pap Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 Like many, I was alarmed at the recent killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. Apparently, he was a very bad man, responsible for inspiring and nurturing Islamic terrorists. We'll probably never know. Awlaki was assassinated on the orders of President Obama for his alleged involvement in these activities. The politics of assassination has never sat easy with me. What's unusual about all this is that Awlaki was a US citizen, never indicted for a crime and not subject to any judicial process. Now I don't know about you, but I find this rather scary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 Like many, I was alarmed at the recent killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. Apparently, he was a very bad man, responsible for inspiring and nurturing Islamic terrorists. We'll probably never know. Awlaki was assassinated on the orders of President Obama for his alleged involvement in these activities. The politics of assassination has never sat easy with me. What's unusual about all this is that Awlaki was a US citizen, never indicted for a crime and not subject to any judicial process. Now I don't know about you, but I find this rather scary. why..? he was a very bad man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 Like many, I was alarmed at the recent killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. Apparently, he was a very bad man, responsible for inspiring and nurturing Islamic terrorists. We'll probably never know. Awlaki was assassinated on the orders of President Obama for his alleged involvement in these activities. The politics of assassination has never sat easy with me. What's unusual about all this is that Awlaki was a US citizen, never indicted for a crime and not subject to any judicial process. Now I don't know about you, but I find this rather scary. US citizen or not, if the US government has proof that he is responsible for planning terrorist attacks, they have the right to take him out. What I find odd is why these journalists talk as if they know everything about government intelligence. As if just because the govt hasn't released their information, it can't exist. Obama is hardly going to come out and say "we have proof, it was sent to us by Durka Durka Mohammed Jehad, our top secret mole within the Al Quaida top brass." Is the world a better place because of this assasination? We'll never know either way I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 I find it more reassuring than scary. Of course in principle assassinations are wrong but in reality there is little alternative in cases like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 Like many, I was alarmed at the recent killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. Apparently, he was a very bad man, responsible for inspiring and nurturing Islamic terrorists. We'll probably never know. Awlaki was assassinated on the orders of President Obama for his alleged involvement in these activities. The politics of assassination has never sat easy with me. What's unusual about all this is that Awlaki was a US citizen, never indicted for a crime and not subject to any judicial process. Now I don't know about you, but I find this rather scary. He was a clear and present danger and therefore a legitimate target. I'll lose no sleep over his death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 October, 2011 why..? he was a very bad man Normally, TDD, when we accuse people of being very bad men, particularly our own citizens, we arrest them, gather evidence to support the accusations of their guilt, allow them to defend themselves, and get twelve of their peers to assess their guilt. If found guilty, they receive the appropriate punishment. Confidence in the judicial process is essential for a functioning democracy. Judicial process was completely circumvented here. The Americans basically decided he was a bad man, and executed him. Doesn't that worry you? A little bit? Our justice system isn't perfect, but absent a proper frame-up, I would have general confidence that I would be acquitted if I was accused of a crime I did not commit. This guy didn't even get the chance. The US Government subverted judicial process, ordered the killing of one of its own citizens, and has literally gotten away with murder. Don't know what is scarier, that, or the fact that no-one seems to care. Designating people as enemies and simply killing them isn't new. It's what we rightly despised about the Soviet and Nazi regimes. It's a very slippery slope, and if we don't start to ask questions when the leader of the free world starts offing its own citizens, when do we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 these are not the sort of people that get arrested...they are not interested in being tried...either way, he was going to die Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 October, 2011 these are not the sort of people that get arrested...they are not interested in being tried...either way, he was going to die What criminal does want to get arrested? Or is interested in being tried? The criminals' lack of enthusiasm for being caught and convicted shouldn't stop us from trying to uphold the system we are supposedly trying to defend. The coppers can't say "the bloke doesn't want to be caught, doesn't want to be tried, so we'll just kill him instead", and nor should they. