A U.S. citizen has been assassinated, apparently by the U.S. government, which had earlier placed him on a hit list. Washington celebrates. I suspect we will regret this precedent.
I think it's great. I think we'll regret him but not for this. If it were Bush though, there'd be rioting in the streets, or at least in faculty lounges and the NYT.
You're an idiot. He effectively renounced his U.S. Citizenship when he starting plotting to kill his fellow Americans. Why would the U.S. treat him any differently than bin Laden?
If he were a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, I'd agree with you. But he's a dual national, who has taken up arms against the U.S., who has been hiding in foreign countries for a long time. If he wants the due process protections that go with being a U.S. citizen, he can come back here and submit to our judicial system. Until then, I say he's a legitimate target.
I believe the point of the article was to point out the hypocricy of Obama and other liberals. These are the exact same charges that they frequently leveled against Bush, for doing the same thing.
BHO - due to political expediency or, perhaps, as POTUS, being privy to information he did not have as a Senator or candidate - has largely strayed from the [failed] Leftist strategy of treating international terrorism like a Law & Order episode.
Given his anti-Midas touch, I'm thankful for the occasions where Obama has continued GWB policies. Politically speaking, he'll get attacked [more] from the Left, which helps give him the illusion of being a "centrist". That part kinda sucks.
You're an idiot. He effectively renounced his U.S. Citizenship when he starting working to kill his fellow American citizens. Why would the U.S. government treat him any differently than bin Laden?
im surprised to find you this squishy, kevin. the man has taken up arms against the US. and to the previous commenter, even on US soil, if a citizen is making war against our country the military should kill him. the virtue of being born in our country shouldnt somehow keep the US from defending itself against that person.
So you support the U.S. Constitution and our laws only as long as they don't become inconvenient?
Dual citizen, or not, al Awliki was a U.S. [born] citizen and the legal way to handle him as an enemy of the state was a military tribunal and execution.
We have laws against assassinating U.S. citizens. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they should be violated.
Next thing you tell us is that you are willing to relinquish your 4th Amendment rights just to exercise your Constitutionally guaranteed right to travel (freedom of movement).
i think you mean the 5th amendment when you mentioned "freedom of movement" and it has nothing to do w/the fact that he is waging war against the US. nothing in the Constitution offers protection from being killed in that fashion.
I think you should become more familiar with the U.S. constitution. It is the 4th Amendment that protects us against unwarranted searches, not the 5th.
And yes, al Awlike was waging war against the U.S. So why didn't we (the government) revoke his citizenship as they have the legal right to do against enemies of the state?
The fact is that we don't assassinate U.S. citizens. That is why Nidal Hassan will go through a trial and Richard Reed received a trial. The are both enemies of the state.
Either you support our laws, lobby to change them in a time of war, or accept that when a POTUS sees fit to violate U.S. law, it never ends where you want it to.
No, the legal way to handle him is to shoot/bomb/bayonet/whatever him on the field of battle - which is exactly what happened. If he surrenders or we happen to catch him in the ordinary course of doing that war thing, *THEN* you can try him as a traitor and execute him.
No, Kevin, Awlaki was not "assassinated". There is a precedence for this from our friends in the Bush Administration...Awlaki was nothing more than "collateral damage" from an "on-going, kinetic military engagement"....darn those American citizens always being in the wrong place at the wrong time...
Can anyone from the Ministry of Truth please go back an correct Mr. Williamson's original posting???
We are no longer at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia!
I think it's great. I think we'll regret him but not for this. If it were Bush though, there'd be rioting in the streets, or at least in faculty lounges and the NYT.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're an idiot. He effectively renounced his U.S. Citizenship when he starting plotting to kill his fellow Americans. Why would the U.S. treat him any differently than bin Laden?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWashington celebrates. As do I. Bravo, Obama Administration. Bravo, drones. More dead al-Qaeda bigwigs in the past 2-1/2 years than in the prior 8.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseLike most liberals, multi-k can't count.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEither that, or his memory has gone conveniently deficient.
Don't you know by now that history begins whenever it's most convenient for liberals?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf he were a U.S. citizen on U.S. soil, I'd agree with you. But he's a dual national, who has taken up arms against the U.S., who has been hiding in foreign countries for a long time. If he wants the due process protections that go with being a U.S. citizen, he can come back here and submit to our judicial system. Until then, I say he's a legitimate target.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI believe the point of the article was to point out the hypocricy of Obama and other liberals. These are the exact same charges that they frequently leveled against Bush, for doing the same thing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseon reflection that makes more sense. that type of satire definitely fits from kevin. and i fell for it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBHO - due to political expediency or, perhaps, as POTUS, being privy to information he did not have as a Senator or candidate - has largely strayed from the [failed] Leftist strategy of treating international terrorism like a Law & Order episode.
Given his anti-Midas touch, I'm thankful for the occasions where Obama has continued GWB policies. Politically speaking, he'll get attacked [more] from the Left, which helps give him the illusion of being a "centrist". That part kinda sucks.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYou're an idiot. He effectively renounced his U.S. Citizenship when he starting working to kill his fellow American citizens. Why would the U.S. government treat him any differently than bin Laden?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBetter late than never.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseim surprised to find you this squishy, kevin. the man has taken up arms against the US. and to the previous commenter, even on US soil, if a citizen is making war against our country the military should kill him. the virtue of being born in our country shouldnt somehow keep the US from defending itself against that person.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSo you support the U.S. Constitution and our laws only as long as they don't become inconvenient?
Dual citizen, or not, al Awliki was a U.S. [born] citizen and the legal way to handle him as an enemy of the state was a military tribunal and execution.
We have laws against assassinating U.S. citizens. Just because you don't like them doesn't mean they should be violated.
Next thing you tell us is that you are willing to relinquish your 4th Amendment rights just to exercise your Constitutionally guaranteed right to travel (freedom of movement).
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusei think you mean the 5th amendment when you mentioned "freedom of movement" and it has nothing to do w/the fact that he is waging war against the US. nothing in the Constitution offers protection from being killed in that fashion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think you should become more familiar with the U.S. constitution. It is the 4th Amendment that protects us against unwarranted searches, not the 5th.
And yes, al Awlike was waging war against the U.S. So why didn't we (the government) revoke his citizenship as they have the legal right to do against enemies of the state?
The fact is that we don't assassinate U.S. citizens. That is why Nidal Hassan will go through a trial and Richard Reed received a trial. The are both enemies of the state.
Either you support our laws, lobby to change them in a time of war, or accept that when a POTUS sees fit to violate U.S. law, it never ends where you want it to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, the legal way to handle him is to shoot/bomb/bayonet/whatever him on the field of battle - which is exactly what happened. If he surrenders or we happen to catch him in the ordinary course of doing that war thing, *THEN* you can try him as a traitor and execute him.
He was *not* assassinated.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, Kevin, Awlaki was not "assassinated". There is a precedence for this from our friends in the Bush Administration...Awlaki was nothing more than "collateral damage" from an "on-going, kinetic military engagement"....darn those American citizens always being in the wrong place at the wrong time...
Can anyone from the Ministry of Truth please go back an correct Mr. Williamson's original posting???
We are no longer at war with Eastasia, we have always been at war with Eurasia!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI like the cut of your jib!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI guess we can add this to the long list of things which prove most of the rabid harangues against Bush were horsepuckey.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseReally? How so? How does this do that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse