Yemen says al-Qaida-linked cleric al-Awlaki killed


CEE DOG

CEE DOG

Well-Known Member
http://news.yahoo.com/yemen-says-al-qaida-linked-cleric-al-awlaki-092634554.html

SANAA, Yemen (AP) — Yemen's Defense Ministry said Friday that the U.S.-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed.

The Yemeni ministry provided no details in the statement, which appeared on one of its website.

Yemeni security and tribal officials said an airstrike thought to have been carried out by U.S. aircraft on Friday targeted a convoy of cars traveling in the eastern province of Marib but could not say whether al-Awlaki was in the convoy.

The 40-year-old al-Awlaki is believed to have inspired and even plotted or helped coordinate some of the recent attacks on the U.S., including the failed Christmas Day 2009 bombing of an airliner heading for Detroit, Michigan, and the also unsuccessful plot to send mail bombs on planes from Yemen to the United States in October.

The American-born son of Yemeni parents rose to prominence as al-Qaida's English-speaking voice and electronic messenger, spreading its terrorist credo via a blog, social media posts and email exchanges with such people as the U.S. Army major accused of a murderous shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas.
 

Click here to visit HBCUSportsShop
The execution of the suspected al-Qaeda operative comes despite the United States never formally bringing charges against al-Awlaki. While evidence has indeed linked him to terrorist operations, the extrajudicial killing could create a slippery slope in which the CIA launches other airstrike without charges ever being filed, especially given that al-Awlaki is an American citizen. Not only there is no legal basis for extrajudicial killing of American citizens, it is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees every citizen a right for a fair trial.

http://rt.com/usa/news/cia-two-al-awlaki-us-811/
 
Rated R Superstar said:
The execution of the suspected al-Qaeda operative comes despite the United States never formally bringing charges against al-Awlaki. While evidence has indeed linked him to terrorist operations, the extrajudicial killing could create a slippery slope in which the CIA launches other airstrike without charges ever being filed, especially given that al-Awlaki is an American citizen. Not only there is no legal basis for extrajudicial killing of American citizens, it is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees every citizen a right for a fair trial.

http://rt.com/usa/news/cia-two-al-awlaki-us-811/
Click to expand...
huh? This country doesnt need any evidence to kill someone. Look at all the people that were killed or jailed in the 60's just by someone saying that they were "Communist". We (as a country) never needed evidence.
 
Blacknbengal said:
huh? This country doesnt need any evidence to kill someone. Look at all the people that were killed or jailed in the 60's just by someone saying that they were "Communist". We (as a country) never needed evidence.
Click to expand...

While what you say is true, that still doesn't mean the U.S. government should be allowed to circumvent the Constitution. They shouldn't have been allowed to do it in 60s, and shouldn't be allowed to do it in 2011. Let’s begin with the fact Anwar al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen. He was ordered assassinated by the President of the United States without presenting any evidence of any kind as to his guilt, without attempting to indict him in any way or comply with any of the requirements of the Constitution that say that you can’t deprive someone of life without due process of law.

The president ordered him killed wherever he was found, including far away from a battle field, no matter what it was he was doing at the time. And if you’re somebody who believes that the president of the United States has the power to order your fellow citizens murdered, assassinated, killed without even a shred of due process, without having to have charged him with a crimes or indict him and prove in a court he’s actually guilty, then you’re really declaring yourself to be as pure of an authoritarian as it gets.
 
Blacknbengal said:
huh? This country doesnt need any evidence to kill someone. Look at all the people that were killed or jailed in the 60's just by someone saying that they were "Communist". We (as a country) never needed evidence.
Click to expand...

While what you say is true, that still doesn't mean the U.S. government should be allowed to circumvent the Constitution. They shouldn't have been allowed to do it in 60s, and shouldn't be allowed to do it in 2011. Let’s begin with the fact Anwar al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen. He was ordered assassinated by the President of the United States without presenting any evidence of any kind as to his guilt, without attempting to indict him in any way or comply with any of the requirements of the Constitution that say that you can’t deprive someone of life without due process of law.

The president ordered him killed wherever he was found, including far away from a battle field, no matter what it was he was doing at the time. And if you’re somebody who believes that the president of the United States has the power to order your fellow citizens murdered, assassinated, killed without even a shred of due process, without having to have charged him with a crimes or indict him and prove in a court he’s actually guilty, then you’re really declaring yourself to be as pure of an authoritarian as it gets.
 
I already know that this doesn't sit well with a lot of people but when you have these killers running loose and "speaking" all of their propaganda and could bring a total chaos to this nation AND they still are needed to be brought to justice for 911, :noidea:, so why not take them out :noidea:! See, the way some of these politicians see it they don't want certain entities/people/person to be in this situation to bring a major hurdle in the peace process, :wink:, so we must be faithful in our voting strategies in keeping certain people afloat, :wink:, and "keep hope alive!" As stated but going into further details, a lot of republicans feel that it is unethical being that it is endangering innocent lives of Yemens, using the old biblical interpretations, the Persians but that can be offset by the fact that the war in Iraq has endangered the lives of many innocent people-so where is the disapproval there :noidea:?
 
Last edited:
Gsu95 said:
I already know that this doesn't sit well with a lot of people but when you have these killers running loose and "speaking" all of their propaganda and could bring a total chaos to this nation AND they still are needed to be brought to justice for 911, :noidea:, so why not take them out :noidea:! See, the way some of these politicians see it they don't want certain entities/people/person to be in this situation to bring a major hurdle in the peace process, :wink:, so we must be faithful in our voting strategies in keeping certain people afloat, :wink:, and "keep hope alive!" As stated but going into further details, a lot of republicans feel that it is unethical being that it is endangering innocent lives of Yemens, using the old biblical interpretations, the Persians but that can be offset by the fact that the war in Iraq has endangered the lives of many innocent people-so where is the disapproval there :noidea:?
Click to expand...
I always thought that Bush was going to do that? He said it. And it's funny that no terrorist were killed under his watch. Seems like all the terrorists are being killed under Obama's watch. And I thought Bush suppose to be the "Cowboy" that no other leader wanted to mess with?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Told ya'll that fool was next. :lol:
And they got that American that was putting out all those videos also. :tup:
 
Blacknbengal said:
I always thought that Bush was going to do that? He said it. And it's funny that no terrorist were killed under his watch. Seems like all the terrorists are being killed under Obama's watch. And I thought Bush suppose to be the "Cowboy" that no other leader wanted to mess with?
Click to expand...

I was watching a segment from CNN and he said he said that there was more important things to worry about than Osama, NO LIE!!!, so IT does raise a creative question as to why is Obama is doing this and not him--ESPECIALLY SINCE IT WAS ON HIS "WATCH" :noidea:!
 
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

http://news.yahoo.com/secret-panel-put-americans-kill-list-041603267.html
 
Rated R Superstar said:
American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

http://news.yahoo.com/secret-panel-put-americans-kill-list-041603267.html
Click to expand...

I think the setup here is good in that it allows for secrecy from the perspective of who is actually "pulling the strings" and the laws are not being recorded allowing for people to not know key decisions that others may try to use to dictate others by not really knowing how to implement the LAW! Quote: "The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process"--This is what I think that Bush got away with all the SEAL Team missions that was HEAVILY CRITICIZED BUT that is what Obama said when he said that this country has a policy problem!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top