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 What criminal does want to get arrested? Or is interested in being tried? The criminals' lack of enthusiasm for being caught and convicted shouldn't stop us from trying to uphold the system we are supposedly trying to defend. The coppers can't say "the bloke doesn't want to be caught, doesn't want to be tried, so we'll just kill him instead", and nor should they. this is a world side mass murderer......better off dead IMO than a show trial and yes, just kill them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 October, 2011 this is a world side mass murderer......better off dead IMO than a show trial and yes, just kill them Where is the proof of this TDD? All of these things may be true, but they have not been proved to a judicial standard. You can try to justify the killing, but with no recognisable proof, there is no justification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 Where is the proof of this TDD? All of these things may be true, but they have not been proved to a judicial standard. You can try to justify the killing, but with no recognisable proof, there is no justification. proof..when do we ever see proof..? why do we need to see proof.. you can bet your ass the people ordering this would have sought legal advice on the proof they were privvy too... why are we going to see proof...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 I'd leave it Jamie, he's never worn a uniform, been PV'd and doesn't have a clue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 proof..when do we ever see proof..? why do we need to see proof.. you can bet your ass the people ordering this would have sought legal advice on the proof they were privvy too... why are we going to see proof...? quit your jibber jabber fool Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 I'd leave it Jamie, he's never worn a uniform, been PV'd and doesn't have a clue. So everyone in a uniform has no sense of justice? Nice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint in Paradise Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 Where is the proof of this TDD? All of these things may be true, but they have not been proved to a judicial standard. You can try to justify the killing, but with no recognisable proof, there is no justification. A very noble attitude when dealing with ordinary criminals. However when dealing with people who gloat about killing innocent people that attitude ^ is a primary reason why these murdering bas***** last so long and murder so many. All in my humble opinion of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norwaysaint Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 If President Obama says he wants to kill him, that's all the proof I need. This man is judge and jury to me. I've worn loads of uniforms and I also believe in the death penalty without trial if it's what the government want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 October, 2011 If President Obama says he wants to kill him, that's all the proof I need. This man is judge and jury to me. I've worn loads of uniforms and I also believe in the death penalty without trial if it's what the government want. I'm sure plenty of Germans said the same things in 1934. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 I'm sure plenty of Germans said the same things in 1934. To be fair, I expect plenty of people were saying the same as you when Clinton had the chance to take out Bin Laden prior to 9/11. That worked out well didn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farawaysaint Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 Hell, that is wrong on so many levels. Worst part is all that has been done is make his supporters even more resolute in their beliefs. FFS it's not hard, if you have a bunch of religious nuts following someone and you kill him congratulations he's now a martyr. Don't agree with assassination at all, don't agree with Osama just being shot dead either unless he had a gun pointed at the troops coming for him. As far as I'm concerned murder is a last resort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 October, 2011 To be fair, I expect plenty of people were saying the same as you when Clinton had the chance to take out Bin Laden prior to 9/11. That worked out well didn't it? Bin Laden isn't a US citizen, so I don't think we're really talking about the same things. As a US citizen, Awlaki had a right to a fair trial and judgement by a jury of his peers. Bin Laden was a foreign national and did not have similar rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 Hell, that is wrong on so many levels. Worst part is all that has been done is make his supporters even more resolute in their beliefs. FFS it's not hard, if you have a bunch of religious nuts following someone and you kill him congratulations he's now a martyr. Don't agree with assassination at all, don't agree with Osama just being shot dead either unless he had a gun pointed at the troops coming for him. As far as I'm concerned murder is a last resort. So his supporters now hate the west and want to kill us. How exactly does that differ from when he was alive. It's all well and good them calling him a martyr, but a dead body can't orchestrate terrorist activities. To get the reputation he has AAA must have masterminded some pretty evil sh*t. I'm glad the world is rid of such a sick mind and I really can't fathom why people think differently. It's almost a 'die and let live' philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 Bin Laden isn't a US citizen, so I don't think we're really talking about the same things. As a US citizen, Awlaki had a right to a fair trial and judgement by a jury of his peers. Bin Laden was a foreign national and did not have similar rights. Aside from the logistics of extracting a man from Yemen for trial in the US, that trial would be a farce. For a start most of the evidence against him would be top secret and US intelligence would be compromised if it and it's sources was leaked to the public. Imagine that in court. "Next up the trial of Anwar al-Awlaki... oh there isn't any evidence we can put forward... okay you're free to go and live in a beach house in Miami" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spudders Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 these are not the sort of people that get arrested...they are not interested in being tried...either way, he was going to die Coincidently I watched a program I had on sky+ last night in which Anwar al-Awlaki featured heavily. Interestingly he was detained by the USA authorities at one point for a fair few months before they eventually released him without charge. You only have to view some of his material online to see why it’s in all of our interests that he’s dead. Clearly the USA had nothing to prove he was directly responsible for crimes, however it is well documented that he gave his approval for other people to commit crimes. For example the US marine who shot dead several of his colleagues on a US Army base was in communication with Anwar al-Awlaki and sought his permission. As you say, better off dead! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 (edited) Bin Laden isn't a US citizen, so I don't think we're really talking about the same things. As a US citizen, Awlaki had a right to a fair trial and judgement by a jury of his peers. Bin Laden was a foreign national and did not have similar rights. I don't see what difference someone's passport makes if they are a threat - if anything it shows consistency on the US's part if they are willing to off one of their own. Having said that the there is obviously a concern that this is just Obama's way of winning back some of the right wing votes in next year's election. Edited 3 October, 2011 by aintforever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 October, 2011 So his supporters now hate the west and want to kill us. How exactly does that differ from when he was alive. It's all well and good them calling him a martyr, but a dead body can't orchestrate terrorist activities. To get the reputation he has AAA must have masterminded some pretty evil sh*t. I'm glad the world is rid of such a sick mind and I really can't fathom why people think differently. It's almost a 'die and let live' philosophy. If he is guilty of all he is charged of, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and punished. No-one is suggesting otherwise. The problem is that we seemed to have skipped all that tricky capture and legal stuff. It's a dangerous road to travel down. His dead body may not be able to orchestrate terrorist activities, but his death will inspire others to join the cause. To some ears, it'll be proof to every would-be jihadist that the West is exactly as described by those seeking to undermine it, that it's unjust and will just rip up its own principles for convenience. That it'll even kill its own citizens if that is more convenient than a fair trial. The US may have killed one terrorist, but actions like this only validate extremism for those that are on the fence. The US have suspended due process and illegally killed one of its own citizens. It sets a very dangerous precedent, and these are the guys were are supposed to look up to. The guys who showed us how democracy was supposed to work. What is the rest of the West supposed to think when the US says "yep, we killed him. But he was a BAD man. "? How would you feel if it were you that were targeted as an enemy of the state? Wouldn't you want a chance to defend yourself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 October, 2011 I don't see what difference someone's passport makes if they are a threat - if anything it shows consistency on the US's part if they are willing to off one of their own. Having said that the there is obviously a concern that this is just Obama's way of winning back some of the right wing votes in next year's election. The difference is that Obama has demonstrated that it will kill its own citizens if it perceives them as a threat to national security. Ok, it is very clearly delineated now. It's the war against Al-Qaeda, right? What if the enemy changes? What if it's suddenly some white supremacists from Georgia who are designated enemies of the state. As I asked another poster, what if you were designated an enemy of the state. If the government accused you of doing some very bad things, would it be okay to just kill you if they were especially bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 Sorry pap I accept your sentiments but a good terrorist is a dead terrorist to me . The sad thing for me is there will be another nasty terrorist ready to take his place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benjii Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 I'd leave it Jamie, he's never worn a uniform, been PV'd and doesn't have a clue. Lol. One of the most absolutely divviest posts ever committed to the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saintandy666 Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 Well, it is a big blow to the Al-Qaeda ideology. He was the poster boy for recruitment in the west. In terms of our security, this can only be a good thing and I certainly do not mourn his death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seaford Saint Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 (edited) these are not the sort of people that get arrested...they are not interested in being tried...either way, he was going to dieIt seems to me you have chosen the views that suit your occupation. If the late Saddam was doing this you would say something was wrong....... I am not sure that you think that deeply or fully about