Obama assassinates 2 Americans and nobody cares

[catfish]

Am I the only one concerned about this? If Bush had done this, the left would be freaking out, and rightfully so. Obama does it and the left pats him on the back. Why does the left feel that sending someone to Gitmo is worse than being killed?

No charges had been filed, sure there was lots of probable cause, but in America we don't give the death penalty based on probable cause, at least not until now. All we really have to go on is this administration's word and rumours of a secret memo that no one has seen that supposedly lays out the legal case for assassinations of American citizens and why its ok.

This isn't a right or left, republican or democrat type situation, this is something that cuts across party lines and right through the heart of our once great nation.

[Luke]

From my standpoint, it is justified. The penality for treason is still death.

[Toad]

An American traitor and terrorist is killed abroad? A mass murdering slimeball? I don't care who the President is. Later, biz-nitch.

[catfish]

From my standpoint, it is justified. The penality for treason is still death.

Do we hand out the sentence of death before or after the trial?

[Ryan Ruck]

As I posted in the Herman Cain thread, I'm not entirely riled up over this. Do I see the possibility of where such actions could end up? Sure...

I think the line in the sand would be such an action being taken on American soil. I consider this guy to have been on the field of battle. True, that is a little harder to define nowadays as compared to when we shot and killed Americans fighting on behalf of Nazi Germany but the whole Middle East practically counts.

[vector7]

Am I the only one concerned about this? If Bush had done this, the left would be freaking out, and rightfully so. Obama does it and the left pats him on the back. Why does the left feel that sending someone to Gitmo is worse than being killed?

No charges had been filed, sure there was lots of probable cause, but in America we don't give the death penalty based on probable cause, at least not until now. All we really have to go on is this administration's word and rumours of a secret memo that no one has seen that supposedly lays out the legal case for assassinations of American citizens and why its ok.

This isn't a right or left, republican or democrat type situation, this is something that cuts across party lines and right through the heart of our once great nation.

I agree,

We are on a slippery slope.

Watching the actions of this Administration toward Conservatives and Christians and how days after they came in office rewrote their Terror Assessment Documents. To begin training agencies as they were busy retrofitting them with their Leftist replacements to profile Conservatives. Watching who and how the TSA profiles really sheds light on where they would love to take this country.

Shortly after Obama goes out on his Muslim apology tour and embraces radical Muslims while poking his finger at Israel, he then cuts deals with the Axis to weaken America on many fronts.

Meanwhile the hypocrisy of the Socialist MSM blocking, tackling and cheer leading for this Marxist Administration even when a Radical Muslim or Leftist Terrorist Attacks get foiled they begin spinning it to be someone on the Right makes my skin crawl.

I don't like the Anwar guy and he should get what is coming to him if he has done the things they say he has. I have difficulty taking the word from this Administration that is now filled with Leftists that despise everything America stands for. Anxious to erode conservative freedoms while being anything but transparent.

[Luke]

No different than the end of Bonnie and Clyde.

[catfish]

No different than the end of Bonnie and Clyde.

Weren't Bonnie and Clyde killed while attempting to apprehend them?

[catfish]

I have to say I'm a little disappointed in most of your responses to this clear violation of our constitutional rights. Maybe this story will change your mind:

1 7:59pm EDT

(Reuters) - American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials.

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged al Qaeda connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process.

Current and former officials said that to the best of their knowledge, Awlaki, who the White House said was a key figure in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda's Yemen-based affiliate, had been the only American put on a government list targeting people for capture or death due to their alleged involvement with militants.

The White House is portraying the killing of Awlaki as a demonstration of President Barack Obama's toughness toward militants who threaten the United States. But the process that led to Awlaki's killing has drawn fierce criticism from both the political left and right.

In an ironic turn, Obama, who ran for president denouncing predecessor George W. Bush's expansive use of executive power in his "war on terrorism," is being attacked in some quarters for using similar tactics. They include secret legal justifications and undisclosed intelligence assessments.

Liberals criticized the drone attack on an American citizen as extra-judicial murder.

