Become a monthly donor to Free Republic and another bitter clinger will donate $10 in your honor!
I'm sure the terrorists feel much better now that they know the death of al-Awlaki was legally sanctioned. Bammy doesn't wants his Muslim family to have any hard feelings.
Bush has a guy write a memo to waterboard a terrorist and Bush is a war criminal.
Obama has a guy write a memo to kill an American citizen without a trial and the left yawns.
It has nothing to do with right and wrong only (r) or (d).
And this differs from the decisions to waterboard.... how?
Except for the part about Democrats screaming for Bush, Cheney, and the advising attorneys heads on pikes outside the Rayburn Building, that is.
I heard the drone dropped leaflets with his Miranda rights on them before sending a Hellfire up his butt.
It makes you wonder. Because I remember Barry’s regime bending over backwards to have FBI people talk to the Somali pirates to try and negotiate before finally getting the SEAL’s to do what they do best! Odd that all of the sudden it’s perfectly legal to kill an American Citizen Obama’s regime decides is a threat....Hmmmm (Still glad the Dirtbag is dead though...Hopefully he is enjoying his 72 Helen Thomas lookalike virgins in HELL!)
So the way the Slimes describes the “secret memo”:
Awlaki could be legally killed, if
(1) it was not feasible to capture him,
(2) because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, and
(3) because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.
The reasoning SHOULD have been even simpler:
(1) Was Awlaki part of a terrorist army that has explicitly declared and is conducting a war against the US? YES
(2) Was he attacked by a military strike in the field, meaning somewhere we and our military allies do not have effective dominion over? YES
End of story. It doesn’t matter whether he is a US citizen or not.
If you join a foreign army conducting a war against the US, you are subject to attack in the field just like any other member of that army.
But why not make the legal reasoning public? I can understand why the enhanced interrogation memo was secret, because we don’t want the bad guys to know what will be used against them.
But there is no reason for Zero and Holder to keep secret their legal analysis in this case.
Death by missile = good.
Getting information by non-lethal waterboard = bad.
Uh...okay...
To anyone who believes this is a violation of his civil rights as an American, including you Ron Paul:
THIS IS TREASON!!! LOOK IT UP! ARTICLE III, SECTION III states:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
Even though people say that this is the one thing Obama has done right, I’m not convinced he made the decision.
In who's opinion? Holder??? Obama???? The field commander??? This is dictatorial Barbra Striesand.
I wish these people wold go SHOVE IT. Obama does ONE thing right and he gets criticized.
Every time they kill one of these bastards I’m happy. The amount of “information” they can provide is NOTHING compared to the amount of GRIEF we would have to undergo deciding what kind of circus trial to have for him.
This guy was a MUSLIM. Their citizenship in any country takes a back seat to being MUSLIM.
Further he was an enemy combatant in arms against America and his fellow citizens. Too bad they can’t kill him a thousand times over.
Maybe the U.S. Government should target the editors of the NY Times too. There are little better than Alwalaki,
The fact that the executive branch "put a hit" on a US citizen who had not been convicted of a crime bothers me A LOT. If he was killed on a field of battle, I'd have no problem with it at all. But to the best of my knowledge, he never actually fired a shot at American troops. And while those who instigate criminal acts can be charged with crimes, up to and including murder and getting the death penalty, like Charles Manson, at least Manson got a trial. I don't like politicians being able to "take out a citizen." I don't trust them enough, especially not Obama.
Mark
I guess that's what they decided about David Koresh too.
Even though he went jogging down a public road on a regular basis.
I disagree with bambi on everything,except this. He was right for once
Become a monthly donor to Free Republic and another bitter clinger will donate $10 in your honor!
If it was Bush, they would be screaming for impeachment.
As far as I am concerned, when you leave the US and JOIN the enemy, you become a legal target.
If memory serves, U.S. law says that accepting a position of authority in a foreign military or government is an expatriating act and means you’ve given up your citizenship. A case can be made that through his position in al Qaida, al-Awlaki did both and wasn’t a U.S. citizen anymore to begin with.
He wasn’t a citizen.
Taking up arms against the USA revokes citizenship.