Anwar al-Awlaki Dead

[TerryTate]

This is the fallacy of this whole argument. There is a big difference between me making a joke on a Notre Dame football site, and one of the leaders of the largest terrorist group on the planet. Yet people (including yourself, maybe) seem to think that the government can't make a distinction between the two. Or, even if the government can't, that the American people will stand idly by and watch from the sidelines.

Thank you.

 

[23145tp]

One less idiot to deal with........

 

[jason_h537]

The implications of killing an American citizen without even a trial are scary though.

I understand exactly what you mean. Regardless of actions the US has a cour system and as a citizen a person should be treated accordingly and judgment passed through the proper channels. This is one of the tings that make this country great. with that said...


**** that guy

 

[BGIF]

I'm glad you have so much faith in the system, unless you mean a revolution. Then you are a targeted killing if you ever go overseas!

I'm a "targeted killing" at home, as are you, if you weren't too obtuse to realize it. A year ago in a video interview, al-Awlaki "claimed all Americans were valid targets, and directed followers to engage in armed conflict with the United States."

al-Awlaki preached violent attacks on civilians, men, women, and children. Fort Hood ring any bells. Northwest Airlines flight to Detroit? Mail bombs to Chicago synogogues? Times Square?

I have a lot more faith in our system that I do in al-Awlaki's. Think about we have a left of center president who spent his first year in office on a World Apology Tour. Even he realized the twisted evil inherent in his terrorist and approved this action.

Josef Goebbels never killed with a gun or bomb but millions died because of the hate he spewed and the way he mislead the masses. The world is a little bit safer tonight because al-Awlaki is dead.

 

[chgocub23]

New International Version (©1984)
For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer
Romans 13:4

Talking about the government. This is all I need to see, and this is justified.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

New International Version (©1984)
For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer
Romans 13:4

Talking about the government. This is all I need to see, and this is justified.

That's terrifying on so many levels.

 

[chgocub23]

Here is an exerpt from this site: What Does the Bible Say About Government?: Biblical Principles Concerning Christians and Politics | Suite101.com
The premise of this exhortation is that government's role is to provide security and order, so that its people (including the various Christian congregations) can live their lives in peace and tranquility.

Paul developed government's role in more depth in his letter to the church at Rome, explaining that the presence of evil in the world necessitates civil institutions that can restrain it (Romans 13:4).

According to Paul, government is "ordained by God" (Romans 13:2) to promote justice, restrain evil, and protect the people under its care (Romans 13:3-4).

In order for government to accomplish its responsibilities, it "bears the sword" (Romans 13:4), levies taxes and tribute (Romans 13:6), and lays a just claim to its people's support (Romans 13:5,7).

 

[chgocub23]

Whiskey, I understand what you are saying, and agree...most of the time, in reference to this thread I do believe though that it fits.

 

[jakerbluegold]

America - Fuck Yeah! - YouTube

 

[Mr. Larson]

Here is an exerpt from this site: What Does the Bible Say About Government?: Biblical Principles Concerning Christians and Politics | Suite101.com
The premise of this exhortation is that government's role is to provide security and order, so that its people (including the various Christian congregations) can live their lives in peace and tranquility.

Paul developed government's role in more depth in his letter to the church at Rome, explaining that the presence of evil in the world necessitates civil institutions that can restrain it (Romans 13:4).

According to Paul, government is "ordained by God" (Romans 13:2) to promote justice, restrain evil, and protect the people under its care (Romans 13:3-4).

In order for government to accomplish its responsibilities, it "bears the sword" (Romans 13:4), levies taxes and tribute (Romans 13:6), and lays a just claim to its people's support (Romans 13:5,7).

For me it's state with a chaser of church. Gotta try not to mix 'em.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Whiskey, I understand what you are saying, and agree...most of the time, in reference to this thread I do believe though that it fits.

I really don't want to get into this argument on a CFB message board, but I've always interpreted those passages as referring to government in the abstract.

Many early Christians believed that Jesus would be returning imminently to establish the Kingdom of God (literally) on earth. Others believed that God was the only legitimate source of authority, which meant they didn't have to pay taxes or follow the mandates of their local governor.

Paul is simply addressing those arguments by explaining what should be obvious: (1) robust civil institutions can promote the greater good; and (2) governments can wield legitimate authority.

Civil institutions, and the governments they undergird, can also be unjust, repressive, and fundamentally evil. Do you think those passages establish the legitimacy of governments like Iran, North Korea, or China?

I don't know of any Biblical passage which helps clarify the murky legal issues surrounding the assassination of al-Awlaki.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

NEXT!

 

[BobD]

We rid the world of a bad guy.

We saved a lot of money by avoiding a trial.

We put Americans to work building missles.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I was an environmental studies professor for 30 years and as such WAY left of dshans territory on many issues, but on this exact case, I believe that the administration was justified and even praiseworthy for their decision. My reasons:

A). the man advocated killing American citizens and actually participated/aided in more than one plot to do so;
B). long ago, congress agreed with Bush to declare a state-of-war existing between the US and Al-Quaida. In a state-of-war it is justifiable to kill enemy combatants when feasible. An American citizen engaged in clear plots against the country is called "being a traitor".
C). this person's activities constituted a clear-and-present danger to US citizens, and within the context of operating within an enemy organization, should be considered equal to firing a gun at our citizenry, even though it is a slow bullet.
D). this decision was not taken casually nor precipitously. It was discussed for many weeks, involving much legal counsel as to its legality.

I am no fan of assassinations. But I am tolerant of prudent defensive actions against an individual who is agreed upon by intelligence experts of all agencies and countries to be guilty of capital crime plots against the nation and its citizenry. This is like waiting for a person to shoot you before you are able to shoot back. Had he died in some generalized [rather than targeted] attack upon an Al-Quaida nest, none of this conversation would be happening.

This is not broadbrush "policy thinking" by me, nor the Obama government. I, and I trust they, will address each situation with the individual analysis that it has. This for sure ain't Goebbels.

 

[NDFANnSouthWest]

I was an environmental studies professor for 30 years and as such WAY left of dshans territory on many issues, but on this exact case, I believe that the administration was justified and even praiseworthy for their decision. My reasons:

A). the man advocated killing American citizens and actually participated/aided in more than one plot to do so;
B). long ago, congress agreed with Bush to declare a state-of-war existing between the US and Al-Quaida. In a state-of-war it is justifiable to kill enemy combatants when feasible. An American citizen engaged in clear plots against the country is called "being a traitor".
C). this person's activities constituted a clear-and-present danger to US citizens, and within the context of operating within an enemy organization, should be considered equal to firing a gun at our citizenry, even though it is a slow bullet.
D). this decision was not taken casually nor precipitously. It was discussed for many weeks, involving much legal counsel as to its legality.

I am no fan of assassinations. But I am tolerant of prudent defensive actions against an individual who is agreed upon by intelligence experts of all agencies and countries to be guilty of capital crime plots against the nation and its citizenry. This is like waiting for a person to shoot you before you are able to shoot back. Had he died in some generalized [rather than targeted] attack upon an Al-Quaida nest, none of this conversation would be happening.

This is not broadbrush "policy thinking" by me, nor the Obama government. I, and I trust they, will address each situation with the individual analysis that it has. This for sure ain't Goebbels.

OMM- I wish I was a student in your class.

 

[ulukinatme]

'Murica!

 

[BobD]

OMM- I wish I was a student in your class.

Me too.

 

[IrishAlum1997]

What can the government stretch to make someone a "terrorist"? Even though he was a terrible person and worked with a terrible organization of terrible people, he was still an American citizen. American citizens have freedom of speech and the right to due process, and a strong argument that al-Awlaki was deprived of both of them for being executed for being a propagandist while not getting a trial.

The problem is that it opens a floodgate on what the U.S. can kill their own citizens for.

Why do you think Taco Bell was so upset about the controversy with the meat they use? That chihuahua is in Witness Protection.You seen him lately? And don't get me started on their decision not to put scallions on their nachos anymore......

 

[Whiskeyjack]

OMM- I wish I was a student in your class.

We all are. It's LIFE 101. Now sit down and STFU, because class is in session.

 

[Irish Houstonian]

The implications of killing an American citizen without even a trial are scary though.

If you are stating your personal view on the subject, then I understand and you're certainly entitled to it.

From a legal standpoint, the fact that Al-Aulaqi was targeted for taking operational part in groups engaged in armed conflict with the United States seals his fate, and his citizenship in the U.S. affords him no more due process rights than his terrorist brethren.

If you are more (subtly) commenting on the executive branch's summary decision-making that he was an enemy combatant, it's worth noting that the CIA and the U.S. gov't does not take the position that it's entitled to "summarily execute" *any* citizen-enemy/combatant. Rather, it's internal position seems to be that, as a matter of policy and as authorized under the Authorzed Use of Military Force, it could execute Al-Aulaqi because he:

1.is believed to be “part of” enemy forces within the meaning of the AUMF;
2.has been on notice for a lengthy period of time that he is regarded as such, is clearly aware of that, and has not only not denied it but actively taunted U.S. forces about their inability to get him;
3.has not made any attempt to surrender;
4.is believed to be playing an active, operational role in attacks against the United States; and
5.is camped out in a country that is unable to exercise civilian authority in the region in which he is located.

Based on these justifiable findings, substantiated at that, I find this military action far from "scary". (Heck, you might not even need the AUMF, and could simply justify the action under the President's power as Commander in Chief under Article II).

But again everyone's entitled to his or her opinion.

 

[notredomer23]

I'm glad you have so much faith in the system, unless you mean a revolution. Then you are a targeted killing if you ever go overseas!

Ron Paul is an ND fan???

Bro seriously? This man is linked to terrorist attacks. Al-Quada LOVED him because of his American ties and he was probably one of the most wanted people in the world.

Its just one less scum bag in the world who wanted to destroy the American way of life. I do not see the problem. He was considered an enemy combatant

 

[jakerbluegold]

Matt Damon in Team America - YouTube

Oh yeah, I just went there.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

Suck it, dbag.

Anwar al-Aulaqi, U.S.-born cleric linked to al-Qaeda, reported killed in Yemen - The Washington Post

Good riddance. Rot in hell.

 

[NoJusticeNoPeace]

Here is an exerpt from this site: What Does the Bible Say About Government?: Biblical Principles Concerning Christians and Politics | Suite101.com
The premise of this exhortation is that government's role is to provide security and order, so that its people (including the various Christian congregations) can live their lives in peace and tranquility.

Paul developed government's role in more depth in his letter to the church at Rome, explaining that the presence of evil in the world necessitates civil institutions that can restrain it (Romans 13:4).

According to Paul, government is "ordained by God" (Romans 13:2) to promote justice, restrain evil, and protect the people under its care (Romans 13:3-4).

In order for government to accomplish its responsibilities, it "bears the sword" (Romans 13:4), levies taxes and tribute (Romans 13:6), and lays a just claim to its people's support (Romans 13:5,7).

Thank god it's not a theocracy in America.

 

[TerryTate]

Thank god it's not a theocracy in America.

Now we agree.

 

[PJWhitfield]

I wonder if he heard the drone thing coming at the last second. Or does it happen too fast?