145 Comments Add a Comment
linkicon reporticon emailicon
webmouth says:
When the president can kill whoever he wants, then he is not a president anymore, he is a king... Wake UP!!!
reply
mooring7 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
the president isnt killing who he wants he's killing who the Americam prople want....not King... civil servant!
linkicon reporticon emailicon
hairynews says:
Amendment V

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 offence 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.

He, Anwar Awlaki declared war on USA constantly, google him.

Anwar Awlaki said kill Americans, google him.

THE V AMENDMENT ABOVE STATES IF YOU ARE AT WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER , THE GLOVES COME OFF!

"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"

IF you declare war, carry out threats by bombings etc, then he was at war.
reply
webmouth replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Any supposed decloration of war may be a crime, and our system dictates that any person suspected of a crime, must be charged then prosecuted then if convicted punished. This is our Universal Right as Humans. No Government shall have the power over any person in the manner that has been demonstrated by this assassination.
hairynews replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
@1perish and webmouth,

I asked you to google this guy. Since you are closed minded and need some schooling...

Anwar Awlaki HARBORED SOME OF THE HIJACKERS OF 9/11.
THEY MURDERED OVER 2900 AMERICANS.

Google this guy and learn something.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
SJames6621 says:
If we had been able to blow up the reichstag and the german army Hq in 1934, WWII and the holocaust etc would not have happened.

If we had understood the real plans of Bin Laden and sent him and his gang to hell in early 2000, the WTC would most likely not be a big hole in the ground, and 3000 Americans (and about 200 honarable muslims would not have been murdered.

This guy gave up his american citizenship when he essentially declared war on the USA.

We are fighting a different kind of war - not for territory and natural resources. We need different institutions to fight it.

I agree with his killing, btw he was also directly involved in the failed plot to blow up a Jetliner over Detroit a couple years ago. I know almost certainly the mistake they made re the explosives, I was in the mil many years ago, I'm not going to say what if was for obvious reasons.

Our govt did a good job. The only way you make progress is to cut off the head of the snake, and let the blind remains fight with each other.

I do support we need a secret war court with some congressional oversignt in these situations. We do have it already re eg wiretapping, the FISA court. Which as of about 5 years ago had refused only a handfull of the requests for wiretapping out of 30000. And the law also allows the govt to immediately do a wiretap and then allows them up to 72 hours to explain to the court what and why.

We are in a fight for survival by maniac religious people for whom death is the only answer, in most cases, we would never be able to capture them anyway, we 'd only lose our own people, and then they would commit suicide if a battle was being lost.

What do we do if we found out that the al_quaida in Pakistan had gotten ahold of a small nuclear bomb, and it was going to be shipped her or Europe?

Maybe taking a country off the face of the earth would be justified as well.

Unless you want to see NYC or LA or DC a glowing smoking ruin.
reply
tiycs replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
How exactly does one 'essentially' declare war on the United States? I ask only so I don't do so inadvertly and suffer the wrath of your leaders.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
hairynews says:
Amendment V

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 offence 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.

He, Anwar Awlaki declared war on USA constantly, google him.

Anwar Awlaki said kill Americans, google him.

THE V AMENDMENT ABOVE STATES IF YOU ARE AT WAR OR PUBLIC DANGER , THE GLOVES COME OFF!

"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"

IF you declare war, carry out threats by bombings etc, then he was at war.
reply
hairynews replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
1perish,

Bush warned the world, no safe haven for terrorists, Obama warned the world, no safe haven for terrorists.

Where have you been for the last 11 years?
danapointdad replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
"""by 1perish October 1, 2011 8:42 PM EDT
hairynews,

When did presidents become dictators with the right to kill anyone in any country? If we accept this, how long until it is done within our own borders? No trial, just suspicion and evidence only the ones ordering the killing are privy to?"""

hello? 9/11? what do you think that was?
This is asymetrical war, and the sooner we kill jihadi clerics inciting mass murder the better...
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Ninjafail says:
A department of justice lawyer wrote a memo in 2002 saying it was legal to use so-called enhanced interrogation techniques such as waterboarding on a few key enemy leaders. Eric Holder, the head of the Justice Department today calls that torture and pursued a criminal case not only against the agents who carried out waterboarding, but even against the lawyer for having the audacity to say it was legal.

Waterboarding, the act of placing fabric over a prone prisoner's face and pouring water on it, causes no physical damage other than getting wet, and very scared. Murder is, well, murder.

So Holder is saying murder is ok if sanctioned by the Justice Department, but waterboarding, also sanctioned by the Justice department is a horrific act.

Can this possibly be so?
reply
tiycs replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
There is an election in 2012 and some want to look tough.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
bradkt1 says:
I hate the very idea of a mere political appointee in DOJ saying that it is okay to kill an American citizen without judicial review of any kind simply because it is alleged that they are a threat to national security. No proof of ANY KIND has to be produced...a sentence of death is passed based on a mere accusation. Just think about some of the more dubious political appointees that we have had for attorneys general in the past...including the present one.

This guy that just got killed was an easy call, but there is a saying that bad cases make bad law...

...and I believe that this is a very bad precedent for the future.

So now we have a never ending war against "terror" (whatever that means) with neither no end in sight nor any idea of what constitutes victory in this war and the President of the United States has the authority: (1) to hold people (uncluding American citizens) without trial indefinitely; (2) to torture them; and (3) to just kill them.

What the hell happened to the U.S. Constitution?

