How is this legal?

The executive branch has assassinated US citizen Anwar Aulaqi, without giving him a fair trial or even arresting him. This power was granted to the president just recently.
Still voting for Obama?

I'm not voting Republican either, unless Ron Paul wins the primaries, he might be a little rough around the edges but he might actually accomplish something, he won't win the primaries though.

>The executive branch has assassinated US citizen Anwar Aulaqi,

They executed a terrorist, an enemy combatant and a traitor that was engaging in acts of war in which civilians were specifically targeted. He decided that the battle ground had no borders. He set the standards for his war.

You don't arrest enemy soldiers on the battlefield. This isn't Hollywood. You kill or capture them. The Yemeni government already ordered that he be captured dead or alive.

Obama and Republicans agree that RP is a fucktard.

Anwar Aulaqi was fighting in concert with enemy combatants and is, therefore, a casualty of battle.  If he wanted a fair trial, he should have surrendered himself for said trial.

>Anwar Aulaqi was fighting
>combatant
>On September 30, 2011, in northern Yemen's al-Jawf province, two Predator drones fired Hellfire missiles at a vehicle containing al-Awlaki and three other suspected al-Qaeda members. A witness said the group had stopped to eat breakfast while traveling to Ma'rib Governorate.
Eating breakfast is taking part in combat now.

>>5
He was also being a terrorist nigger.

>>5
Yes, it is. That is what happens when you plot and attempt to commit multiple acts of mass murder against civilians as part of a war in which every act is a crime against humanity. This is what happens when you ignore the rules of honorable combat and hide behind civilians.

Given the fact that the terrorists operate in areas where no government has the ability to stop them from simply disappearing yet again and again, you take your shot when you can. This a fucking war. The terrorists set the bar pretty low for what is fair game.

Stop being a crybaby faggot. This isn't an episode of CSI. Get fucking real and pick a side.

AND STATISM IS SUPPOSED TO BE CIVILIZED? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Well I'm not American... but I would vote for Obama... I wouldn't want to see what those Republicans would do with that power...

They talk a lot about small government but they wouldn't forfeit any power.

>>9
>They talk a lot about small government but they wouldn't forfeit any power.

Kinda vague remark given the fact libtards would prevent any attempt to do just that. Remember, libfags want Big Brother involved with every aspect of your life.

Hypocrite.

AntiStatist and Statist is meaningless nigger talk. Please refrain from pretending that either idea is actually part of a political debate with real people involved.

>>10
Like making sure religion is taught in school...no wait.

Like making sure no one hears about reproductive rights...no.

Like making sure no sexually oriented material can be published or distributed...whoops, that's not liberals, either.

Oh yeah: Preventing Americans from cheating or discriminating against other races and religions.  I knew there was SOMETHING Liberals wanted the government involved in.

Taking the conventional "come out with your hands up" approach would have meant we would not have had to risk the lives of special forces or civilians they may have taken hostage, however the special forces could have very easily ambushed him on a road away from civilians and taken a very aggressive approach in the knowledge the chances of him opening fire instead of waiting to negotiate are slim to none thereby minimizing risks. It would also mean that the state would not be allowed special powers to kill anyone they want which is something that was phased out in most countries in the 19th century and would be an important goal in the war on terror, if we allow the state to become more oppressive the terrorists win.

Taking the conventional "come out with your hands up" approach would have meant we would have had to risk the lives of special forces and civilians*

oops

Taking the conventional "come out with your hands up" approach would have meant we would have to risk the lives of special forces and civilians they may have taken hostage, however the special forces could have very easily ambushed him on a road away from civilians and taken a very aggressive approach in the knowledge the chances of him negotiating instead of just opening fire are slim to none. It would also mean that the state would not be allowed special powers to kill anyone they want which is something that was phased out in most countries in the 19th century and would be an important goal in the war on terror, if we allow the state to become more oppressive the terrorists win.

