U.S.A. Intentionally Kills Citizen??

You have to understand Obama has to divert attention away from his failed economic policies and numerous scandals. What better way to go on an execution without trial rampage.

Obama the serial killer president

Its all good as long as its not on USA soil. To think that the US government would ever spend billions of dollars to assassinate innocent Americans sometime in the future is crappy idea. Him planning attacks on america at the same time we are fighting a war on terrorism, is conducive with picking up a gun in a regular war and shooting at us. If he didn't recognize that, then he deserved to die anyway. You can't jump in front of traffic and expect to not get hit by a car. He would have been arrested if he was in the united states. There's know where to hide bitches

""""""""""""""You do realize Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime in the US justice system? What US citizens were killed as a result of his efforts? Do facts matter to you naive, propagandized fools? Maybe you will someday be called a terrorist without trial -- would you support that as well?[/quote]"""""""""""""""""

False. The GOP bankrupted the economy under Bush.

You do realize Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime in the US justice system? What US citizens were killed as a result of his efforts? Do facts matter to you naive, propagandized fools? Maybe you will someday be called a terrorist without trial -- would you support that as well?

I'll concede the point if you can show your disapproval of Al-Awalaki being put on the CIA kill list a year and a half ago:

If not, you're late to the party, pick a new cause.

Also, if I'm someday called a terrorist without a trial, I doubt I'll support that. I don't think this changes my opinion.

I don't now how long this charade can last. How can resisting foreign occupation be a crime ? The U.S. was founded on liberty and kicked out the British in the 1700s yet in the 1940s the U.S. invaded and today maintains a colony in Palestine. Don't Americans expect folks in the Middle East to fight for liberty ? It's crazy.

smoke em if you got em wrote:

[quote]You do realize Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime in the US justice system? What US citizens were killed as a result of his efforts? Do facts matter to you naive, propagandized fools? Maybe you will someday be called a terrorist without trial -- would you support that as well?

I'll concede the point if you can show your disapproval of Al-Awalaki being put on the CIA kill list a year and a half ago:

If not, you're late to the party, pick a new cause.

So unless I can prove to your satisfaction that I disapproved of the CIA kill list a year ago I must go along with the murder of these people?

What did they do to you? You guys are so confused

The New UncleB wrote:

So unless I can prove to your satisfaction that I disapproved of the CIA kill list a year ago I must go along with the murder of these people?

What did they do to you? You guys are so confused

Why does it matter so much that they were American citizens? Or is that not the point in your eyes?

The Nazi Obama regime loves to kill Muslim whites.

One thing I think everyone can agree on is liberals and the Democratic party are the most hypocritical people on earth.

Imagine if McCain or Bush did this. There would be rioting in the streets by liberals. Senator Obama and Senators clinton, Kerry, etc would be calling for immediate impeachment hearings. But now, other than the ACLU, nobody on the left is uttering a word in opposition.

But what the fools dont understand is Obama is toast next year and now that he and his hypocritical flock have set this precedent the Republican president will be able to do the same thing and the liberals will have to look back and face the reality that they screwed themselves again.

Obama is the best thing to ever happen to the Republican party; the gift that keeps on giving.

This is a "neat" issue because I truly feel that Obama/CIA has no legal grounds at all to take this action, but they totally have the moral/ethical grounds.

The guy was not threatening anybody, at the time, there was no attempt to arrest him, no miranda rights, etc. This scenario would not hold up in any other situation.

On the other hand... He took credit for all kinds of horrible actions/crimes and was obviously a long-term, legitimate, threat.

The one, middle ground I can see is if Obama puts the guy in the "kill/capture" list, and that it publicized and it includes the warning that if you don't turn yourself in you will be lethally pursued. Still , that list is a BS legal tactic.

Traveler wrote:

The one, middle ground I can see is if Obama puts the guy in the "kill/capture" list, and that it publicized and it includes the warning that if you don't turn yourself in you will be lethally pursued. Still , that list is a BS legal tactic.

It was well known he was on the kill list. Look up stories from over a year ago. The White House approved it.

What do you mean it's a BS legal tactic?

Silly Old Fossil wrote:

Illegal aliens that commit murder here in the United States are afforded a trial and their civil rights.

Where's the consistency?

By golly you're right! Well, let's hope the next prez makes some changes around these parts...

