Anwar al-Awlaki Slain!

[jordan179]

Courtesy of Ahmad al-Haj, AP, who is probably sobbing into his coffee over this one:

http://news.yahoo.com/us-strike-kills-american-al-qaida-cleric-yemen-122527842.html

In a significant new blow to al-Qaida, U.S. airstrikes in

Comments

[xolo]

Their sorry asses are dead, and I point and laugh!

[igorilla]

What, Obama assasinated an American citizen and "the nice people"(tm) and human rights activists are silent ?

[jordan179]

Well, he's the Lightworker. But in this case, the "American citizen" had fled his own country and was serving in enemy-controlled territory with the propganda wing of an organization upon which the US Congress had formally-authorized military operations, which is why I'm not too worried about it. Now, if we were using drone strikes against American citizens on American soil, or the soil of any other country from which we could easily extradite individuals, then I might be worried.

[expanding_x_man]

Most excellent news!

[banner]

I am bothered by the fact that there was no trial. They could have had a trial in absentia to determine if he was no longer a citizen, or if he was a traitor. To just kill a citizen like this is really a serious issue and should have been handled differently. Especially when the Obama administration has been pushing to give non-citizens citizen rights. You can't just take away the rights of a citizen without process.

[jordan179]

I am slightly bothered by this, but note that An-Awlaki repeatedly and publicly affirmed his allegiance to Al-Qaeda, and hence by direct implication his status as an enemy combatant and traitor. He is known to have participated in planning, ordering and encouraging armed attacks against the United States of America. There is no doubt of his guilt.

[headnoises]

Which should've made the trial a very simple matter of paperwork. >.<

"Tough cases make for bad law" now has an example besides laws-named-for-dead-children.

[jordan179]

Agreed ... I don't know why Obama didn't try him in absentia, as it would have been easy. Another example of Obama's poor grasp of the US Constitution, especially shameful in a man who claimed to have been well-educated in the specific field of Constitutional law.

[headnoises]

I really wish they'd gone through the process to legally declare him a traitor first....

[jordan179]

Agreed.

[cutelildrow]

(I hope you don't mind, but you're actually helping me piece together what I'm finding confusing about this! ^^; Also, giving me a more defined direction where to direct my reading-up of this.)

Is it necessary to have an American-Citizen terrorist legally declared a traitor? From what I am aware of, even Major Hassan was not stripped of his citizenship, but is being tried as an American Citizen for the crimes of premeditated murder, not terrorism, despite what he had actually done.

Similarly, the naturalized US Citizen who did the 2010 Times Square bombing attempt is still being TRIED as a US citizen despite the fact that he himself stated that he falsely swore on the oath of allegiance (one would think that he would have lost his citizenship and the privileges thereof for having lied under oath! BUT HE DIDN'T LOSE IT!)

Every case I've looked up so far seems to show that every American citizen who has been part of a terrorist attack has been tried for murder, not terrorism. There is also a noted reluctance in rescinding the

[oronoda]

Yes it is necessary if only because it opens up a dangerous back door. Like let's say a person in power is Jordan's friend "Vincent" who determines anyone who is conservative an "enemy of the state" and uses Al-Awlaki's death as a means to carry out assassinations when Jordan went abroad to see... IDK... Big Ben in London.

I understand where you're coming from but sometimes a rubber stamp IS a big deal and is a simple safety net to prevent tyranny. It is to prevent the precedent of it being used against people's rights in the future who are not entirely in the same situation.

As for those who aren't being convicted with acts of terrorism, I'm not really sure why. Perhaps because it is a bigger sentence and I could be wrong but it could be a charge only used in war zones. As long as they're put away for a long time, it's okay with me B)