"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons"

It's called the authorization for use of military force act.  It was passed right after 9/11.  It would mean any member of al Qaeda (since they are the organization responsible for 9/11) is an unlawful combatant and the president has the power to execute a kill order.  Say what you will about Obama and the law but it's not unlawful and this expansion of executive power happened a decade ago under Bush, but you weren't paying attention then.

>>16
Oh and I'm still voting Obama. He's expanded lgbt rights immensely, improved environmental policy, stimulated american manufacturing, boosted green energy, and is actually winning the wars were in.

Why americans look for problems  where they dont exist?
Fuck that guy. US citezen? Not anymore. He hated America and the West civilisation. Now people start saying this bullshit ''vote on obama now'?'' he killed an us citezen without a trial... serious?
fuck..

>Oh and I'm still voting Obama. He's expanded gay rights immensely, killed jobs with environmental policy, killed  American manufacturing, gave away and lost billions in suspicious under the table deals to green companies, and did nothing but ignore the wars were in. Lets not bring up Obamacare, Libya or the deficit.

See you in 2012.

It is not legal. There is no "power granted" to Obama that lets him do this. He violated the constitution.

>>19
I support the health care plan, his actions in libya, and the deficit wasn't an issue that needed to be dealt with (not pre-recovery, you deal with debt after the economy recovers, not before).

>>19
forgot to address that he's created more jobs then any other president since the depression, manufacturing has actually gained steam and has been expanding under his presidency, you're exaggerating his mistake in funding solyndra, and if you think he did nothing but ignore the wars you have no idea what you're talking about.  His main focus can be said to be the wars, under his leadership al Qaeda has been decimated, they are no longer a threat anywhere outside of AQAP where Obama is now focusing his efforts.

>forgot to address that he's created more jobs then any other president

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

>His main focus can be said to be the wars

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH! x2

The power of pretend is awesome and infinite. Go back to /b/.

>>23
Which post depression presidents created more jobs? 

Also stop pretending like the war didn't turn around because of the massive troop surges and a focus on using drones.  We've literally decimated al qaedas leadership because of his war strategy.

it's probably politically and economically cheaper to kill Aulaqi than arrest him and put him through a trial and jail him.

Yea, sure, people will bitch about it,
but things will be back to normal after some time.


I'm sure a there a few cases that people have protested about something the government has done illegally, but have died down a couple weeks or months.

>>24
>>Also stop pretending like the war didn't turn around because
>>Also stop pretending
>>pretending

You are a master at this, are you not?

It must be nice to sit in a chair and take credit after all of the hard work is done. Obama has in no way did anything but continue the plan Bush set in motion. Even then, he ignores it and plays golf during his weekly vacation.

Iraq was done. Afghanistan has been slowly getting worse, especially with Pakistan's betrayal. I'm not blaming Obama, he simply doesn't have anything to do with it anymore.

>>25
He wasn't in a place where anyone could arrest him. No point in taking a risk that he might slip away.

>>27
>He wasn't in a place where anyone could arrest him.
He was eating breakfast for fucks sake.
>>24
>Which post depression presidents created more jobs? 
It's very easy to create jobs after you have killed them.

>>28
So were those 256 marines killed by that truck bomb.  He wanted to die for Allah.  We just helped him do it.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/al-awlaki-strike-kill-bombmaker/story?id=14655903
He's not even dead.

I want to know more about this.  The Romans had this kind of system too.  They called it "Imperial Proscription."  The Emperor and his cronies would write up a list of people they considered enemies of the state, or rather his personal enemies, and it would be posted in public, and the army would hunt these people down and kill them if someone looking for a reward didn't get them first.

Who comes up with this list?  What are the criteria?  Who decides?  Who's responsible?

