-buddies in hell, they always wanted to spend the afterlife together.

Note: As an atheist, I don't believe in a hell, but it's days like today that make me want to.

[FSogol]

7. K&R. n/t

[Enrique]

8. Wikipedia says we can kill him!

:woohoo:

[Tx4obama]

17. You can go to Wiki and click on the footnote source links for the original text/video etc

To make fun of Wikipedia just because the info is compiled there is ridiculous!

[mikekohr]

9. When You Dedicate Your Life To Placing Bombs On Planes Filled With Innocent Men, Women, and Children

you should not be surprized when we fly an un-manned aircraft filled with explosives through your windshield

[Swede]

10. K&R

[OhioBlue]

11. KnR n/t

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. Throw the Constitution out the window when the guy is really really bad?

Who decides when to adhere to the Constitution? Bush? Cheney? The guys who targeted the liberal groups and violated their civil rights? Serial killers are bad. So are child molesters. Do they meet the really really bad standard? Is there a standard? Shall we just kill all of them too? That would sure save lots of time. Let's just drag them out of jail and hang em high.

"...people complaining about his death and how it marks the end of the constitution are tone deaf, myopic and silly." Tone deaf? Myopic?

No, not silly. You. Are. Wrong.

Is is the fundament of our democracy. And when we can just ignore OUR rights when it suits us because the guy was bad...well...Bin Laden wins.

[golfguru]

14. President Obama has fine judgement regarding whom to target

with a drone packed with rockets. He does not take this
responsibility lightly. I have to believe Awlaki deserved
to be killed as a combatant enemy, based on president's decision.

The president is commander-in-chief and is the sole decider
as to who is enemy combatant. There is nothing against the
constitution in that.

Now if the president orders assasination of a serial killer or
a child molester, that would be a different issue.

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. Does Bush? Cheney? Perry? Palin?

Do you really want to depend on the political-wind to decide if we can have Due Process?

Please..."he does not take responsibility lightly," is not a good basis for our Constitution. It should be on solid rock.

Bush and Cheney and their supporters also thought they had fine judgement. That is not the point.

The point is that we have a system in place that is stronger than the ONE person in office. We are a democracy with three branches of government and a Constitution...not a dictatorship where Obama gets to make the rules and decide when Due Process is appropriate.

[golfguru]

16. Under our constitution only the commander-in-chief can make

that decision. And the c-in-c is duly elected by citizens
of United States. So yes, Bush had that authority, Cheney
never did, Palin or Perry will have to get elected first.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. No. He cannot make that decision on his own--this is not a dictatorship.

We have checks and balances in place. Our President cannot make the decision to kill someone without using our system of laws. Our citizens--no matter how awful Bush, or Cheney, or even Obama thinks they are--are protected by our laws. We are a country of laws. He had no legal basis for killing an American Citizen under the facts presented.

You miss my point. You don't (or shouldn't) want the decision to kill an American Citizen without due process to be in the hands of one person, no matter how much you trust him. Cause, the guy at the White House is not always one to trust. That ideal is foundational to our democracy and what separates us from Iranian or Turkish-type prisons.

[ClarkUSA]

22. Yes. He. Can. President Obama did this legally via the AUMF.

The AUMF grants President Obama the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determines "planned, authorised, committed or aided" the 9/11 attacks, or who harboured said persons or groups.

Furthermore, the AUMF purposefully doesn't delineate any territorial specificity or geographical limits.

Al-Awlaki was indicted by both the Yemen and British governments last year. The UK perp he was sending emails to got 30 years in jail:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=786410&mesg_id=786745

[Evergreen Emerald]

30. a couple of American hikers were charged and convicted in Iran...shall we shoot them too?

The two people killed were American citizens. They may have been really really bad people. Indeed, we have many really really bad people in our jails right now. Because they are really really bad, does that give us the right to just kill em? With no judge or jury?

In times like these it is easier to let slip our system of government. That is what happened with Iraq...our Congress gave away the checks and balance inherent in our system when they allowed Bush to declare war on Iraq. And he used that power to tear gaping holes in the foundation of our system of laws.

The idea that there are instances in which we can ignore the Constitution, is scary...and does not bode well for our future.

Judge, jury, and executioner are just so 1776.

[ClarkUSA]

55. Your nonsensical "apples and oranges" comment has no relevance to this singular case.

The AUMF grants President Obama the authority to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determines "planned, authorised, committed or aided" the 9/11 attacks, or who harboured said persons or groups.