Conservatives criticized Obama for refusing to release a Justice Department legal opinion that reportedly justified killing Awlaki. They accuse Obama of hypocrisy, noting his administration insisted on publishing Bush-era administration legal memos justifying the use of interrogation techniques many equate with torture, but refused to make public its rationale for killing a citizen without due process.

Some details about how the administration went about targeting Awlaki emerged on Tuesday when the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing.

The process involves "going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law," Ruppersberger said.

LAWYERS CONSULTED

Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described.

They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC "principals," meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

The officials insisted on anonymity to discuss sensitive information.

They confirmed that lawyers, including those in the Justice Department, were consulted before Awlaki's name was added to the target list.

Two principal legal theories were advanced, an official said: first, that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the attacks of September 11, 2001; and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself.

Several officials said that when Awlaki became the first American put on the target list, Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals' decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.

A former official said one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to "protect" the president.

Officials confirmed that a second American, Samir Khan, was killed in the drone attack that killed Awlaki. Khan had served as editor of Inspire, a glossy English-language magazine used by AQAP as a propaganda and recruitment vehicle.

But rather than being specifically targeted by drone operators, Khan was in the wrong place at the wrong time, officials said. Ruppersberger appeared to confirm that, saying Khan's death was "collateral," meaning he was not an intentional target of the drone strike.

When the name of a foreign, rather than American, militant is added to targeting lists, the decision is made within the intelligence community and normally does not require approval by high-level NSC officials.

'FROM INSPIRATIONAL TO OPERATIONAL'

Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone "from inspirational to operational." That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets.

"Let me underscore, Awlaki is no mere messenger but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities," Daniel Benjamin, top counterterrorism official at the State Department, warned last spring.

The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki's hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, "Anwar is alive."

But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee's computer showed what an investigator described as " operational contact" between Britain and Yemen.

Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother's side when the messages were dispatched. British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, "Our highest priority is the US ... With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?"

U.S. officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki's involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden.

While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by U.S. forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...79475C20111005

Our federal government has its own personal Star Chamber, dispensing death to those they think require it.

[Backstop]

There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.

No rules?

I find that hard to believe. I'm betting the rules just aren't public.

I want to see the rules they use to put one on the list.

We had a pretty good discussion about this elsewhere.

My BIGGEST gripe RFN is not knowing the rules. Combine that with the fact the goverment - especially Zero and Co. - will certainly circumnavigate these rules to suit their needs.

I understand - to a degree - the secrecy.

If they gave us full disclosure, it could - matter of fact certainly would - ruin the investigation.

If they disclosed all prior in an effort to gain public support, the BG would catch wind of it, and disappear.

If they disclosed all after the assassination, the entire information path would be destroyed.

Frankly, I don't have a solution.

And again, I absolutely understand how this could be, misused; if it hasn't already.

[vector7]

You beat me to that article catfish.

Here are the companion threads I was going to put with it.

Companion Threads:

• Is U.S. Now On Slippery Slope To Tyranny?

• 2nd DHS Domestic Extremism report, guess who they define as a terrorist now?

• Obama administration introduced an anti-free speech measure

• The Growing List Allegedly Committing Sedition Against U.S. Government

• Obama legal team wants defendants' rights limited

• Obama to review changes to Miranda Rights Law for suspected Domestic Terrorists

• The FBI has the power to write it's own Search Warrants

• Obama signs Executive Order to give INTERPOL Immunity in U.S.

• Police turn to Drones for Domestic Surveillance

• Obama Authorizes Assassination of Civilians He now calls Terrorists

• Eric Holders new Terror Warning: "We are now focused on Americans taking up arms"

• DHS/FBI/JATF Raids In MI and OH

• Obama Says Tea Party is Racist

• Obama Administration Targets Pro-life Activists as Terrorists

• Obama Signs 4-Year Patriot Act Extension

• New DHS 'No Work' list requires federal approval for Americans' seeking jobs

• Papers, Please!

• Obama’s Growing Snitch Program

• Obama wishes America was run like China

• Police, TSA and other "Authorities"

• TSA orders Texas to give up lawsuit or have ALL flights canceled.

• Revolutionary Communist Party Proposes New Continental Constitution

• Dick Morris: Clinton Personally Orchestrated the 1993 Waco, Texas Tragedy

• Clinton Official: Only A Terror Attack Can Save Obama's credibility

• Chrysler - A Very Dirty Story

• Gibson- A Very Dirty Story

• Max Motors Targeted By ATF, Banks And General Motors

• Sen. Charles Grassley Writes ATF Director Melson on Project Gunwalker

[Backstop]

You beat me to that article catfish.

Same here.

I just got tired of writing "scooped again."

[Toad]

Dick Cheney himself defended Obama and the attack on Anwar al-Awlaki.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-in-yemen.html

I have no doubt the Bush-Cheney Administration would have acted the same. We're not talking about the Obama Administration's act here. We're talking about a much broader deeper US Foreign policy in general. Just how far are we allowed to go to attack a threat, foreign or domestic, that presents a very real danger to our security.

[vector7]

We're not talking about the Obama Administration's act here. Just how far are we allowed to go to attack a threat, foreign or domestic, that presents a very real danger to our security.

Under a capitalist free market Administration I would totally agree the Administration should be able to take all means necessary to keep it's citizens safe and putting America's interests first.

If this Administration was really serious about security threats why is the TSA groping our children and elderly in wheel chairs and not profiling Muslims?

This Administration is led by Marxist Revolutionaries and now filled it's ranks with Leftist nuts making policy that hate the free market, conservatives and Christians. They want to put themselves up as dictators. This Administration has shown itself to be the most incompetent and destructive to America's security and freedoms in recent memory.

Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. -- President Thomas Jefferson.

While we're on the subject about security how about our borders, are they secure?

Why not?

• Foreign 'terrorists' breach U.S. border

What kind of an Administration hauls Arizona before the UN Human Rights Council over trying to secure its own borders?

[Luke]

Not to compare Obama to Lincoln but I believe it was Lincoln who suspended the writ of habeus corpus during the civil war. I would agree that it is a slippery slope also, however I think it was the correct outcome. Were I the president I would have done the same thing.

There are people that are just plain bad. I did not know the deceased so for all I know he may have been completely innocent. I was not personally aquainted with Clyde Parker or Bonnie Parker, but history tells me they were criminals. Having seen wanted posters of Clay counties own James Woodson James stating wanted DEAD or alive, I would apply the same logic to the recently deceased CRIMINALS.

I do not mean to come across as snarky as this sounds, merely defending my position.

[American Patriot]

Killing of AMERICAN citizens in an overseas setting is against the Constitution, pure and simple.

While killing these guys is "justified" to some extent as they are terrorists, it doesn't mean they didn't have a right to a trial, UNLIKE the fucking foreigners who've been brought here for trial.

There's a bad message in this whole thing and that's if "The government doesn't LIKE you for whatever it's reasoning the government is justified in assassinating your ass whenever, wherever and however it wishes".

When it comes down to it - the terrorists who aren't American citizens should be dealt with as above, but Americans who are still americans shouldn't be treated like that.

[Phil Fiord]

Not that I am beating the Paul drum, as I actually see Cain as the best contender, but Paul stated what you said above Rick, as was mercilessly beat on for it.

In that case Paul was correct.

[American Patriot]

I've said when Paul is right he's dead on, but when he's not quite right he's so far off the beaten path (no pun intended there) he needs a beating haha

[vector7]

Napolitano: Obama 'Shredding the Constitution'

Saturday, 22 Oct 2011 06:41 PM
By Martin Gould and Ashley Martella

President Barack Obama is shredding the U.S. Constitution faster than any of the 42 men who preceded him in office, according to Fox News judicial analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano, author of the brand new "It is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong."

It is so bad he should be impeached over the murder of American terror suspect Anwar al-Awlaki – and if Congress won’t take that action, he should be indicted once he is out of office.