what you are saying when it suits you. I am afraid that you are exactly what the armed forces want. I suggest you read some articles by John pilger on war and how it is reported. Edited 3 October, 2011 by Seaford Saint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 The difference is that Obama has demonstrated that it will kill its own citizens if it perceives them as a threat to national security. Ok, it is very clearly delineated now. It's the war against Al-Qaeda, right? What if the enemy changes? What if it's suddenly some white supremacists from Georgia who are designated enemies of the state. As I asked another poster, what if you were designated an enemy of the state. If the government accused you of doing some very bad things, would it be okay to just kill you if they were especially bad? I agree in principle it's wrong but as long as they are acting on evidence/intelligence and are doing it because he is genuinely perceived a threat I don't have a problem with it. If Clinton had the balls to do the same to Bin Laden he would have saved a lot of lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lighthouse Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 If he is guilty of all he is charged of, he should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law and punished. No-one is suggesting otherwise. The problem is that we seemed to have skipped all that tricky capture and legal stuff. It's a dangerous road to travel down. His dead body may not be able to orchestrate terrorist activities, but his death will inspire others to join the cause. To some ears, it'll be proof to every would-be jihadist that the West is exactly as described by those seeking to undermine it, that it's unjust and will just rip up its own principles for convenience. That it'll even kill its own citizens if that is more convenient than a fair trial. The US may have killed one terrorist, but actions like this only validate extremism for those that are on the fence. The US have suspended due process and illegally killed one of its own citizens. It sets a very dangerous precedent, and these are the guys were are supposed to look up to. The guys who showed us how democracy was supposed to work. What is the rest of the West supposed to think when the US says "yep, we killed him. But he was a BAD man. "? How would you feel if it were you that were targeted as an enemy of the state? Wouldn't you want a chance to defend yourself? He cannot be prosecuted, that's the point. Capturing him alive in Yemen is highly unlikely for a start. Sending a drone up to fire a missle through his French windows is one thing, sending in a crack team of special forces is quite another. If AAA was on the move, as many terrorists are, the chance to get him could well have been lost. Ignoring all of that and assuming AAA surrendered to US force and was flown safely to the US, he just wouldn't get a fair trial. As I said, the jury wouldn't be able to see most of the evidence and the jury is likely to be highly biased in their judgement. This is a country with Pastor Terry Jones and his clan of Quran burners. A high profile Islamic fundamentalist would be found guilty before he got off the plane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 If we are talking terrorists what is your view on Martin MAguiness he's in the running for president of Ireland . No different from aaa. He had blood on his hands during the troubles . Do you now see him as a hero ? Or the murdering scum he once was Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonnyboy Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 If we are talking terrorists what is your view on Martin MAguiness he's in the running for president of Ireland . No different from aaa. He had blood on his hands during the troubles . Do you now see him as a hero ? Or the murdering scum he once was So presumabley you are in favour of us flying a drone over and bombing him in his sleep with his family? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 October, 2011 He cannot be prosecuted, that's the point. Capturing him alive in Yemen is highly unlikely for a start. Sending a drone up to fire a missle through his French windows is one thing, sending in a crack team of special forces is quite another. If AAA was on the move, as many terrorists are, the chance to get him could well have been lost. The US forces were able to subdue Osama bin Laden, so even your crack team has been proven to work. But it's not really about feasibility, is it? They don't actually want to prosecute people through the legal system. They got OBL cowering, unarmed and in his nightclothes. At that point, it would have been perfectly feasible to have taken him for trial. Ignoring all of that and assuming AAA surrendered to US force and was flown safely to the US, he just wouldn't get a fair trial. As I said, the jury wouldn't be able to see most of the evidence and the jury is likely to be highly biased in their judgement. This is a country with Pastor Terry Jones and his clan of Quran burners. A high profile Islamic fundamentalist would be found guilty before he got off the plane. I think you're doing a bit of disservice to the average American. Although they are not the hottest on international affairs, they are keenly aware of their own rights and constitution. The US has put terrorists on trial before. A fear of bias hasn't stopped them before. Even if all you say is true, OBL would have stood a much better chance if he'd gone to trial in the US than he did when he was gunned down in his nightie. So would AAA. This incident might seem comparatively small in isolation, but remember that we've already had the wonders of detention without charge, Guantanamo Bay, torture