Reporting from Washington— A U.S. military drone strike killed a top Al Qaeda operative in Yemen and the son of Anwar Awlaki, the American-born cleric killed in a similar strike two weeks ago, Yemeni security officials said.

As political unrest continues to roil Yemen, the U.S. has escalated its attacks against Al Qaeda's affiliate in the country.

Yemeni officials told reporters that nine members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula were killed in the strike near the town of Azzan in southeastern Yemen, including Awlaki's 21-year-old son, Abdul-Rahman Awlaki, and Egyptian-born Ibrahim Banna, whom officials described as the media chief of the Al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen.

The killing of Anwar Awlaki was hailed as a major victory against Al Qaeda's most active and creative branch. Anwar Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, was known for his carefully reasoned sermons posted on the Internet and on YouTube urging Muslims to attack the United States.

Im pretty sure this is another conflict overseas that our gov't and Obama has signed on to.. So we got Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, and now the "new" hotbed of terror Yemen.. Wow that must be a new record of war ( opps "conflicts" ) we are engaged in

Also whatever your feelings about Al Awlaki being assassinated by US drones, even on baseline justification of the "spin" the US put on him...
What justification did the US have for killing his son? I didn't hear any justification or reasoning as to why his son was gulity or deserving to be assassinated too.. Along with the other 8 "militants" killed

So has the US now just cross that line and engage in indiscriminate ( no due process, no court judgement, not even a media excuse or justification ) as to why they choose to kill someone..

Don't know bout you but you might want to stock up on some SAM, AA, or AAAD too..
Considering you might want to start excercisng your Constitutional right as to not be killed by your beloved US gov't without due process and to not allow the gov't to kill you without at least having some right to stop it. ( future by air assassinations )

It's completely justified for the US to kill as many terrorists(US born or not makes no difference) as they can in Yemen or whatever hostile lands that they hide in with Drones.

USA #1

:heart:Drones:heart:

^ wow, it's that undying support to fight terrorism that's going to be the end of us all

Sad when people support killing a US citizen without a fair trial.

^ wow, it's that undying support to fight terrorism that's going to be the end of us all

Sad when people support killing a US citizen without a fair trial.

8 militant al qeada including his 17yo terrorist son was killed by a drone with persmission by the yemen government.

So let me ask if you're williing to risk your life to go into a militant al-qeada camp in yemen so that you can safely bring him back for a trial? i'm all up for a trial over a drone attack, but not at the risk of American troops getting killed in unsecured hostile lands to bring this POS back!

will you do it for us please big pimp? ATL represent! :bounce:

^ wow, it's that undying support to fight terrorism that's going to be the end of us all

Sad when people support killing a US citizen without a fair trial.


If the person makes themselves a military target by joining an enemy that we are at war with, then they have no right to a "fair trial" before being dispatched.

Sad when people support killing a US citizen without a fair trial.Are you serious? So if a US citizen went to Germany to serve in WW II, would it be a crime to kill him in combat?

That man declared war on us. And the Yemeni Government stated that they helped the US plan the attack.

Im pretty sure this is another conflict overseas that our gov't and Obama has signed on to.. So we got Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, and now the "new" hotbed of terror Yemen..
According to our friends here on the Left, no, this does not constitute a war.
These kind of actions, only upset Dems, if a Republican is in office.

On the other hand, I'm all for these actions. I say, take these scum out, where ever we find them....

Are you serious? So if a US citizen went to Germany to serve in WW II, would it be a crime to kill him in combat?

That man declared war on us. And the Yemeni Government stated that they helped the US plan the attack.
Exactly. Take these fools out.

We're doing this in Parkistan too. However, I agree with the neo-cons here that this is a good thing.

8 militant al qeada including his 17yo terrorist son was killed by a drone with persmission by the yemen government.

So let me ask if you're williing to risk your life to go into a militant al-qeada camp in yemen so that you can safely bring him back for a trial? i'm all up for a trial over a drone attack, but not at the risk of American troops getting killed in unsecured hostile lands to bring this POS back!

will you do it for us please big pimp? ATL represent! :bounce:

let me know what specific crimes he's committed.

Has he ever been indicted by the government? how about on a terrorist watch list? What did his son do? Obviously he's "al qaeda" so we have the right to kill him correct?

We're doing this in Parkistan too. However, I agree with the neo-cons here that this is a good thing.No, you see, it's the NeoCons who agree with President Obama in this case :)

It's so disturbing to see the Republicans and Democrats come together on summarily executing American citizens without due process.

It's so disturbing to see the Republicans and Democrats come together on summarily executing American citizens without due process.

What would you propose as an alternative to the drone killing in order to deal with a person widely seen as a threat to the USA?

