Anwar al-Awlaki targeted for assassination by CIA

[Cain]

Which, admittedly, doesn't give him much to worry about, but still....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/06/AR2010040604121.html?hpid=topnews
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

You'll note he can be assassinated no matter how far from a battlefield he is, and that the basis for his targeting is the say of US intelligence officials, not conviction for his role in terrorist attacks, which remain unproven (as an aside, look up his history on Wikipedia...you'll see about the only thing he hasn't been accused of is being linked to the killers of Princess Diana).

Now personally, I think assassination is a much more preferable way of waging war than sending 200,000 soldiers tromping around the place, but on the other hand, I can't say that Obama and the CIA's legion of killer flying monkeys robots exactly inspire me with confidence.  Because, of course, anything America is willing to do to a citizen, it is willing to do ten times over to a foreigner.  On the basis of spook gossip and disinformation, no less.  It's kinda like how I have little qualms about having to defend myself using potentially lethal force, yet the death penalty, when used by the state, bothers me.  I know I could be trusted with such a tool, but I sure as hell can't say the same about them.

Anyway, your President has basically not only assumed he has the power to extra-legally execute his own citizens, he is now actively ordering it.  Think happy thoughts.

[Da6s]

In all honesty, i imagine there's enough evidence to warrant a call like this. And i imagine its been slightly thrown out of context.

If it prevents another timothy mcveigh, and there's proof of it, then i'd personally say "use of deadly force to kill this fucking asshole is authorized. Oh, and btw, if you can bring him in, that's cool too. if not, no worries."

[Doktor Howl]

In all honesty, i imagine there's enough evidence to warrant a call like this. And i imagine its been slightly thrown out of context.

If it prevents another timothy mcveigh, and there's proof of it, then i'd personally say "use of deadly force to kill this fucking asshole is authorized. Oh, and btw, if you can bring him in, that's cool too. if not, no worries."

I imagine YOU have terrorist leanings.  Ergo, we have to kill you while you're taking a shit, with Hellfire missile through the crapper window.

You weren't convicted, and it's all supposition, but we can't be too careful.

[Da6s]

I'd be more understanding if this guy weren't living in yemen at the same time the yemen government wants him taken out.

Just seems like the media's blowing it out of proportion. Not that they ever do that.

[Doktor Howl]

I'd be more understanding if this guy weren't living in yemen at the same time the yemen government wants him taken out.

Just seems like the media's blowing it out of proportion. Not that they ever do that.

And the government always tells us the truth, and can be trusted with the ability to kill anyone they want, whenever they want, when "terrorism" is involved.

[Da6s]

I'd be more understanding if this guy weren't living in yemen at the same time the yemen government wants him taken out.

Just seems like the media's blowing it out of proportion. Not that they ever do that.

And the government always tells us the truth, and can be trusted with the ability to kill anyone they want, whenever they want, when "terrorism" is involved.

This topic will arise again, i've no doubt. And i imagine it'll be a lot closer to home. I'll save my rabble rabble rabble for when it does.

The CIA's had a list of "people it's ok to cap" since the cold war. This one just happens to be some guy that was born in the lower 48.

[Doktor Howl]

I'd be more understanding if this guy weren't living in yemen at the same time the yemen government wants him taken out.

Just seems like the media's blowing it out of proportion. Not that they ever do that.

And the government always tells us the truth, and can be trusted with the ability to kill anyone they want, whenever they want, when "terrorism" is involved.

This topic will arise again, i've no doubt. And i imagine it'll be a lot closer to home. I'll save my rabble rabble rabble for when it does.

The CIA's had a list of "people it's ok to cap" since the cold war. This one just happens to be some guy that was born in the lower 48.

You're okay with this?  For real?

[Remington]

When, exactly, did rule of law go belly-up?

I only started following politics a year or two ago, but it seems I can't remember.

[Nast]

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said: "This agency conducts its counterterrorism operations in strict accord with the law."

Which is great, except for when the law allows the execution of citizens on basis of suspicion.

[johnnybrainwash]

When, exactly, did rule of law go belly-up?

Some parts of it have always been that way, but not so openly. This modern trend began under Bush, who didn't mind being the bad guy to set the precedent, and it seems like Obama has the political cover to expand on it without consequence. Bush did it out of conviction, but I suspect Obama is doing it out of convenience.

[MMIX]

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said: "This agency conducts its counterterrorism operations in strict accord with the law."

Which is great, except for when the law allows the execution of citizens on basis of suspicion.

. . . back to the law of the jungle then . . .

and Remington - the law is doing just fine . . . its just not the law you wanted

[Remington]

CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano said: "This agency conducts its counterterrorism operations in strict accord with the law."

Which is great, except for when the law allows the execution of citizens on basis of suspicion.

. . . back to the law of the jungle then . . .

and Remington - the law is doing just fine . . . its just not the law you wanted

Well yes, I am a bit concerned about a law that allows a government to execute its own people without evidence or trial.

Are you suggesting that I shouldn't be?

[Ari]

The sad thing is that I am not really surprised, or shocked. After the whole gobbledegook with indefinite suspension it's now officially okay to execute anyone on this earth without trial if that person is deemed to be a threat to the state.
Everyone cheers and soon we will have one happy world free of TERROR.
Oh wait -

~planeswalker
waiting for the thought police to arrive

[Shibboleet The Annihilator]

In all honesty, i imagine there's enough evidence to warrant a call like this. And i imagine its been slightly thrown out of context.

If it prevents another timothy mcveigh, and there's proof of it, then i'd personally say "use of deadly force to kill this fucking asshole is authorized. Oh, and btw, if you can bring him in, that's cool too. if not, no worries."

I imagine YOU have terrorist leanings.  Ergo, we have to kill you while you're taking a shit, with Hellfire missile through the crapper window.

You weren't convicted, and it's all supposition, but we can't be too careful.

Well, he has been repeatedly trying to persuade people to attack the United States and he is actively participating in attacks now. Fuck yeah, lets kill Dags.

[LMNO]

This just in: New evidence shows Anwar al-Awlaki killed Princess Diana.