Jump to content

Anwar al-Awlaki


Recommended Posts

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/25/white-house-seeks-dismiss-suit-filed-radical-cleric/

 

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/25/al.awlaki.lawsuit/index.html?hpt=T1

 

For those who don't know, he's an American citizen turned Al Queda leader. There is a lawsuit filed by ACLU against the U.S.W.H. We basically want to put a bullet in his head, but can't really exactly cause of his citizenship. the white house is trying to get the suit dismissed, which is understandable.

 

I'm kind of torn by this. I would love to see this guy burn in hell, but the idea that the US government can assassinate it's own citizens (regardless if they happen to be terrorists or not) is pretty disturbing. We basically have to catch this guy and bring him back here to be tried and convicted. If I had to go with my gut, I'd say blow his brains out. What do you think?

Edited by NuRayZ
Link to post
Share on other sites

See, here's the problem with the way liberals push enemy-combatant rights. Whenever there's a contradiction it shuts your entire system of beliefs down and makes you all look like total hypocrits.

 

Under the Geneva Conventions, only soldiers fighting under a specific flag have any rights. People like terrorists, who float from country to country and fight by any means they see fit, have no rights under the international rules of war. This is why the Bush Administration tossed them in Gitmo indefinately and used otherwise barred interrogation techniques, because they literally have no rights under our or anyone else's legal system. Now before you say "the Geneva Conventions wasn't foward thinking and couldn't predict this" keep in mind they were forward thinking enough to bar the use of hollowpoint rounds and other, specialty anti-infantry ammo such as frangible and incendiary. Since the terrorists in Gitmo were granted similar rights as citizens by ACLU lawyers, they basically have at least the rights of those captured under the Geneva Contentions. In reality it's probably closer to the legal rights of full US citizens.

 

Now, historically US citizens that fought for other nations were tried and convicted as traitors and shot out back behind the courthouse. No one cared because, well, they were traitors. The evidence was typically pretty damning, such as being caught in an enemy uniform while holding a weapon used by the enemy. For example, US citizens of German heritage that returned to Germany before the US entered WW2. Well, eventually they found themselves shooting at US soldiers and tanks and we didn't think to highly of that. We typically didn't even care that they were citizens, they were the enemy and that was that.

 

This guy SHOULD be doubly screwed. Not only did he turn traitor, which revokes all his US citizen rights, but he did so in a way that also prevents him from claiming enemy-combatant rights under international common law. The government shouldn't even need a trial to put this guy in front of an M1 Abrams and blast him apart but with the groundwork the ACLU and other liberal retards have laid it's highly unlikely that he'll get the death penalty. In fact, I'd be surprised if they even jail him for it. I predict he'll get himself a hotshot lawyer and sue the US government for discrimination and win millions of taxpayer dollars.

 

Btw, I have zero tolerance for traitors and prefer killing them in unique, exotic, and often overly expensive ways. The M1 is one of the quicker ways on my list, the slowest is lethal dose of radiation without pain meds. Yes, it's brutal, but so is their crime.

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not true. There is a difference between torturing someone and just taking his *edited* out with a well placed sniper shot. Obama would have no problem ordering assassinations on any of those gitmo terrorists, if they were a threat to us; like Anwar. Isn't that why he's getting sued in the first place?

Link to post
Share on other sites

that's not true. There is a difference between torturing someone and just taking his *edited* out with a well placed sniper shot.

Not according to the Geneva Conventions and international common rules of war. I hate to break it to you but terrorists have no rights. At all. When you consider how they treat captured soldiers it becomes impossible for me to feel sorry because how we treat our prisoners is lightyears more humane than how they treat theirs.

 

Obama would have no problem ordering assassinations on any of those gitmo terrorists, if they were a threat to us; like Anwar.

Right :rolleyes:

 

Obama's track record with the treatment of terrorists is pretty damning to your argument. I mean he did allow 3 navy seals to be court martialed, even after passing polygraph tests, because the guy who ordered 4 Americans to be butchered and hung from bridges got a busted lip somewhere during his transfer between Iraqi and American custody.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Barack Obama orders killing of US cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

 

again there is a difference between having someone captured and defenseless and someone who is still a threat. Geneva Convention or not.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/11/25/navy-seals-face-assault-charges-capturing-wanted-terrorist/

 

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called a captain's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

they requested the court-martial, not obama. If you are going to blame obama, you might as well blame everyone else down the chain of command who allowed this to happen; Seal leaders, commanders, everyone. Also their charges include, failing to safegaurd a detainee and making false statements. As in, beating up a defenseless person (terrorist or not) and then lying about it. It's a shame their boss didn't just look the other way; but that means we should blame obama? K...

 

If you read the rest of that article, by fox news a trusted news source (lol); you will also notice that in 2004 a similar event happened:

 

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

So Bush is a terrorist lover now too eh?

Edited by NuRayZ
Link to post
Share on other sites

The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called a captain's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

HUGE difference between what you're implying and what really happened. Had they accepted the non-judicial punishment, a ranking military official would have sentenced them as he saw fit with no oversight, no hearing, and no chance of appeal. Punishment could range from demotion to correctional custody and goes on their service record. If they're innocent, accepting such an action is stupid. The fact that it was even offered to begin with proves that the government has very little, if any, evidence against them.

 

Think of it this way. If you were arrested and knew you were innocent would you let the police officer sentence you or would you demand a trial in which they had to prove you were guilty and give you the chance to defend yourself? Yeah, exactly. No brainer.

 

they requested the court-martial, not obama. If you are going to blame obama, you might as well blame everyone else down the chain of command who allowed this to happen; Seal leaders, commanders, everyone. Also their charges include, failing to safegaurd a detainee and making false statements. As in, beating up a defenseless person (terrorist or not) and then lying about it. It's a shame their boss didn't just look the other way; but that means we should blame obama?

In case you didn't know, all 3 passed polygraph tests in which they were asked whether or not they lied or abused him. One has already been acquitted.

 

I blame Obama because of the policy shift in how terrorists are to be treated. Obama laid down a drastic change in policy on how we engage and capture terrorists and from the start almost the entire military chain of command has protested it. These guys were to made examples of in front of the world and everyone was afraid of the consequences of stopping it. Had it been buried and discovered later by the media it would have become Obama's Abu Ghraib and someone who did the morally right thing would have lost their career over it. You know it, I know it, the commanders knew, and so these guys were hung out to dry over it.

 

If you read the rest of that article, by fox news a trusted news source (lol); you will also notice that in 2004 a similar event happened:

 

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

So Bush is a terrorist lover now too eh?

Yeah see, those were actual abuses in which the prisoner was in US custody the entire time. They also had evidence that the people who were tried were the ones guilty of abusing the prisoners. Very different situation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

can someone give me the tl;dr version of this topic?

 

td;dr - they caught a US citizen turned terrorists and the ACLU is trying to get him freed

 

 

I know this a really lazy question... but why would the ACLU try to free a terrorist? American or otherwise...

 

If you can lose your right to carry a firearm so easy.. seems like you should be able to be disowned if you attack your own country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with freeing a terrorist. The ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit on behave of the american born terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to prevent the U.S. from assassinating him. Their argument is that if the U.S. is allowed to assassinate Anwar, a citizen, what's stopping them from assassinating other citizens (like yourself) for another reason. It's totally bogus, but then again the ACLU is pretty bogus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It has nothing to do with freeing a terrorist. The ACLU, American Civil Liberties Union, filed a lawsuit on behave of the american born terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki to prevent the U.S. from assassinating him. Their argument is that if the U.S. is allowed to assassinate Anwar, a citizen, what's stopping them from assassinating other citizens (like yourself) for another reason. It's totally bogus, but then again the ACLU is pretty bogus.

Holy mother of...

 

A liberal bashing the ACLU???

 

Oh hell yeah I'm screen cap'ing this.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...