What would you propose as an alternative to the drone killing in order to deal with a person widely seen as a threat to the USA?
You're right, there's no alternative. Drone killings for everyone!

You're right, there's no alternative.
I don't see where that was posted. Why don't you just answer the question?

You're right, there's no alternative. Drone killings for everyone!

I'm serious. What alternatives do you propose for dealing with such a situation? Do you think we should capture them and try them in court? What if it's too hazardous to put troops on to ground the capture them? Or if the country they're in refuses to cooperate or is too disorganized to do so?

OP, please explain what is indiscriminate about this ?

It's so disturbing to see the Republicans and Democrats come together on summarily executing American citizens without due process.


And again, "military targets" aren't entitled to due process.

I'm not going to weigh in on the killing of the US citizens as there is already a thread where my point is detailed. I don't know if Awlaki's son was a citizen.

I'm for toppling foreign threats with military action.

I'm not going to weigh in on the killing of the US citizens as there is already a thread where my point is detailed. I don't know if Awlaki's son was a citizen.

I'm for toppling foreign threats with military action.


Except for instances where those "foreign threats" happen to hold US Citizenship, then you expect due process, arrest warrants and criminal trials first :)

I don't see where that was posted. Why don't you just answer the question?
Because the question obviously carries the implication that there is no alternative? It doesn't matter what I say, the response will never be, "You're right, that's better. We should have done that." It's going to be continuous what-ifs and moving the goal posts until I give up. His response right after yours is evidence of just that. I just cut to the chase.

I'm serious. What alternatives do you propose for dealing with such a situation? Do you think we should capture them and try them in court? What if it's too hazardous to put troops on to ground the capture them? Or if the country they're in refuses to cooperate or is too disorganized to do so?
I know droning people sounds like this great idea because you don't have to put troops at risk, but it dehumanizes warfare, which is dangerous. If there are no consequences it becomes a lot easier to justify going to war, which is not something that should be considered so lightly. We've already come to the point where we have killed thousands of people with these drones, including hundreds of civilians as collateral damage (that we know of anyway). We would never tolerate another nation bombing people in our country. Yet somehow folks here think that these other countries must do just that. It's ridiculous.

I know droning people sounds like this great idea because you don't have to put troops at risk, but it dehumanizes warfare, which is dangerous. If there are no consequences it becomes a lot easier to justify going to war, which is not something that should be considered so lightly. We've already come to the point where we have killed thousands of people with these drones, including hundreds of civilians as collateral damage (that we know of anyway). We would never tolerate another nation bombing people in our country. Yet somehow folks here think that these other countries must do just that. It's ridiculous.


Perhaps that's because we would go in and remove the terrorists at the behest of the allied country ?

Are you serious? So if a US citizen went to Germany to serve in WW II, would it be a crime to kill him in combat?


Great point.

Except for instances where those "foreign threats" happen to hold US Citizenship, then you expect due process, arrest warrants and criminal trials first :)

:cheers:

I know droning people sounds like this great idea because you don't have to put troops at risk, but it dehumanizes warfare, which is dangerous. If there are no consequences it becomes a lot easier to justify going to war, which is not something that should be considered so lightly. We've already come to the point where we have killed thousands of people with these drones, including hundreds of civilians as collateral damage (that we know of anyway). We would never tolerate another nation bombing people in our country. Yet somehow folks here think that these other countries must do just that. It's ridiculous.

So, do you think we should start putting significant troops on the ground in Yemen then? Or do you think we should ignore the threat of Awlaki and Khan?

It's easy to criticize. It's harder to actually offer a better alternative.

OP, please explain what is indiscriminate about this ?

Can you tell me what his son was involved in that made him deserving of a missle...

Cause I haven't heard any reasons from my beloved gov't in regards as to why we are in countries doing airborn assassinations...

So, do you think we should start putting significant troops on the ground in Yemen then? Or do you think we should ignore the threat of Awlaki and Khan?

It's easy to criticize. It's harder to actually offer a better alternative.

And why should we be all over the world killing people?

Does a person deserve to be assassinated because he/she "hate" the US and voice their displeasurement?

Has Awalaki physcially killed someone? or has the USA killed more?

So is it public policy now to kill anyone who speak out against the USA regardless of their nationality or citizenship? So has the USA ventured into becoming the thought police?

At what point will citizen within this country become "ok'ed" for the same treatment?

And why should we be all over the world killing people?

Does a person deserve to be assassinated because he/she "hate" the US and voice their displeasurement?

Has Awalaki physcially killed someone? or has the USA killed more?

So is it public policy now to kill anyone who speak out against the USA regardless of their nationality or citizenship? So has the USA ventured into becoming the thought police?

