TexasCHLforum.com

Ameer wrote:

fulano wrote:

MeMelYup wrote:Should U.S. kill citizens overseas without affording them due process?

yes

All of them?

Depends. What did they do? This guy? Most definitely.

I would add this:

In the hypothetical event that there was a broad armed rebellion against the federal government in which the rebels (whatever their religious/social/political persuasion) sought to overthrow the sitting government by violent means, you can bet that this same government would use whatever means were at its disposal to kill the rebellion's leaders and instigators. In the Civil War, the federal government used cannons and rifles and gatling guns and mortars and any other implements of war you can think of to kill men who, just months before had been American citizens with all the rights thereof. One can call it the Civil War, or the War of Northern Aggression, whatever your particular poison is, but nobody is really arguing the morality or legality of the use of weapons of war against Americans who were at war with their former government.

Al-Awlaki is certainly as guilty or responsible (again, depending upon your interpretation of the "war which split the nation from 1861-1865") as any rebel who took up arms against the federal government. If either Jefferson Davis or Abraham Lincoln had had cruise missiles or Hellfire-armed drones, they would have used them if they thought that doing so would bring the war to a faster, more favorable conclusion to their side's interests.

So why is anyone giving a rip about a solitary man, who may have been born here, but had abandoned this country TEN YEARS AGO to wage war against her? Not to mention that between 1993 and 2002, when he finally left for good, he had made several trips overseas to learn about Jihad in Afghanistan and Yemen. He wasn't a criminal. He was an enemy combatant. He got killed doing it. Why is anyone concerned? He would gut you like a fish in a heartbeat, your concern for him notwithstanding. This board's rules forbid me the use of the language I would use to describe this mutt. Personally? I would shoot him in cold blood if I had the chance. He was an enemy of my nation, who wanted me and mine dead. I would pee on his grave if I had half a chance.

AndyC wrote:They'da been quite happy to arrest him 'steada killin' him, but he wouldn't turn hisself in.

Sucks to be him.

So what you're saying is that a predator firing a Hellfire missile at a terrorist's vehicle is essentially no different than throwing out the spike strips to give him a flat tire?

I think I'd be inclined to agree!

Well, for anyone who thinks killing this guy was illegal...... Al Qaeda agrees with you: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/che ... _blog.html.

As far as I am concerned, he forfeited his citizenship when he took up advocating the mass killing of his fellow citizens, with the help of foreign governments.

MeMelYup wrote:I personally think al-Qaida declared war on the United States on September 11, 2001. They used a terrorist act similar to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, December 7, 1941. Anyone (U.S. born citizen) that would go over to al-Qaida and participate as a partisan in their war against the U.S. is committing a traitorous act. By not having renounced their citizenship they are committing treason.
Without more information I must vote yes.

Can U.S. legally kill a citizen overseas without due process?
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... ue-process

Vote: Should U.S. kill citizens overseas without affording them due process?
http://openchannel.msnbc.msn.com/_news/ ... ue-process

The pustule in question was not just a murderer. He was an enemy combatant, dedicated to bringing the United States down. He did so from foreign soil. He did so in the leadership of an international terrorist gang which is in a declared war against the United States. He got killed in the war. Cry me a river. He should be buried in a vat of pork fat.