IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Anwar al-Awlaki taken out by drone strike
http://www.npr.org/2...r-al-qaida-leader
A Hellfire missile fired from an American drone killed Anwar al-Awlaki on Friday, ending a two-year hunt for a radical cleric who had called on his followers to attack the U.S. any way they could.

Details are still unclear, but apparently Yemen had a hand in the operation.

I'm disappointed that he was killed rather then arrested, but from what I have seen there is little doubt as to his guilt. If your worried about slippery slopes, this is the one you should be worried about, the US government deciding without a trial that a US citizen deserves to be killed.

Jay
New Re: Little doubt of his guilt
I'm not sure who's doubt counts. I thought there were some local statutes on this:

Article 1) Congress shall make no law ...abridging the freedom of speech...

Article 4) ..and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation...

Article 5) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury...nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

Article 6) In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...

I guess I was wrong. Your conclusions are as good as mine.
New assassination of an american citizen
When a citizen is killed by state edict without the judicial oversight involved it is murder. A judge in the Indian territories could issue a warrant to be served dead or alive but a Mayor, Governor, Congressman, Senator, or President could not. This shit needs to quit and I dont give a fuck what color or party the miscreants belong to. Right now some arab american in yemen. How long until its state sanctioned strange fruit hanging along the hyways and byways of our nation "just because"
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New Slippery-slope doesn't apply.
Your objections are a variation on the slippery-slope argument. That doesn't work. See #51606 - http://iwt.mikevital....iwt?postid=51606

Cheers,
Scott.
New I saw that link, doesnt apply at all
So, Bellinger says, under his view of the law, a criminal trial or even an indictment doesn't have to happen to satisfy the Constitution.
Instead, a legal finding by the Justice Department and debate among lawyers from multiple government agencies might have satisfied Awlaki's rights under the Fifth Amendment.
I dont see the word judge anywhere in that argument. So I dont need to see a judge because the prosecutors discussed my case in the monday morning meeting and decided I needed 20 years. Bullshit, Complete Bullshit
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New A judge has to give permission for a policeman to shoot you?
The law in Awlaki's case is debatable because of the contradictions in law in this "war" and arguments about what constitutes the "battlefield" these days. But nobody claims that suburban Georgia is the same "battlefield" as the badlands of the deserts of northern Yemen. I think many of the overarching claims under Bush about the need for extraordinary executive powers were bogus and dangerous. But it's clearly the case that, as AG said elsewhere, the state takes the life of citizens every day without indictments or judges or juries making a ruling.

I don't know the details of Awlaki's case. Maybe there was a secret grand jury indictment. Or maybe there's some applicable law that wasn't followed. I dunno. But I don't see his death, or the 2002 death of Kamal Derwish, is a sign that the black helicopters are going to shoot me or my neighbors. I don't buy the slippery-slope argument here or in any other case I can think of.

At some point, one has to decide whether others can be trusted. If you don't trust the reporting on Awlaki's activities, why would you trust the reporting about any indictment or trial? Of course, the government can feed lies to reporters. But in this case, it seems unlikely that Awlaki was somehow framed. Why would the courts be part of such a conspiracy?

Those with sufficient interest can dig up Awlaki's web site and writings themselves - I don't have that interest.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New yes, if said policeman is to hunt me down in my environment
what activities? Actively calling for "death to america" some of the president's best friends have done exactly that.
Owning a website and writing op eds is a reason to get killed by the US government? Sucks to live in amerika then
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New Let me know when they come for you. :-/
New they just rounded up 100 of my neighbors
trailer park nearby. I know many of them them. Doesnt matter to you they are only latinos. Trust the feds like you say
http://www.myfoxatla...id-20110929-pm-pk
Interesting, a friend of mine who watch this from the convenience store across the street said they filled 3 buses with arrestees. News said they arrested 10. Trust your government with all you heart. FUCK THAT
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New And that has what, exactly, to do with Awlaki?
ICE (nee INS) has nothing to do with DOD/CIA. You know this.

Might as well claim that the Junior Rangers run Guantanamo. :-/

If you don't like your neighbors being arrested by ICE, support those who are mounting their legal defense, lobby Congress to change the law, and vote out those who wrote and support the laws in the first place. That's likely to be more effective than conflating unrelated issues in posts on the internet.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New DangerRoom's take.
http://www.wired.com...illegal-or-legal/

Cheers,
Scott/
New there is a simple answer with plenty of precedent
the federal JUDGE who was trying the fort hood shooter could very simply issue a warrant when requested after reviewing evidence that the fucktard was involved
All I ask is that the assholes in DC pretend to follow the law
http://www.okolha.ne...er_king_names.htm
Creekmore, Milo was commissioned in the Western District of Arkansas. Deputy Marshal Creekmore was summoned to arrest outlaw Ned Christie near Tahlequah, Cherokee Nation. Christie had killed Deputy Marshal Dan Maples and wounded two others in three previous attempts to arrest him. Judge Parker, realizing how dangerous Ned Christie was, placed a Dead Or Alive order on his warrant.
this admin like the previous refuses to acknowledge that they are bound by ANY restraints.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New Open your eyes.
Arresting a civilian, or issuing a warrant for a civilian, inside North America is very different from doing so for someone at "war" with the US from the deserts of Yemen.

You may not like it, you may not think it was sufficient (it's certainly debatable), but a legal process was followed in Awlaki's case.

http://www.washingto...x1bUAL_print.html

“As a general matter, it would be entirely lawful for the United States to target high-level leaders of enemy forces, regardless of their nationality, who are plotting to kill Americans both under the authority provided by Congress in its use of military force in the armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces as well as established international law that recognizes our right of self-defense,” an administration official said in a statement Friday.

President Obama and various administration officials referred to Aulaqi publicly for the first time Friday as the “external operations” chief for al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a label that may be intended to underscore his status as an operational leader who posed an imminent threat.

A Justice Department spokeswoman declined to comment. The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.

Robert Chesney, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in national security law, said the government likely reviewed Aulaqi’s constitutional rights, but concluded that he was an imminent threat and was deliberately hiding in a place where neither the United States nor Yemen could realistically capture him.

Last year, the Obama administration invoked the state secrets privilege to argue successfully for the dismissal of a lawsuit brought in U.S. District Court in Washington by Aulaqi’s father, Nasser, seeking to block the targeting of his son. Judge John Bates found that in Aulaqi’s case, targeting was a “political question” to be decided by the executive branch.

The decision to place Aulaqi on a capture or kill list was made in early 2010, after intelligence officials concluded that he played a direct role in the plot to blow up a jet over Detroit and had become an operational figure within al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen.


There are legal restraints in place on what the President can do. If you don't think they're sufficient: lobby your Congressman and Senator to have the laws changed; send money to the ACLU to file more lawsuits; picket the Pentagon; write advocacy posts.

Writing hyperbolic posts that are easily rebutted doesn't help your arguments. IMO.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Really?
There are legal restraints in place on what the President can do.

The president needs a written opinion that you are a danger to the country, an opinion that you can't read or challenge because it's natural security. I'm not seeing that as much of a restraint.

Jay
New Not much of one, but one none the less.
Do you think that Obama could get a Finding signed off by all the various lawyers that declared that Rep. Allen West was an "unlawful enemy combatant" (, ignoring for the moment that the Obama administration gave up using that term,) so that he could be sent to Guantanamo? How about Box?

I don't.

Rank-in-file federal officials - the ones who would have to sign off on such findings - swear an oath to uphold the Constitution. The vast majority take that oath seriously. And the federal courts can and do step in when asked. (Things have changed and been clarified since the days of Addington, Gonzales and Yoo.)

Hyperbolic language about Obama having unlimited power to lock people up and/or kill them doesn't help. Obama isn't Assad.

Review Padilla's case - http://en.wikipedia....la_%28prisoner%29

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New no different at all, yemen or Indian Territories
Again, how hard would it be to get the Fort Hood shooter federal judge to issue that warrant? That is simple, that is legal, not hyperbole. Its the admin which is going to extraordinary efforts to ensure there is NO juidicial oversight or constraint of the executive's actions in regards american citizens. A direct violation of the constitution.

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
New Of course!
Back to that.
     Anwar al-Awlaki taken out by drone strike - (jay) - (16)
         Re: Little doubt of his guilt - (hnick) - (8)
             assassination of an american citizen - (boxley) - (7)
                 Slippery-slope doesn't apply. - (Another Scott) - (6)
                     I saw that link, doesnt apply at all - (boxley) - (5)
                         A judge has to give permission for a policeman to shoot you? - (Another Scott) - (4)
                             yes, if said policeman is to hunt me down in my environment - (boxley) - (3)
                                 Let me know when they come for you. :-/ -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                     they just rounded up 100 of my neighbors - (boxley) - (1)
                                         And that has what, exactly, to do with Awlaki? - (Another Scott)
         DangerRoom's take. - (Another Scott) - (6)
             there is a simple answer with plenty of precedent - (boxley) - (5)
                 Open your eyes. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                     Really? - (jay) - (1)
                         Not much of one, but one none the less. - (Another Scott)
                     no different at all, yemen or Indian Territories - (boxley) - (1)
                         Of course! - (folkert)

I don't think mammals are meant to eat reptiles.
80 ms