In an exclusive interview with Newsmax.TV, Napolitano said it doesn’t matter that Awlaki was probably guilty – the fact is he was a U.S. citizen and the Constitution outlaws his killing without due process.

VIDEO

Judge Andrew Napolitano says President Barack Obama is bringing big brother right into our faces. In this exclusive Newsmax.TV video, the Fox News judicial analyst says Obama is embracing the Occupy Wall Street protesters at his political peril.

“We live in a time in which the government recognizes no limits on its own power,” he said. “It doesn’t recognize the natural law. It doesn’t recognize the federal law. It doesn’t recognize the Constitution.

“The president in the past couple of weeks became judge, jury and executioner for a very hated and probably guilty individual. But the Constitution says no person shall be denied life, liberty or property –much less an American which this guy was – without due process of law.”

“The killing of an American is unforgiveable under the Constitution and it is an impeachable offence and the president, if not being impeached, should be indicted for it after he leaves office.”

Napolitano hosts the libertarian show Freedom Watch on the Fox Business Channel. His sixth book on human freedom, “It is Dangerous to be Right when the Government is Wrong,” was released on Tuesday. Its title comes from a quotation attributed to 18th Century French civil libertarian Voltaire.

In the interview, the judge admitted that Obama is not the first president to undermine the Constitution. “I have never hesitated to attack the administration of George W. Bush,” he said. “In fact I have argued in this book and elsewhere that the Patriot Act is the most abominable Congressional assault on personal freedom since the Alien and Sedition Acts which were enacted in the late 1700s.

“The Obama administration, notwithstanding the president’s lofty words as a candidate and even as president, has actually ratcheted up the police state; has ratcheted up the assault on personal liberties.”

Napolitano said that shortly after 9/11, he and colleagues at Fox debated whether a president could kill an American who was a danger to national security. “When I posed that question, we all laughed, saying this could never happen, this is the United States of America, we have the Constitution. Now it happens and nobody does anything about it.

“I remember arguing, could the president start a war on his own? And the answer was no, of course not, the Constitution says only the Congress can declare war. Well, we’re in Libya and the Congress never declared it.

“The president is shredding the Constitution more so than George W. Bush did. It’s not only this president who does it, but he is doing it in a more in-your-face, more obvious and, if I may, more boastful way.”

Napolitano, a former superior court judge in New Jersey, claimed the assault on Americans’ freedoms – “real serious heavy-duty nanny-state regulation,” – started in earnest under Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson in the early 20th Century.

“That’s when the administrative state begins. That’s when the federal government creates administrative agencies that are neither fish nor fowl – they are not in the executive branch and they are not in the legislative branch. They don’t run for office but they acquire power through appointment, they survive from one president to the next.

“The administrative agencies began regulating private behavior and it started about 100 years ago. Coincidentally that’s also when the Federal Reserve and when the Income Tax started.”

He said one of the most important tests of the Constitution will be decided by the Supreme Court this year in the Antoine Jones case, where police attached a GPS device to a suspected drug dealer’s car to track his movements.

“The government claims it can come on to your property and open your garage door and go into your garage and open up your car and put a GPS tracking device in there if you don’t carry a cellphone. Can the government do that? Answer: The Supreme Court will tell us in a couple of months. In the interim, the government does this.”

Napolitano, like many libertarians, said he has sympathy for many of the causes of the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

“They have a legitimate complaint that their future in the economic world is grim. It is grim because the government has spent the future’s money today and has mortgaged the future by printing cash and borrowing against the future. It is grim because the government fights wars of opportunity.

“When they say end the Fed and end the wars, I am with them,” he said. “But when they say take from the rich and give to those who don’t have it, the Constitution is supposed to prevent that from happening.

“The political side of this is just as dangerous,” he added. “The political side of this is that labor unions and hard left organizations and entities of the Democratic National Committee are going to co-opt those young people and take over the message.”

[Ryan Ruck]

That headline should have been written better by the author...

My first thought was, "Why in the hell would Janet say that when she's been complicit in it?"