Saz!@12^lk*qmnd+(^);o) wrote:

Imagine if McCain or Bush did this. There would be rioting in the streets by liberals. Senator Obama and Senators clinton, Kerry, etc would be calling for immediate impeachment hearings. But now, other than the ACLU, nobody on the left is uttering a word in opposition.

No need to imagine, it already happened in 2002.

No riots, no impeachment hearings. Nothing. Turn off Rush and read a newspaper sometime.

nyet wrote:

No need to imagine, it already happened in 2002.

Please don't bring up any facts here. We're trying to have an important conversation.

Saz!@12^lk*qmnd+(^);o) wrote:

You have to understand Obama has to divert attention away from his failed economic policies and numerous scandals. What better way to go on an execution without trial rampage.

Obama the serial killer president

This "citizen" was complicit in the murder of 13 soldiers at Fort hood and helped mastermind the Detroit underwear bomber. He has also been implicated in several other terrorist attacks. He has not denied this. In fact, he has taken credit for these wonderful deeds.

While I'm not a fan of everything this president has done, to call him a serial killer for killing an enemy combatant is about as irresponsible as it gets. But people like you are the first ones to call the president soft on terrorism when the next attack by one of our citizens occurs.

I suppose you also think we are targets of terrorism because of our liberty and way of life?

I think both Awlaki and the Pakistani American Samir Khan gave up any rights to US citizenship when they decided it was ok to kill their fellow countrymen.

Both are dead and we are better off as a nation and the world because of it.

Protecting individual rights and liberties — apart from the right to be tax-free — seems barely relevant to candidates or voters. One man is primarily responsible for the disappearance of civil liberties from the national debate, and he is Barack Obama. While many are reluctant to admit it, Obama has proved a disaster not just for specific civil liberties but the civil liberties cause in the United States.

Civil libertarians have long had a dysfunctional relationship with the Democratic Party, which treats them as a captive voting bloc with nowhere else to turn in elections. Not even this history, however, prepared civil libertarians for Obama. After the George W. Bush years, they were ready to fight to regain ground lost after Sept. 11. Historically, this country has tended to correct periods of heightened police powers with a pendulum swing back toward greater individual rights. Many were questioning the extreme measures taken by the Bush administration, especially after the disclosure of abuses and illegalities. Candidate Obama capitalized on this swing and portrayed himself as the champion of civil liberties.

However, President Obama not only retained the controversial Bush policies, he expanded on them. The earliest, and most startling, move came quickly. Soon after his election, various military and political figures reported that Obama reportedly promised Bush officials in private that no one would be investigated or prosecuted for torture. In his first year, Obama made good on that promise, announcing that no CIA employee would be prosecuted for torture. Later, his administration refused to prosecute any of the Bush officials responsible for ordering or justifying the program and embraced the "just following orders" defense for other officials, the very defense rejected by the United States at the Nuremberg trials after World War II.

Obama failed to close Guantanamo Bay as promised. He continued warrantless surveillance and military tribunals that denied defendants basic rights. He asserted the right to kill U.S. citizens he views as terrorists. His administration has fought to block dozens of public-interest lawsuits challenging privacy violations and presidential abuses.

But perhaps the biggest blow to civil liberties is what he has done to the movement itself. It has quieted to a whisper, muted by the power of Obama's personality and his symbolic importance as the first black president as well as the liberal who replaced Bush. Indeed, only a few days after he took office, the Nobel committee awarded him the Nobel Peace Prize without his having a single accomplishment to his credit beyond being elected. Many Democrats were, and remain, enraptured.

It's almost a classic case of the Stockholm syndrome, in which a hostage bonds with his captor despite the obvious threat to his existence. Even though many Democrats admit in private that they are shocked by Obama's position on civil liberties, they are incapable of opposing him. Some insist that they are simply motivated by realism: A Republican would be worse. However, realism alone cannot explain the utter absence of a push for an alternative Democratic candidate or organized opposition to Obama's policies on civil liberties in Congress during his term. It looks more like a cult of personality. Obama's policies have become secondary to his persona.

Tommy2Nuttz wrote:

I think both Awlaki and the Pakistani American Samir Khan gave up any rights to US citizenship when they decided it was ok to kill their fellow countrymen.

You think it is OK for the government to execute without trial any American who kills another American? Don't you think that's a bit of a slippery slope?