Obama the pioneer

[Keevan_Colton]

Little moral question, if things like blowing up a funeral just to "send a message" and possibly kill more people connected with a target that offers praise and support for the "enemy" are justified...

What was wrong with 9/11?

[TheHammer]

Incitement to violence with the intent that said violence will be carried out is far more than a "nasty thing".

Great then why was he not charged in incitement of violence (Making terrorististic threats it the statue if I recall)

But, if you insist on handwaiving away because it "wasn't admitted in court" then I don't know what to tell you. You can stick your head in the sand and pretend it's all some conspiracy if you want, and in fact I expect that you will.

Great, then why was Awlaki not charged in that case as a co-conspirator, perhaps because this evidence your claiming existed did not exist.

Charges were unncessary because he was a legitimate, active military target and it was under those circumstances that he was killed. Had he been capture he most certainly would have been charged. And lest you think "they had nothing to pin on him so thats why they didn't want to capture him", let me remind you that since the Yemeni court had convicted him that he was already facing 10 years there even if he had somehow escaped a guilty verdict in the U.S.

Of course the constitution applies, however how it applies is at issue. You view it as an issue of a person's rights, and I view it as an issue under Presidential powers as commander-n-chief of the military to designate military targets.

So I as the President can declare an American citizen a "military target" at will? Remeber they were not attacking suspected and known AQAP strongholds, they were gunning for and trying to hit Awlaki specifically

No, the President can't designate any American citizen a military target "at will". This is the slippery slope sky is falling bullshit, rather then recognition of this being a rare case under unusual circumstances that I'm talking about.

Regardless of where he was Awlaki was a member of AQAP. His own words indicate that he was proud of that fact. AQAP even released a most mortem video of him, with additional commentary praising his "example". Unless you are seriously going to tell me that you don't believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that awlaki was a member of AQAP you have no grounds here.

Again, I don't care. He was in Yemen and subject to Yemeni laws. A Yemeni judge had ordered him brought to justice dead or alive. The US simply was providing assistance to the Yemeni courts in that matter. Yes I'm being partially facetious here, but the notion that he was "never convicted of anything" is a false one.

Please find evidence that any Yemeni judge order him brought in dead or alive. In 2010 he was charged in Yemen courts and the authorities began negotiating with tribal officials to hand Awlaki over for trial. No kill or capture order was ever issued by Yemen. This however again raises the issue on why an American citizen not charged in the United States was killed on behalf of Yemen, was this a job.

There are no shortage of sources saying exactly what I said...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 27356.html

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeas ... 35305.html

Want more?

Yes because we leveled the settlements of the tribe hiding awlaki.

Yeah... we kinda did, the Awlakis have suffered ninety seven dead at US Drone strikes.

No, we kinda didn't. We took out the vehichle he was riding in. Obviously others were killed along with him, and have died in other drone strikes but I'm curious as to how many of them were also AQAP members as opposed to truly innocent bystanders.

[Serafina]

So - guilty until proven innocent, by virtue of being related to man who was declared guilty without trial?
Truly, this is justice! /sarcasm

[Terralthra]

Of course the constitution applies, however how it applies is at issue. You view it as an issue of a person's rights, and I view it as an issue under Presidential powers as commander-n-chief of the military to designate military targets.

So I as the President can declare an American citizen a "military target" at will? Remeber they were not attacking suspected and known AQAP strongholds, they were gunning for and trying to hit Awlaki specifically

The killing of Admiral Yamamoto comes to mind. Complete with the specific targeting based on signal intelligence, revenge for planning/contributing to planning attack(s) against the US, and a Presidential directive, "Get Yamamoto."

Is your logic that Adm. Yamamoto should never have been targeted, because the evidence that he contributed significantly to planning Operation AI was never heard in a court of law? Is FDR guilty of murder? How is Obama in any way a "pioneer"?

[Metahive]

So, Yamamoto was an american citizen, whose only "crime" was to say mean things about his home country?

In not so many words, apples and oranges.

[Serafina]

He was also on official record as a member of a military of a nation which was at war with the United States at that time. Which makes him a legitimate target of war.

As opposed to terrorists - even if they are officially members of a terrorist organization (was Alwaki?), a terrorist organization is not a nation and you can not declare war on it (well, not anymore than americans declare wars on drugs, poverty and bad bible translations). It's a criminal organization, which means that the rules of handling criminals apply.

[Terralthra]

So, Yamamoto was an american citizen, whose only "crime" was to say mean things about his home country?

In not so many words, apples and oranges.

What does citizenry matter? If something is wrong to do to an American citizen, it's wrong to do to a non-American citizen.

And Yamamoto was a planning officer for the entire second world war. He certainly did nothing more than help plan strategy and issue orders for it to be done. By the Al-Awlaki logic, he's just as blameless, since he didn't actually do anything tangibly harmful.

He was also on official record as a member of a military of a nation which was at war with the United States at that time. Which makes him a legitimate target of war.