At what point will citizen within this country become "ok'ed" for the same treatment?

It's already happened. One example was Vicki Weaver.

But in that thread, you were OK with it.

Guess it's because she wasn't "brown", eh?

It's already happened. One example was Vicki Weaver.

But in that thread, you were OK with it.

Guess it's because she wasn't "brown", eh?

:nono:
where did I say I was ok'ed with her being killed?

Her husband on the other hand.... is the different story

I don't like wars. It destroys everything.

If they must kill anyone that threatens them, they should develop a machine or strategy that only damages that person or people. And not bomb down buildings, or landmarks or architectural points.

I don't see where that was posted. Why don't you just answer the question?

Jim, just tell paperboy you won't answer the question because "he won't listen to your answer" and keep providing evasive responses (not answers). That's what he did to me yesterday. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Jim, just tell paperboy you won't answer the question because "he won't listen to your answer" and keep providing evasive responses (not answers). That's what he did to me yesterday. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
:crying: :crying:

BTW, I did answer your question, you just didn't like the answer, surprising I know.

what was the answer? The question was: What would a reasonable person conclude from devos comments?

devos comments: http://slickdeals.net/forums/showpost.php?p=43925202&postcount=580

what was the answer? The question was: What would a reasonable person conclude from devos comments?
See: other thread.

:nono:
where did I say I was ok'ed with her being killed?

Her husband on the other hand.... is the different story

Yet you don't recognize your huge double standard.

Can you tell me what his son was involved in that made him deserving of a missle...

Cause I haven't heard any reasons from my beloved gov't in regards as to why we are in countries doing airborn assassinations...

That has nothing to do with whether or not it was indiscriminate.
To me it seems, at least from the info we have, that it was not indiscriminate at all.

And again, "military targets" aren't entitled to due process.

why don't you show us where the government has indicted him of treason or other related crimes?

hint: being allegedly involved in crimes doesn't count. We don't kill people for "allegedly" being involved. And before you start, speech (even hateful speech) is still protected under that thing called the first amendment.

In short: Is he an incendiary preacher? yes. Is that a crime? no.

why don't you show us where the government has indicted him of treason or other related crimes?
Can you show where the government needed to have an indictment against him?

Can you show where the government needed to have an indictment against him?

hmm idk that thing where you actually need proof of wrong doing to kill someone? are we killing people for the hell of it now?

hmm idk that thing where you actually need proof of wrong doing to kill someone?
You mean like him declaring war on the US and subsequently making himself a war target? :dontknow:

hmm idk that thing where you actually need proof of wrong doing to kill someone? are we killing people for the hell of it now?

He is an outspoken member of a widely recognized terrorist organization which has made several attacks on the USA.

You mean like him declaring war on the US and subsequently making himself a war target? :dontknow:

i had no idea the peoples republic of anwar al awlaki could declare war on us? in any case, if you are so sure of his crimes WHY hasn't the GOVERNMENT brought charges against him? Our great intelligence resoruces can't muster enough for a grand jury conviction? If the government was competent to even do that much I would have no objection. But as it stands, this is basically the government saying "we don't like you, we kill you."

He is an outspoken member of a widely recognized terrorist organization which has made several attacks on the USA.

What direct hand did he play in those attacks? Besides talking with people who eventually committed or tried to commit crimes, where is the proof that he recruited people (and told them what to do), bought guns/explosives, carried out intelligence for a group, etc. Where is any of it? The government hasn't even released the emails between nidal hussein for crying out loud.

It's like saying a clerk of 7-11 is guilty of a crime because he told me he hated his job, then I subsequently rob the store.

And, it's not even clear that he was part of al qaeda.

That has nothing to do with whether or not it was indiscriminate.
To me it seems, at least from the info we have, that it was not indiscriminate at all.

Yes it is indiscriminate.... unless you got some info that his son was also a "terrorist" or you just like to take the word coming out of the den of liars ....

And do the USA really have the authority to make a determination of which foreign citizen(s) is/are worthy of death?

Face it we are killing people merely because they voice hatred for the USA...

i had no idea the peoples republic of anwar al awlaki could declare war on us? in any case, if you are so sure of his crimes WHY hasn't the GOVERNMENT brought charges against him? Our great intelligence resoruces can't muster enough for a grand jury conviction? If the government was competent to even do that much I would have no objection. But as it stands, this is basically the government saying "we don't like you, we kill you."
Do you think our military should be an actual police force?

Do you think our military should be an actual police force?

Where did I say to arrest him? foolish.