Furthermore, the AUMF purposefully doesn't delineate any territorial specificity or geographical limits.

[EFerrari]

32. Obama could not show this man was a threat to the United States.

And that is the crux of the case with the ACLU and CCR. It was not shown and not determined that he was a threat so the Obama DoJ used State Secrets instead.

No, Obama is not clearly in the right. The president is not elected to be judge, jury and executioner. In order to argue that he is in the right, you have to get there via the Bush Doctrine and I see you have as little problem doing that as Obama does.

[ClarkUSA]

54. Says who? You? The ACLU? Al-Awlaki was indicted in Yemen & Great Britain last year.

I repeat: President Obama has the authority, via the AUMF, to use all "necessary and appropriate force" against those whom he determines "planned, authorised, committed or aided" the 9/11 attacks, or who harboured said persons or groups. Also, the AUMF doesn't delineate any territorial specificity or geographical limits.

[phleshdef]

59. Every single member of Al Qaeda has been deemed a threat to the United States by Congress itself.

And its full well been proven that he was a member of Al Qaeda, something that he attempted to make no secret of himself.

[golfguru]

63. Was'nt Awlaki the mentor of major Hassan?

But then you may not consider major Hassan an enemy of United States.

[COLGATE4]

48. Our Leader. Right or Wrong!

Seems like this attitude has created some problems in the past...

[COLGATE4]

66. Why? What's different. He still has "fine judgement regarding whom

to target"?

[boppers]

25. "Who decides when to adhere to the Constitution? "

Congress and the Supreme Court and the Executive (plus treaties) are who decides.

That's kind of how it's written. Any piece of it can be changed, interpreted differently, etc. The powers argue/fight balance it out.

Lets take, oh, Lincoln, who killed (via military missions) ~260,000 american citizens *without trials*. Legally. Congress and the Supremes all said it was okay.

"And when we can just ignore OUR rights when it suits us because the guy was bad...well...Bin Laden wins. "

So, FDR was bad, then, for locking up hundreds of thousands without trial? Jackson was bad for marching Americans to their death? This system has nothing to do with Bin Laden, as american justice, and power balancing, has always been flexible to the thinking of the day. Since the beginning.

If you want to make an inflexible system, like, oh, an idealized American code (Sharia?), well, I'm sure Bin Laden would be happy about that... if he weren't dead, because nobody bothered to Mirandize him and provide him with free healthcare, television, and room and board for the next 10-20 years of appeals. After a certain amount of tolerance, a person's individual rights to deny the individual and collective rights of others means that civilized society is done with them. Bin laden paid a price for that. Were this 2,000 years ago, every living member of his family would also be executed, but we're much more "civilized" now, so at least his genetics remain with us.

"Is is the fundament of our democracy."

Fundamentalist thinking is the *problem*, not the solution. Democracy doesn't work if there is absolute "Truth", a fundament that cannot ever be deviated from... that's totalitarianism, because reality is a messy place, where "Truth" is a mighty slippery thing. That's why the US (and many other places) lack any one person or small group who can determine "Truth", and apply those rules.

[Evergreen Emerald]

29. inflexible versus optional.

I am not suggesting that our Constitution is inflexible, indeed flexibility is one of the reasons our system of government has lasted so long.

You misunderstand my post. By "fundament" I mean to say that it is foundational--a basis of our democracy. I know both words fundament and fundamentalist start the same but they do not mean the same thing.

Inflexible does not mean optional. And the reason we must adhere to the laws we have in place is for the very reason you site: "truth is slippery." You say that is why we lack any one person or small group who can determine truth and apply those rules: EXACTLY. Rather than depend on the politician de jour, we depend on our system of laws--the "foundation" of which is our Constitution.

[boppers]

40. I managed to convey a point effectively? Wow.

*happydance*

Getting back to the heart of the matter, though, once a person or organization makes war against the US, they lose many constitutional protections, BUT still retain some. (We can kill you without trial, but not if we capture you via peaceable action).

Anwar al-Awlaki could have turned himself in, gotten a "fair" trial, if he wanted. Same with bin Laden.

[COLGATE4]

50. Would you care to share any legal basis for this stunning conclusion?

[boppers]

60. Sure:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus_in_the_United_States

[COLGATE4]

49. Silly and factually incorrect answer. Lincoln is not relevant, since the

country was in a declared state of war with another country, and the people killed during that war were uniformed combatants killed on the field of battle. No criminal acts to have a trial for. And when the war ended, the Confederate military and civilian leaders weren't tried, much less killed. FDR committed an illegal act by interning thousands of US citizens whose only fault was that they were of Japanese ancestry, an act which the Supreme Court has now agreed was illegal. The rest of the screed " if he weren't dead, because nobody bothered to Mirandize him and provide him with free healthcare, television, and room and board for the next 10-20 years of appeals" is straight off the pages of FR. But the kicker is your conclusion that "That's why the US (and many other places) lack any one person or small group who can determine "Truth", and apply those rules.". In fact, that's EXACTLY what happened here.

[boppers]

61. Uh, the south was not a recognized "country", any more than Al-Queda is a "country".

If you think they were all "uniformed combatants", well, shame on your education system.

"No criminal acts to have a trial for."

Wow. Theft, rape, murder... totally not criminal, right?

Upon consideration, though:

"In fact, that's EXACTLY what happened here."

Has some interesting merits. While congress signed off on a death warrant, which was held up by the Supremes, the application of that death warrant has been limited to a limited set of decision makers.

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. What does the "constitution" have to do with this guy? Didn't he, in essence, renounce...

his citizenship when he fled the country and advocated/encouraged (from foreign soil) the slaughter of his own countrymen? This is what I don't get about the crocodile tears being shed for this asshole. Just as I did with the killing of OBL, I agree with the President here.

[Evergreen Emerald]

28. Judge, jury and executioner.

You certainly have the allegations down. Now all we need is the proof...or..is that so 1776?

[Tarheel_Dem]

31. Take it up with Congress!

;) http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=786508&mesg_id=786842

[hue]

41. I would say d/t evidence of their killing sprees that

OBL & Awlaki were judge, jury and executioner. And they preached that modus operandi to many super hero seeking youths.
They preached exactly what you are positioning yourself against.
There really is no rational, kind, justice paved pathway to deal with them and their ilk.

Guess what? Some people are just plain evil!! :grr:

[Evergreen Emerald]

42. Casey Anthony? Troy Davis? Ted Bundy?

There was also a mountain of evidence against them. They were also considered just plain evil. Why did we bother with trials? Why not just shoot them?

By the way: OBL was not American.

[Tarheel_Dem]

45. "OBL was not American."

And neither was Al Alwacko. He renounced the privelege when he fled to foreign soil to plan & coordinate attacks on his "former" homeland.

Try Harder! :hi:

[Evergreen Emerald]

46. Yes he was American...as was his co-hort who was also killed

try harder!

[Tarheel_Dem]

68. He was "American Born"; big difference.

;)

TRY HARDER!!!!

[MrSlayer]

13. Agreed. Fuck al-Awlaki.

And fuck everyone defending this piece of trash. Good riddance to bad rubbish. President Obama can sleep with a clean conscience as can the rest of us.

[nxylas]

47. Who's defending him?

I see people defending due process and the rule of law, but that's not the same thing.

[golfguru]

65. I don't think due process of Geneva convention laws apply to AQ

Al Qaeda is not a sovereign nation recognized by UN. They are a band
of terrorists actively involved in murdering innocent American civilians.
We can not fight a conventional war with these fanatics. Since they
resort to cowardly bombings and hi-jacking airplanes into tall
buildings, the only effective means of fighting with them is by
using special forces and special tactics. Drones have proved
their effectiveness.

And from what we know Awlaki was a active member of AQ. Any
American citizen who joins AQ becomes a traitor and enemy of
our country. If Awlaki wanted the charges resolved in a court
of law, he could have surrendered and asked for a trial. I am
100% sure he would not have been droned while in court.

[Tx4obama]

18. K&R n/t

[EFerrari]

19. LMAO. Now supporting the rule of law is an extreme position.

No wonder this country is a frickin' mess.

[Evergreen Emerald]

21. I agree ...and am nearly speechless.

Dang! I am having trouble believing this is a board of progressives!

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ClarkUSA]

23. President Obama is following the rule of law, specifically the AUMF. See Reply 22.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=786508&mesg_id=786842

[Vicar In A Tutu]

24. I'm stunned by how many people would rather see a civilian plane go down

We know from Britain and the recently convicted British Airways worker the depth of al-Awlaki's involvment in such matters, and that is far from the only example. The plane could go down followed by him publicly taking responsibility and you'd still have the autonomous outrage crew squealing about how it would be a terrble, terrible thing to take him out, how he should just be left to his own devices if tha opportunity should not arise.

That's the REALLY astonishing thing to come out of this.