and extraordinary rendition. The US doesn't even have a good track record in finding the right people extrajudicially - most Guantanamo detainees are innocent. So yes, a trial would be difficult, but not impossible. And while this more expedient approach has certainly gotten results quickly, it lacks any public oversight and is in direct contravention with our supposed values. It diminishes the moral authority of the West and provides the motivation for future generations of terrorists. We're not actually solving any problems here, we're just kicking one immediate threat into the grass only to face a bigger one down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monk Posted 3 October, 2011 Share Posted 3 October, 2011 He lost his rights when he was inciting violence and mass murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 October, 2011 If we are talking terrorists what is your view on Martin MAguiness he's in the running for president of Ireland . No different from aaa. He had blood on his hands during the troubles . Do you now see him as a hero ? Or the murdering scum he once was A lot of people had blood on their hands during the Troubles. It is interesting that you mention that though. As you'll remember, we did not stop the Troubles by shooting terrorists. Eventually difficult decisions had to be made, previously irreconcilable parties had to work together and people that were beyond the pale had to be brought back into the fold. I spent three years of my life there, and still visit a lot. In answer to your question, I do not see McGuinness as a hero - but I am glad that the process of reconciliation is making the North of Ireland a better and safer place to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 3 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 3 October, 2011 Ron Paul's take. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXsgTRzBePw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Viking Warrior Posted 4 October, 2011 Share Posted 4 October, 2011 PAP I forgot to mention paisley and more so Gerry Adams also had blood on their hands during the NI troubles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stu0x Posted 5 October, 2011 Share Posted 5 October, 2011 Apparently, he was a very bad man, responsible for inspiring and nurturing Islamic terrorists. We'll probably never know. Your use of the word 'apparently' and the phrase 'we'll probably never know' indicates that you dont/didn't really know a great deal about him, which is probably why you find it scary. AAA was not 'apparently' a very bad man. He was the head of global AQ following the death of bin Laden, and for several years has been the number 2 or 3 (depending on how you grade these things) of that organisation. He was directly responsible for a number of terrorist attacks and many more terrorist plots. He unequivocably supported and advocated terrorism as justifiable 'jihad' including the use of suicide bombing against civilian targets and specifically women and children. He was a terrorist, there are no ifs or buts about it. Just because you personally might not know his name as well as you know bin Laden's, it doesn't mean others don't. Look at it this way - when was the first time you became fully aware of bin Laden? For 99.9% of people it was September 11th 2001. Yet he'd been on the Ten Most Wanted list for years and had been involved in terrorist attacks internationally for almost 10 years beforehand. Did he suddenly become a bad man on 9/11, just because that's when most people knew his name? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 5 October, 2011 Share Posted 5 October, 2011 Bin Laden isn't a US citizen, so I don't think we're really talking about the same things. As a US citizen, Awlaki had a right to a fair trial and judgement by a jury of his peers. Bin Laden was a foreign national and did not have similar rights. Ah. So it's not right to kill this terrorist because he is an Amiercan citizen, but it would have been fine to have killed Bin Laden because he was not. Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wes Tender Posted 5 October, 2011 Share Posted 5 October, 2011 How would you feel if it were you that were targeted as an enemy of the state? Wouldn't you want a chance to defend yourself? How likely do you think that it would be that anybody on this forum might qualify for that epithet? I would suggest that unless one was deemed to be bad enough to qualify, it would be hard to understand the sense of injustice that might engender. Although of course, it could be argued that if somebody was really capable of attaining that status, they might also expect to receive violent retribution rather than a fair trial. If you live by the sword you should expect to die by the sword. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Window Cleaner Posted 5 October, 2011 Share Posted 5 October, 2011 (edited) Summary suppression is a bit of an occupational hazard for a terrorist I should think. Edited 5 October, 2011 by Window Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 5 October, 2011 (edited) Ah. So it's not right to kill this terrorist because he is an Amiercan citizen, but it would have been fine to have killed Bin Laden because he was not. Got it. No, it's not right that a government can, without due process, decide that one of its own citizens needs to be killed and not be accountable to anyone. I really don't think you have got it, Wes. How likely do you think that it would be that anybody on this forum might qualify for that epithet? I would suggest that unless one was deemed to be bad enough to qualify, it would be hard to understand the sense of injustice that might engender. Although of course, it could be