The Conservative Cave
Current Events => Breaking News => Topic started by: Revolution on September 30, 2011, 09:23:32 AM
-
(http://cloud.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Awlaki.jpg)
Senior Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen early Friday morning by a CIA-led U.S. drone strike, marking the highest-profile takedown of a terror leader since the raid on Usama bin Laden's compound.
Fox News has learned that two Predator drones hovering above al-Awlaki's convoy fired the Hellfire missiles which killed the terror leader. According to a senior U.S. official, the operation was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command, under the direction of the CIA
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/#ixzz1ZRgUYf65
Finally, we got the rotten S.O.B.
And just to clarify even though you all know: Obama isn't the one who executed the plan. He is not the one who should be taking credit for greasing two top terrorists.
-
I'll have 2 extra pieces of bacon this morning to celebrate his demise.
-
No doubt wondering along about now why Paradise is on fire and smells of sulfur, and just where are all those virgins anyway?
-
Achmed the dead terrorist has a new playmate.
-
Gee. This is just TF Bad.
Pass the ham, would you?
-
Makes me wonder what Iowahawk will come up with for this one:
Oh wait--already found out via Twitter:
"When Rick Perry executes a US citizen, he should do what Barack Obama does: use Hellfire missiles."
And if you think THAT'S funny, read what he wrote when OBL got offed:
LINK (http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2011/05/this-new-roommate-is-driving-me-nuts.html)
-
(http://www.splintercat.org/PortlandHikers/DallesMountainCoyoteCarcass.jpg)
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED!
:cheersmate: :clap: :rocker: :II: :cheers1: :thumbs: :killemall: :salutearmy:
-
And right on cue, Dr. Nutz calls it "assassination" :mental:
C'mon, Paultards, tell me again how wonderful your hero RONPAUL!!! is. :loser:
-
Well shock, shock, President PitchingWedge will not say if he authorized the assasination of a US citizen. http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/09/30/obama-wont-say-he-ordered-strike
At least we didn't waterboard him, right Obama?
I am so glad this scuzbucket terrorist got his 72 virgins, but, our CIC canNOT have it both ways.
-
I hope he saw it coming
-
And right on cue, Dr. Nutz calls it "assassination" :mental:
C'mon, Paultards, tell me again how wonderful your hero RONPAUL!!! is. :loser:
It was an assassination. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I've always thought the world would be a better place if we used targeted assassinations more often. Seriously, how hard a target would Hitler have been if back in the 1930s we had made a serious effort to take him out?
90% of the crap we are now taking from the Muzzies could have, and should have, been avoided if we had whacked Khomeini in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution. Of course that would have required a President with brains and balls -- which we definitely did not have at the time (or now).
-
It was an assassination. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
I've always thought the world would be a better place if we used targeted assassinations more often. Seriously, how hard a target would Hitler have been if back in the 1930s we had made a serious effort to take him out?
90% of the crap we are now taking from the Muzzies could have, and should have, been avoided if we had whacked Khomeini in the aftermath of the Iranian revolution. Of course that would have required a President with brains and balls -- which we definitely did not have at the time (or now).
It was also unconstitutional.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I really don't see why Obama didn't file charges, have a trial where the defendant is tried in absentia. If he was found guilty and sentenced to death, then this would be a moot point IMO.
-
I really don't see why Obama didn't file charges, have a trial where the defendant is tried in absentia. If he was found guilty and sentenced to death, then this would be a moot point IMO.
I don't have a problem with that idea.
-
Apparently the Obama administration is covering their collective asses just in case there are constitutional questions.
It's All Bush's Fault!!!!
But the legal process that led to his death was set in motion a decade ago. On Sept. 17, 2001, President George W. Bush signed a presidential order authorizing the CIA to hunt down terrorists worldwide. The authority was rooted in his power as commander in chief, leading a nation at war with al-Qaida.
The order made no distinction between foreigners and U.S. citizens. If they posed a "continuing and imminent threat" to the United States, they were eligible to be killed, former intelligence officials said.
Yahoo News. (http://news.yahoo.com/killing-americans-uncharted-ground-attack-212335475.html)
-
It's All Bush's Fault!!!!
Yahoo News. (http://news.yahoo.com/killing-americans-uncharted-ground-attack-212335475.html)
Somehow, I don't think Bush is going to mind.
-
Half of DU will be crying themselves to sleep tonight, the other half will be up all night crying.
-
It was also unconstitutional.
I really don't see why Obama didn't file charges, have a trial where the defendant is tried in absentia. If he was found guilty and sentenced to death, then this would be a moot point IMO.
He forfeited his citizenship when he moved to another country and became actively involved in terrorist activities aimed at harming the US and it's citizens.
IMO.
-
He forfeited his citizenship when he moved to another country and became actively involved in terrorist activities aimed at harming the US and it's citizens.
IMO.
Opinion is one thing, law another.
-
Opinion is one thing, law another.
I understand that.
Which is why I clearly stated that it was my opinion.
-
Opinion is one thing, law another.
True it's opinion. It's opinion backed up by explicit warning to that effect in my own passport, though.
Frankly, This is the 2nd or 3rd time that the O-ministration has claimed to have killed this traitorous bastard. I wanna see the evidence before I believe it. :fuelfire:
-
Screw the politics of it, I'm just glad he's dead.
I hope it hurt really-really bad.
-
It was also unconstitutional.
**** that. He was a Yemeni citizen who was waging war against the United States.
-
**** that. He was a Yemeni citizen who was waging war against the United States.
Don't try to 'plain it to the DUmmies.....just squeeeeeeeze the trigger & get R done.
-
There is one major problem with the heavy reliance on drone strikes under Obama, which I was thinking about since this happened and by chance Dana Perino mentioned on Fox at some point over the weekend. That is that we are just playing whack-a-mole when we do this, as it does not allow for the interrogation of the bad guy or even a chance to go through all his stuff and analyze seized data cards, thumbdrives, paper records, and computer hard drives. Basically it's like only killing the most-important-looking ants you catch in a restricted part of your house, say the bathroom; it does nothing to get to the basic problem of the ant nest, and they'll be back as strong as ever in no time.
I don't buy the unconstitutional meme. You can choose to look at it as he was an American citizen (As opposed to a dual citizen who made a de facto choice to abrogate the US side), but if you do, you have to also say he was an active member of an enemy engaged in organized, armed conflict with the United States and thus either a voluntary combatant (If an 'unlawful' one under Geneva/Hague) who falls into the first part of that "...against all enemies, foreign and domestic..." in the military oath, or else that he was engaged in insurrection, which falls in to the second part...and we all know the North didn't spend four years trying to arrest all the Southern soldiers.
dluengaged in insurrection.
-
I don't have a problem with his death but I do have extreme reservations about this. If 0bama can do this to one citizen, he can do this to any citizen. Imagine the outcry had this drone strike been carried out on an anti abortion activist (dubbed "terrorist" by the government) in another country for a pro-life conference. Or declaring the Tea Party radical & terrorists to justify doing the same. Didn't the Clinton admin do something similar with Saddam (who wasn't even a citizen of the country) that showed his ties to Al Qaeda? He should've been given a trial, here or not. We do "in absentia" trials for other crimes.
Cindie
-
I'd say the president, regardless who's currently in the WH, always has had this kind of power. While various laws, prohibitions (it started with Ford) and proclamations may state otherwise, he's got the wherewithal to go thumbs-down on just about anyone, seems to me.
Who's going to tell him, "No, Mr. President. That's considered assassination and you can't do that."?
Some things just don't need to be written down.
-
I'd say the president, regardless who's currently in the WH, always has had this kind of power. While various laws, prohibitions (it started with Ford) and proclamations may state otherwise, he's got the wherewithal to go thumbs-down on just about anyone, seems to me.
Who's going to tell him, "No, Mr. President. That's considered assassination and you can't do that."?
Some things just don't need to be written down.
Some things are better left unsaid. Obama should have never publicly acknowledged that this dude was on his hit list.
-
I'd say the president, regardless who's currently in the WH, always has had this kind of power. While various laws, prohibitions (it started with Ford) and proclamations may state otherwise, he's got the wherewithal to go thumbs-down on just about anyone, seems to me.
Who's going to tell him, "No, Mr. President. That's considered assassination and you can't do that."?
Some things just don't need to be written down.
While that may be true, I would certainly hope to hell that if some some reason I was on his shit list, there would be at least a few raising all kinds of cain!