Those Damn Liberals at NBC . . .

You might want to watch this from Fox news

http://video.foxnews.com/v/2071404288001/new-documents-shed-light-on-anwar-al-awlakis-role-in-911/

 

March 2010, a tape featuring al-Aulaqi was released in which he urged Muslims residing in the U.S. to attack their country of residence. In the video, he stated:

To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful coexistence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brothers and sisters? I eventually came to the conclusion that jihad (holy struggle) against America is binding upon myself just as it is binding upon every other able Muslim​

 

Recusant I never said that anything you had said infringed upon any ones rights, I asked what of the rights of those he wished to target. There is quite a difference between the two statements

 

If we could only get you to follow suit.
View attachment 1534

 

My point has always been that though this fellow was advocating and encouraging attacks upon the United States, that does not mean that he ceased to be a citizen of the United States himself. As such, the Constitution of the United States should be applicable. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Executive branch is authorized to declare that a citizen of the United States has forfeited their rights and can be killed without trial upon the order of the Chief Executive.

Attempting to distract from that simple, straight-forward fact by pointing to his potential victims with the question "what about their rights?" does not in any way serve as a legal justification for the extra-judicial killing of United States citizens. It might be an effective rhetorical tactic, but rhetoric is not law. That is, unless you can show me the part of the Constitution of the United States where it says that when a citizen of the United States threatens harm to fellow citizens, that citizen can be killed in cold blood without trial.

The supposed evidence of al Aulaqi's involvement with some of those who carried out the attacks of September 11th should have been brought forward in legal proceedings. It certainly could be relevant, except for the fact that al Aulaqi never was given a trial of any kind.

People seem all too willing to support dispensing with the rule of law, and the adoption of what in my opinion could be accurately described as terrorist tactics in response to threats from swine like al Aulaqi. In my opinion, this can only serve to further the cause of those who would bring about the downfall of what we commonly call "Western civilization."

Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. (He who fights with monsters must take care lest he thereby become a monster.) — Nietzsche

 

Recusant, you and I disagree on some things, but this is a topic we're in complete agreement on. If one respects the rule of law and the Constitutional protection of due process, I just don't see how there can be any disagreement.

Al Awlawki should have, at least, been tried in absentia and given, if warranted, the death penalty (of which I'm not a proponent, but that's another story). That would have given Obama the authority to kill him.

America is turning down a very dark path if we allow our leaders to indiscriminately kill our citizens.

 

Steve, do you know if those were they brought up at his trial?

 

Great post, I agree.

View attachment 1535

 

To be honest I dont know, I have not seen a transcript of his trial

 

Really? I'd love to read a transcript of his trial. If anyone here can provide me with links, I'd certainly appreciate it.

 

And yet that is precisely what happened during the Civil War. I don't recall Lincoln being brought up on war crimes charges after that, do you?

 

You needn't go back that far. How about Roosevelt?

 

You're right, rlm. I'm sure we could say the same for just about every president. It comes down to who decides to cherry pick what information.

 

Well if you really wanted a transcript of his trial I suppose you could possibly email the Yemeni government and ask them if they could provide you with one, not sure as to what there take is on such requests though

 

I'm not talking about a Yemeni trial. I'm talking about an American trial. After all, it was an American president who killed him.

 

Sorry you did not say that you asked about his trial I responded