Forums Register login What's New?
Props to the Military, CIA and, yes, to Obama
Page 2 of 19
  1. I know NPR isn't popular around here but when they played their news piece about this, they opened with something to the effect of "Anwar al-Awlaki advocating the killing of Americans, saying it was either us or them. Well today, it is HIM." It made me guffaw.
  2. There is a radical Arab group in every neighborhood in the middle east. Some big, some tiny. The main thing is that they all have separate agendas. Usually it is all local politics. The thing about Al Qaeda is that bin Ladin and al-Zawahri turned a couple of regional groups into groups with an agenda of attacking the US. Without these leaders, the agendas return to stating alive in whatever particular hellhole they live in. In time new leaders will emerge, but they might have developed a more winnable agenda than taking on the US.
  3. So y'all are fine with this guy not being afforded due process?
  4. Oh you mean actually following the law. Nah. Most modern day citizens just like to give power to their all mighty presidents.

    More people need to listen to the Judge:

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnem1Ohm3Q0"]When The President Can Kill Whoever He Wants - YouTube[/ame]
  5. He was an enemy combatant who had taken up arms against the United States. My own brother should not get due process in a case like that.
  6. exactly. particularly if the agenda of attacking the US means you get blown to bits by US drones. the newer leaders might want to target rival muslims or someone we dont give a **** about.

    for once obama is right about something. the solution to terrorism is simple. kill terrorists. we are severely lucky that obama is doing these things.
  7. Appeasement has always encouraged and emboldened the aggressor throughout history. When chamberland willingly gave up parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler for peace it only made hitler believe it would be acceptable to go into Poland. President after president has tried to reason with radical Islamic leaders. They only seen this as appeasement and took it as western weakness. Since 911 things have changed. Both republican and democratic presidents have since been on the attack. Appeasement of terrorist will not bring peace. Only the continued pressure of American military power will bring security. Isreal is in the same boat. The problem is when isreal does it the world erupts aginst them. They have known what we have learned, killing terrorist is the only way to have peace. You must kill Islamic terrorist no matter where they are. Obama has done just that in Pakistan and yeman.
  8. cmon man, its it is Israel
  9. I know he's been proven guilty in the court of public opinion. Was he proven guilty by a military tribunal or by unnamed officers in the CIA?

    I believe he is an admitted member of al Qaeda and that he spoke publically against the US and for suicide attackers. There is question of if we have proof he participated in the planning of any attacks, ie "taking up arms against the US."

    It certainly seems to me aligning yourself with a terrorist organization to the extent he did should be considered treason. But was he deserving of a trial? Is vocally hating America enough reason to assassinate someone?

    The White House doesn't seem to want to discuss this.
    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KvnFeW4hIc]WHITE HOUSE SAYS, " We Dont Have Evidence Of Anwar Al-Awlaki's guilt." - YouTube[/ame]
  10. I would if he were a citizen.

    But . . .

    Section 349 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1481) states that U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain specified acts:

    1. obtaining naturalization in a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (1) INA);

    2. taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions (Sec. 349 (a) (2) INA);

    3. entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state (Sec. 349 (a) (3) INA);

    4. accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) an oath or declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position (Sec. 349 (a) (4) INA);

    5. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer outside the United States (sec. 349 (a) (5) INA);

    6. formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only under strict, narrow statutory conditions) (Sec. 349 (a) (6) INA);

    7. conviction for an act of treason (Sec. 349 (a) (7) INA).
    ​
    I see at least four possible legal reasons to conclude that he had lost his citizenship and is due no rights under law.
(You have insufficient privileges to reply here.)
Page 2 of 19