As an American citizen, I never thought that I would live to saee this and I am sorry that I have.
reply
tiycs replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
One wonders if Mrs. Obama is still proud of her country?
hairynews replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
read the above and learn
danapointdad replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
what did you think when 9/11 happened? would you feel different if that jetliner with the underwear bomber had exploded, murdering hundreds? do these enemies play by ANY rule book?
sheesh, I cannot believe the comments here. we have to kill these people before they kill our children...
linkicon reporticon emailicon
westerly1 says:
Fatwah issued by Bin Laden: Muslims should kill civilians and military personnel from the United States and allied countries until they withdraw support for Israel and withdraw military forces from Islamic countries. Jihad: War against non-believers. We are at war & our inept government including Ron Paul have not upgraded laws to deal with modern day terrorism. Thus we still have Guantanamo; we have issues over trials of detainees on American soil; we have issues over the killing of Bin Laden. President Obama is getting criticism from Libertarians, Republicans and Democrats. He is doing the right thing in protecting us from terrorism.
reply
SJames6621 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
MarkDonners says Obama supports the return of slavery for the rich???!!!

the guy is delusional> its the middle class and upward mobility thats being destroyed by the large corporate ****** who ship good jobs overseas for more profits. While giving the PRC etc more profits. Whether they will become friend or enemy in the long term is to be seen.

BTW in 1980 the top 1% of the population took home 9% of the national income, probably appropriate.

Current statistics say its now 23-24%. Outrageous. Mr. Donners must be hypnotized and subliminally mesmerized by the FOX news network.

Just another greedy group where doing a $35 billion gross biz is not enough.

Its so interesting to note that Fox is banned in Britain (Murdochs home) and in Canada as well.
danapointdad replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
ten years after 9/11, and there has been one trial of the perps, to my knowledge...
insane... ron paul blew it.
danapointdad replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
markdonners, would you feel different if you had lost a spouse, a sibling or anyone dear to you from jihadist attacks yet? I bet you would, and hope you never have to find out. you are illogical in your post, btw...
linkicon reporticon emailicon
UForgotPoland says:
LOL @ those saying we should of gave him a trial. It would of been a circus of him just spewing out his hateful views. As for the actual onlooking of him, it was necessary because he was an active threat, just like how cops shoot criminals who are shooting back at them. He was a traitor and terrorist (who was also one of its commanding members) who put a 100% of his life into destroying our way of life, it is good he's gone and that we don't have to pay the taxes for his trial and imprisonment. Being a traitor also voids your constitutional rights.....
reply
Xxlip replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Where in the constitution does it say that being a traitor voids one's constitutional rights? Or, does it suffice some idiot like you who could not even write adequately in his/her own native language thinks so?
tiycs replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Xxlip,

I am certain that true Americans are taught about Constitutional exclusions in lieu of grammar in primary school
jaykay3141 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
XXlip, like many things in life, INTS - "It's Not That Simple". Article 3, section 3 of the constitution defines treason:

"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."

It's a dead cert that this guy was witnessed by at least two other people but it's equally certain they'd never end up in a US court to testify against him.

More recently there were the issues of British and American citizens who joined the Nazi army or one of its offshoots. I freely admit I'm not a lawyer but I doubt any GI or Tommy who faced one of them would have thought about their rights for more than half a second before pulling the trigger.
dlegr2501 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
@xxlip

If a man is walking down the street, pulls out a gun, and starts shooting people, do you advocate subduing him instead of shooting him as quickly as you can? There are times when people Ned to be eliminated as quickly as possible which supersedes the right to trial of a citizen. This man renounced his citizenship by his actions against our nation. So should we wait for him to send a formal letter of refusal to be a citizen? Send in personel and endanger their lives so we can subdue and try him? Eliminating him in this fashion is the best wAy to limit innocent lives and put fewer people at risk.
Xxlip replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
@jaykay

How simple can it be made for you that a person cannot be convicted of treason without two witnesses or a confession in an open court? I will settle for something less than two witnesses and/or even confession, if the preponderance of the evidence proved he was guilty of what he stood accused of.

@dlegr

Accusation is not equivalent to guilt, especially when the accuser is a shady government like that of the U.S.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
baileyccc says:
It makes me sick listening to those bleeding hearts republicans talk about how this piece of trash was a US citizen and should have had a trial. If we could have gotten bin Laden this quickly maybe, just maybe 9/11 may not have happen. One thing is for sure, the next big attack on American might have just been nip in the bud. If you need another reason to reelect President Obama, this was it. Bush got no one when he was in office.
reply
Xxlip replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
Your entire support for this extra-judicial killing is probably because Republicans are speaking against it. The Republican's primary reason for opposing this actions is almost certainly to make Obama look bad, as they have shown little regard for law and order when it comes what they term as 'war on terror'.

Such is the sad state of affairs in the United States today. Who needs reason and logic when there are the evil Republicans or Democrats to oppose.
tiycs replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
As I recall, you gave McVeigh a trial and he actually killed people first hand. Have you now outgrown that?
dlegr2501 replies:
linkicon reporticon emailicon
@baileyccc

We could have taken Bin Laden out years ago under Clinton's presidency. This is a rather ridiculous point to try and say we should re-elect Obama because of this. If you want to get technical about it, it was the intelligence forces put in place by Bush who hunt these criminals down and help us eliminate them. The President doesn't do anything other than say yes/no to certain decisions.
linkicon reporticon emailicon
hairynews says:
The dead included eight children: five on American 77 ranging in age from 3 to 11, three on United 175 ages 2, 3, and 4.The youngest victim was a 2-1/2 year-old child on Flight 175, the oldest an 82 year-old passenger on Flight 11. In the buildings, the youngest victim was 17 and the oldest was 79.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks

I suggest anyone who is against killing guys THAT DECLARED WAR ON USA and killed people take a momment and think.

Now that you have thought about it, now you can call the parents or survivors of these babies and kids killed on 9/11 and ask their opinion.
reply
2/7