FBI officials were quoted as saying that Awlaki was an important recruiter for al Qaida and had been contacted by an associate of Osama bin Laden, though no evidence was provided and U.S. authorities haven't charged Awlaki with any crime.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/11/20/79261/is-imam-a-terror-recruiter-or.html

Where did I say to arrest him? foolish.
So what would the point of an indictment be if not to subsequently arrest and bring to trial? Or do you want the US to have mass pointless indictments to fill a useless quota?

Yes it is indiscriminate.... unless you got some info that his son was also a "terrorist" or you just like to take the word coming out of the den of liars ....

And do the USA really have the authority to make a determination of which foreign citizen(s) is/are worthy of death?

Face it we are killing people merely because they voice hatred for the USA...

You don't seem to understand what the word indiscriminate means.
These weren't just random strikes, they hit specific intentional targets.
That is not indiscriminate.

why don't you show us where the government has indicted him of treason or other related crimes?

hint: being allegedly involved in crimes doesn't count. We don't kill people for "allegedly" being involved. And before you start, speech (even hateful speech) is still protected under that thing called the first amendment.

In short: Is he an incendiary preacher? yes. Is that a crime? no.


There was no need to charge him with treason or any other crime due to the rather simple fact that we weren't pursuing legal proceedings against him.

He was a valid military target and he was dealt with accordingly.

There was no need to charge him with treason or any other crime due to the rather simple fact that we weren't pursuing legal proceedings against him.

He was a valid military target and he was dealt with accordingly.

Some of these idiots just can't understand that al qaeda is a valid military target because of 9/11 and the whole farking reason we went to war in afghanistan. i feel like i'm arguing with al qaeda here. :cool:

Some of these idiots just can't understand that al qaeda is a valid military target because of 9/11 and the whole farking reason we went to war in afghanistan. i feel like i'm arguing with al qaeda here. :cool:

the only problem with your theory (something an idiot can understand) is that it's not clear he was even a part of Al Qaeda. Do you get that? or should I type that in bold for you?

There was no need to charge him with treason or any other crime due to the rather simple fact that we weren't pursuing legal proceedings against him.

He was a valid military target and he was dealt with accordingly.

that's great, that's all I wanted to know. Clearly, US citizenship [and the rights that it entails] mean nothing to you. Since the FBI and CIA and xyz agency say he's a terrorist [without actually showing any proof thus not really making him a "valid" target], it makes it perfectly okay to kill an American citizen. Wonderful.

the only problem with your theory (something an idiot can understand) is that it's not clear he was even a part of Al Qaeda. Do you get that? or should I type that in bold for you?

It may not be clear to you, but it was crystal clear to the US government. Do you get it yet? :wave:

It may not be clear to you, but it was crystal clear to the US government. Do you get it yet? :wave:

Stop the horses! the government says it's so, it must be TRUE!!!!!

It may not be clear to you, but it was crystal clear to the US government. Do you get it yet? :wave:

wake up...terrorism is the boogeyman the govt uses to keep the public afraid and supporting the military occupation of the middle east for control of oil and other resources.

this clip is from a BBC documentary called "The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear", I suggest you watch it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZOoJKO1s4M

that's great, that's all I wanted to know. Clearly, US citizenship [and the rights that it entails] mean nothing to you. Since the FBI and CIA and xyz agency say he's a terrorist [without actually showing any proof thus not really making him a "valid" target], it makes it perfectly okay to kill an American citizen. Wonderful.


Actually, US Citizenship does mean something to me.

BUT, when one joins a group that is AT FRAKKING WAR with the US, they are not entitled to due process rights before they can be listed as a MILITARY TARGET.

I asked this question in another thread on this issue and will go ahead and let you weigh in with your little opinion as well.

Dial up the waaaayback machine to right after Pearl Harbor. Say that a Japanese American with US Citizenship leaves the US, goes to Japan and joins the Japanese Navy.

Say that he is named as the Captain of a freaking aircraft carrier.

Now, do we have to hold a trial for this man before the ship he is captain of can be targeted ? Do we have to launch and send a little skiff over to try and serve him with an arrest warrant ?

Or what about a US citizen of German descent who left the US to go join the Wermacht ?

Here, I'll save you the trouble. The answer of course is HELL NO! Both are enemy combatants at war with the US and they will be targeted like any other enemy.

That you might hold US Citizenship DOES NOT confer special rights upon you when you join in with a country/group that is at war with the US.

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;

It is inconsistent and hypocritical to be upset with the expansion of any other part of the Constitution but not this section.

I haven't kept a close eye on this thread. The other thread has a nice full argument between me, Demo, and TRNT on the killing of a US Citizen as a military target. I suggest heading over there before you start running in circles again.

http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3369722