argued that if somebody was really capable of attaining that status, they might also expect to receive violent retribution rather than a fair trial. If you live by the sword you should expect to die by the sword. And therein lies the rub. We have courts and juries to deem who is "bad enough to qualify", and rightly so. As to your question, would anyone on this forum qualify? Right now, probably not. Times have a habit of changing though. Twenty-five years ago, it was the Russians, now it's Islamic fundamentalists, who knows who it could be in another 25 years. We have the rule of law for a reason, Wes. When people are punished, the accused has a chance to defend himself and a majority of a jury is "satisfied so that they are sure" that the accused has committed the crime, returning a guilty verdict. I'm sorry, but its not really any different from what authoritarian governments of the past have done. If you're happy with that, fair play to you. Personally, I tend to hold the institution of justice in slightly higher regard. Edited 5 October, 2011 by pap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 5 October, 2011 Share Posted 5 October, 2011 sorry pap, you live in another world. obama would have been legally justified to order what he did. unless you think the great obama is another stalin now...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 5 October, 2011 Your use of the word 'apparently' and the phrase 'we'll probably never know' indicates that you dont/didn't really know a great deal about him, which is probably why you find it scary. AAA was not 'apparently' a very bad man. He was the head of global AQ following the death of bin Laden, and for several years has been the number 2 or 3 (depending on how you grade these things) of that organisation. He was directly responsible for a number of terrorist attacks and many more terrorist plots. He unequivocably supported and advocated terrorism as justifiable 'jihad' including the use of suicide bombing against civilian targets and specifically women and children. He was a terrorist, there are no ifs or buts about it. Alright, stu0x - where's the proof that would hold up in court? Where are you getting your facts from? The man has never been indicted on criminal charges, and never been proven to be involved in a terrorist conspiracy. So what are we left with? Well, the man said things that could have inspired others to commit acts of terrorism. Where are we now? Those things still remain said, but in committing extrajudicial punishment, they carry a lot more weight to those who would have listened to him in the first place. There are plenty of 'ifs' and 'buts'. Are we that scared of what someone says that we kill them for it? Fairly dangerous position to be in. Where is "the line"? What about Nick Griffin? Or even worse, what about people on the far far right who advocate killing people because of their ethnicity? When do you think it is okay to kill your own citizens for the things they say, because as far as I can work out, his rantings are the only evidence that have been produced so far. Even the US Government have been very careful to use phrases like "may have been involved with the underwear bomber". Just because you personally might not know his name as well as you know bin Laden's, it doesn't mean others don't. Look at it this way - when was the first time you became fully aware of bin Laden? For 99.9% of people it was September 11th 2001. Yet he'd been on the Ten Most Wanted list for years and had been involved in terrorist attacks internationally for almost 10 years beforehand. Did he suddenly become a bad man on 9/11, just because that's when most people knew his name? No, and to be honest, this entire piece of your argument is suspect - because that's not the point I'm making at all. I don't know the details of every murderer in the country, but I do know that when they are charged, they are prosecuted to a criminal standard based on evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 5 October, 2011 sorry pap, you live in another world. obama would have been legally justified to order what he did. unless you think the great obama is another stalin now...? Same world, different standards. OBL should have gone to an International Court and tried for crimes against humanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 5 October, 2011 Share Posted 5 October, 2011 Alright, stu0x - where's the proof that would hold up in court? . you keep saying this... why, as you will never ever see it.. I have seen things that I will never mention and it has been real time...so god knows what the president of the USA has access to showing such evidence will mean people die...sources gone and intel broken...that simply does not happen hence why you will never really see our security services being called up to give evidence....to think the US intel services are going to is silly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pap Posted 5 October, 2011 Author Share Posted 5 October, 2011 sorry pap, you live in another world. obama would have been legally justified to order what he did. unless you think the great obama is another stalin now...? Oh, and the legal justification? Obama can possibly be impeached for Awlaki's death. Executive Order 12233, put into law by Reagan and never repealed, specifically forbids it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 5 October, 2011 Share Posted 5 October, 2011 Oh, and the legal justification? Obama can possibly be impeached for Awlaki's death. Executive Order 12233, put into law by Reagan and never repealed, specifically forbids it. god, it must be easy running the world from your laptop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now