[ClarkUSA]

57. I'm not surprised. SOS.

[Tarheel_Dem]

27. Can you cite the "law" that was broken here? Or is this just more of the same?

:shrug:

[EFerrari]

33. ACLU:

ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said, "The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law. As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts. The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President – any President – with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country."

ACLU National Security Project Litigation Director Ben Wizner said, "Outside the theater of war, the use of lethal force is lawful only as a last resort to counter an imminent threat of deadly attack. Based on the administration's public statements, the program that the President has authorized is far more sweeping. If the Constitution means anything, it surely means that the President does not have unreviewable authority to summarily execute any American whom he concludes is an enemy of the state."

More information on the government's targeted killing policy is available at:
www.aclu.org/targetedkillings

[Tarheel_Dem]

35. Which is the ACLU's "interpretation". Have they successfully argued this case in court?

We know where the USSC will come down, so unless the courts overturn, or Congress repeals the AUMF, ACLU will just have to whine.

The problem for you guys is that, and this is just a guess, but I'm going to venture that most of the country will agree with this action. But here's to you & the ACLU anyhoo.
:toast:

[EFerrari]

37. The AUMF does not give Obama the authority to kill people at will.

And while people whining about Obama using the Bush Doctrine to kill people may be annoying, just wait and see how annoying it gets the next time Repblicans are in office.

[Tarheel_Dem]

39. "Interpretation". Let's ask Rep Kucinich about his failed attempt.

I'll stick with the guy in the WH who taught "constitutional" law. ;)

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. The problem with a king is that he's not always your first choice in a king. n/t

[Vattel]

34. Keep ignoring the constitutional issues and just scream "Evil!!"

[txlibdem]

36. Replace a few nouns and verbs and Al Wacky sounds like he's running for office as a GOP

Am I wrong?

[Vinnie From Indy]

38. Bullshit!

One would think that if al-Alawki were so obviously and unambiguously a clear and present danger to the US that it would have been child's play to get an indictment prior to killing him. Why was that not done? Why was their apparently ZERO efforts to get even a perfunctory judicial review?

Also, are you really advocating that the wrong kind of speech can and should get a person killed? Are words and ideas now to be divided between acceptable and your a dead man?

[slackmaster]

43. I'd like to see his religionist mind-set and the racist, misogynist culture it represents replaced

...by something more enlightened and civilized.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. So is the next cruise missile heading for Ann Coulter's home? n/t

[ClarkUSA]

56. What drivel.

[a simple pattern]

69. Right, and how about those dominionists on C street?

They make no bones about being at war with America.

[Festivito]

58. So he asks them to KILL HIMSELF since he's American too? Without hesitation or consultation.

We could still put it to a jury in a trial, in absentia. The administration feels as though they did, conferring between themselves. But, that is not good enough. Make it formal. Make it transparent.

[saras]

62. Why should I care? I already know I don't like him.

Who and what he is personally is utterly irrelevant to the question of whether America should either A. obey international law or B. hold the exceptionalist position that America has the right to override international law whenever we get too emotional.

This is a case where it really is relevant to contemplate what President Bachmann might do with this rule. Just because it's extremenly unlikely in the next election doesn't rule out the near certainty that we WILL have another Bush-like president. And personally I want rules strong enough to hold THEM in check.

[firehorse]

64. unrec for preferring due process

Yes the guy hates Americans as much as our other homegrown terrorists: Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, etc.

They should have captured the guy and put him in one of Dick's prisons while processing him through the legal system. Where do you draw the line at free speech. It's not like he claimed weapons of mass destruction and then started a war that collapsed our economy.

[dreamnightwind]

67. It's not about him, it's about US

It's about what this nation eventually becomes when we accept this sort of "justice". Anyone can see where it leads. Remember your guy will not always be the guy in the White House, it will sometimes be a Bush, a Cheney, a Rick Perry, who knows? Their power over life and death of non military combatants must be limited to charges that have been reviewed and proven in a court of law.

This is not a war. There is no opposing army, just a bunch of loosely affiliated fanatics and opponents of the global corporate regime. In that sense, not that much different from Occupation Wall Street protesters. I know that's a stretch, since they're not advocating violence, but some leader, sometime, will make that stretch, and kill our own citizens in our own country with no judicial oversight, and the firing squad cheerleaders in this thread will have helped to pave the road that leads to that eventuality.

Reading this thread has given me more shame of my fellow DU members than any I have ever read. People need to put aside their blood lust and take a good hard look at what this really is, and where it leads.