Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: lechtellhavel
Assassination of U.S. citizens

President Obama has claimed, as President George W. Bush did before him, the right to order the killing of any citizen considered a terrorist or an abettor of terrorism. Last year, he approved the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaqi and another citizen under this claimed inherent authority. Last month, administration officials affirmed that power, stating that the president can order the assassination of any citizen whom he considers allied with terrorists. (Nations such as Nigeria, Iran and Syria have been routinely criticized for extrajudicial killings of enemies of the state.)

Reasoning like this is why people hate lawyers. Anwar al-Awlaqi deserved to die in spades! Capturing him would be both much harder and more dangerous than a drone strike.

5 posted on 01/15/2012 2:50:04 PM PST by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Anti-Bubba182

An interesting question is how did Anwar al-Awlaqi get citizenship. Why after 9-11 have both Bush and Obama used executive authority to import more and more from countries infested with radical jihadis?


10 posted on 01/15/2012 2:55:30 PM PST by aldabra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Anti-Bubba182

Add to that the fact that the man was an “enemy combatant.” Or, the very least, an enemy support trooper.
You start providing aid and support to an enemy in wartime, in a foreign country, we can, and should kill you.
Too bad we didn’t kill Jane Fonda.

The rest of it makes good sense, though.


15 posted on 01/15/2012 3:14:22 PM PST by Little Ray (FOR the best Conservative in the Primary; AGAINST Obama in the General.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: Anti-Bubba182

“Anwar al-Awlaqi deserved to die in spades!”

I am certainly not condoning or siding with terrorists, but I gotta ask: according to who? I know he was accused of running a subversive website and posting to it. Last time I looked, that concept was proudly protected in our first amendment. People can run websites and post crap that we don’t agree with. Even heinous crap. To condemn someone to death without due process for running a website is an abomination to our rights.

If a citizen “deserves” it, have a trial (in absentia if need be) and convict him on the evidence. Otherwise whoever is currently in charge can kill anyone just on his say so.

How would you like it if Bill Clinton had started killing constitutional militia members a few years ago? All he would have had to do way say they were terrorists and a threat to the US. And he ALREADY SAID THAT!

Will Munny: It’s a hell of a thing, killing a man. Take away all he’s got and all he’s ever gonna have.
The Schofield Kid: Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming.
Will Munny: We all got it coming, kid.


26 posted on 01/15/2012 4:11:49 PM PST by FreeInWV (Have you had enough change yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson