Forums → WEPR → al-Awlaki Killed by Drone Strike

I don't understand any beef people have with his death. He was on their side, and we have bombs. It's a simple matter. This is war, not Disneyland.

It is because the Republicans do not want to give Obama a "win." Had GWB done this, they would have been dancing in the Senate chambers.

It is because the Republicans do not want to give Obama a "win." Had GWB done this, they would have been dancing in the Senate chambers.

Of course they would, he's on their side. General rule of society: You don't cheer for the opposing team.

I don't understand any beef people have with his death.

The only problem I have with it is that the government's basically got a 'hit list'. No trials. No defense for the accused. No resistance. Just killed. They can target anyone they want to without restrictions.

With a list of this without trial, is saying America is always right, even when we are wrong. Thats is badddddd.

I don't want to sound like an expert on the law right now, but I feel as if this thread needs the legal backing behind the assassination of al-Awlaki, so...

Under Article III Section 3 of the Constitution of the United States, treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. The passage reads: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."

Now, while there was no confession in court, al-Awlaki is a self-professed traitor. Also, his videos on jihad against the US and his emails to the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Malik Hasan, provide what is known as "silent testimony", much like DNA evidence and ballistics evidence at a murder scene. Also, in a state of open warfare, like the US has right now against terrorism, aiding and abetting the enemy forfeits all ties that one once had to their country of origin. Therefore, al-Awlaki would only be given the rights afforded to any other foreigner, as he would no longer be a citizen. Plus, these were extraordinary circumstances. When the Founding Fathers formed the US, they did not see a future in which people could be killed without their killers being present, or where data could be sent across the world in a matter of seconds. That is also why the Elastic Clause of the Constitution is so necessary, as it leaves our government's figurative hands untied. When WWII broke out, President Franklin D. Roosevelt interned all of the Japanese citizens who were living on the West Coast in camps, because of the fear of sabotage. Many of these people had US citizen ship, and were being held without their right of habeus corpus. However, FDR issued an executive order, making it legal to intern the people. Obama also issued an order, but it was one of the military kind, which being the commander in chief of the US army, he is allowed to do so. Hopefully you all now understand where I went with this, and that now you understand why it was legal to assassin al-Awlaki.

I'm going to go take a nap. All that research tuckered me out.

al-Awlaki,al-Awlaki... never heard of him.

He was an extremist preacher and recruiter. He allegedly trained and preached to 3 of the 9/11 hijackers. He supported the 'Underwear Bomber' attack. wiki.
He was basically the Joseph Goebbels of Al-Queda.

ive never heard of that guy either

Pay attention in history class, then.