As opposed to terrorists - even if they are officially members of a terrorist organization (was Alwaki?), a terrorist organization is not a nation and you can not declare war on it (well, not anymore than americans declare wars on drugs, poverty and bad bible translations). It's a criminal organization, which means that the rules of handling criminals apply.

The Geneva Conventions disagree with you, and so does Al Qaeda. "It's a criminal organization, so you can't be at war with it, you have to use criminal justice systems," appears to be a kind of self-serving assertion without evidence. Do you consider this sort of thing axiomatic, and simply never question it, ever?

Israel didn't - and doesn't - use criminal justice systems against the PLO, Hezbollah, nor Hamas. They respond militarily to organizations posing a military threat, regardless of state association (or lack thereof). Colombia, Mexico, and other countries in central and south america engage with drug cartels with the use of military operations. This is not a simple black/white issue, yet you appear to be boiling it down to an Eddie Izzard-esque "Do you have a flag?"

[Grumman]

...I'm curious as to how many of them were also AQAP members as opposed to truly innocent bystanders.

But not so curious as to want a second opinion or any kind of oversight, right? If Obama told you every single one of them was a terrorist on his hit list, would you take that claim as fact?

[Terralthra]

...I'm curious as to how many of them were also AQAP members as opposed to truly innocent bystanders.

But not so curious as to want a second opinion or any kind of oversight, right? If Obama told you every single one of them was a terrorist on his hit list, would you take that claim as fact?

Ah, yet another excellent parallel! 19 people were killed on two converted aircraft during Operation Vengeance. Are we supposed to just believe that the other 18 were all members of the Japanese military and thus legitimate targets? I won't believe it until it's proved in a court of law.

[Grumman]

Ah, yet another excellent parallel! 19 people were killed on two converted aircraft during Operation Vengeance. Are we supposed to just believe that the other 18 were all members of the Japanese military and thus legitimate targets? I won't believe it until it's proved in a court of law.

I'm sure that this attempt to throw up chaff sounded smarter in your head, but when you're talking about Japanese military bombers known to be carrying specific Japanese military officers conducting an inspection of Japanese military assets and escorted by Japanese military fighters, it is reasonable to assume that these are Japanese military personnel. When you drop an airstrike on a funeral or a family's house, it is not reasonable to assume that everyone there is a terrorist.

[Terralthra]

Ah, yet another excellent parallel! 19 people were killed on two converted aircraft during Operation Vengeance. Are we supposed to just believe that the other 18 were all members of the Japanese military and thus legitimate targets? I won't believe it until it's proved in a court of law.

I'm sure that this attempt to throw up chaff sounded smarter in your head, but when you're talking about Japanese military bombers known to be carrying specific Japanese military officers conducting an inspection of Japanese military assets and escorted by Japanese military fighters, it is reasonable to assume that these are Japanese military personnel. When you drop an airstrike on a funeral or a family's house, it is not reasonable to assume that everyone there is a terrorist.

I don't know if you know this, but Air Force One repeatedly carries specific military officers conducting inspection tours of military assets, escorted by military fighters, but frequently carries a mix of non-military and military personnel.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Little moral question, if things like blowing up a funeral just to "send a message" and possibly kill more people connected with a target that offers praise and support for the "enemy" are justified...

What was wrong with 9/11?

I'm guessing the answer would be "scale". That minimizes the reality. It is the same thing. Reduced and relabeled to be palatable. The way that our combat operations are conducted has proven to be an effective recruiting tool for AQ.

I'm not against the killing of Awlaki. He was a legitimate military target for reasons listed by other posters here and I find it strange that people grasp at straws over the killing of a religious violent fundie.

[TheHammer]

So - guilty until proven innocent, by virtue of being related to man who was declared guilty without trial?
Truly, this is justice! /sarcasm

So, Yamamoto was an american citizen, whose only "crime" was to say mean things about his home country?

In not so many words, apples and oranges.

He was also on official record as a member of a military of a nation which was at war with the United States at that time. Which makes him a legitimate target of war.

As opposed to terrorists - even if they are officially members of a terrorist organization (was Alwaki?), a terrorist organization is not a nation and you can not declare war on it (well, not anymore than americans declare wars on drugs, poverty and bad bible translations). It's a criminal organization, which means that the rules of handling criminals apply.

...I'm curious as to how many of them were also AQAP members as opposed to truly innocent bystanders.

But not so curious as to want a second opinion or any kind of oversight, right? If Obama told you every single one of them was a terrorist on his hit list, would you take that claim as fact?

The reality is, that by the time it has reached Obama it has already had numerous opinions weighing on the matter. Its not as if Obama is pulling these names out of his ass, or throwing darts at a board. And I guess that's why I don't get why everyone is acting like its such a big deal that there is a list. At least the names on the list have been vetted somewhat, whereas there are many others killed via drone strikes that simply simply be labled as "unknown enemy combatant". Save up those tears, and weep for the ones that never even made it on to the list, yet are just as dead as that worthless piece of shit Awlaki.