What if Aulaqi had been in Virginia instead of Yemen?  Would they have sent a Predator drone to blow the shit out of some house in the NoVa burbs?  Or would that be too messy, maybe a DEVGRU hit squad would take him out?  Do they only arrest people inside the US and make no attempts to arrest people outside the US?  What if Aulaqi had been in the US and some random person on the street recognized him, maybe from a wanted poster or something, and decided to run over and beat him to death with a tire iron?  Does the person get charged with murder, or is it not a crime 'cos Aulaqi is on the "Imperial Proscription" list?  What if it happened in Mexico instead of Virginia?  Or six feet across the Canadian border?

What's that?  Constitution?  Rule of law?  Citizens have rights?  Bahahahahahahahaha.  Shut the fuck up and stop making waves, or maybe you'll be next, right?

>>28
>He was eating breakfast for fucks sake.

Are you saying terrorists should get temporary immunity while eating? Are you fucking retarded? Are you 10 years old? Do you think it's all just a computer game or something?

They could either hit him when he in the middle of nowhere or hit him when he when he was surrounded by civilians. Do the math.

But hey, he's not even dead. Happy now?

>>30
All I'm reading is that a bombmaker isn't dead, am I missing something? I thought we were talking about alwaki?

"The Ramadhan Foundation, a British Muslim group, suggested he should have been tried in an international court. "These drone attacks have no legal justification," said Mohammed Shafiq, an official of the group.

The federal judge who dismissed al-Awlaki's case in December said the court did not have the authority to override a decision made by the executive branch involved in an armed conflict. The court "concluded that even though he happens to be a U.S. citizen, he can still be treated like any other belligerent," said Charlie Dunlap, a former Air Force lawyer who is director of Duke University's Center on Law, Ethics and National Security.

"If he wanted judicial due process, the court said he would have to surrender himself to U.S. authorities," Dunlap said."

I loved that part of the article.

>>32
>Are you saying terrorists should get temporary immunity while eating?
No
>They could either hit him when he in the middle of nowhere or hit him when he when he was surrounded by civilians.
Or they could have arrested him

>>35
How? He wasn't anyplace where the rule of law mattered. What if he ran? What if he had a suicide vest? What if the locals tipped him off? What if he got away?

This is war. He didn't have to join it. He didn't have to target civilians as the primary targets. He didn't have to do the things he did but he made those decisions anyway. It's not about being civilized. It's about putting him down and going home.

If he wanted a trial and due process....then he should have turned himself in. Oh wait, he's a self admitted terrorist that wants kill as many innocent people as he can before he dies in a blaze of glory.

Americans just love overkill.

They could have just dropped the atom bomb in the sea next to Tokyo in plain sight of Hirohito and the Japanese brass and said "we'll drop the next one a few miles west next time, you will be signing that unconditional surrender right here now then", that would have been more effective.

This is not a war as some people say. The muslim world where people as Alwaki live doesn't want a war or even want to be extremist. There is just a small group of people there who are screwing around for the rest, saying they only want to get rid of America and they are just defending their homelands.
America in their turn say that they want to defend themselves from terroristic acts. While they actually have way, way other reasons to be in Iraq and Afghanistan. Of course they are fighting there, but their main goal is not to defeat terrorists. It's just to cover up the real reason why they are there, money. Not just only money from oil or to keep their economy running by creating a war. Mainly to make sure they have a certain power in the government of the occupied country.
AMERICA'S GOVERNMENT IS NO PEACEMAKER! They need to keep their economy running and use all means necessary, also war!
War is no solution. Peace is.

>>2
I'd prefer it if Kucinich or Sanders ran for president. Though, Paul does bring at least different discourse to the table (even if it's for all the wrong reasons).

>>37
Not really.  After the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the response of the Japanese military junta was "HAW HAW HAW, BET CHOO DON'T HAVE ANUDDER WAN"  The Emperor himself had to come out of seclusion to intervene personally, and it took him weeks to convince a majority of the junta to surrender.

Ye who bitch and moan about "overkill," talk to some old Marine who was on Okinawa or Iwo Jima.  Before the atomic bombings the Japanese were determined to fight for every centimeter of ground.  Even two nuclear weapons, when not immediately followed up with a third or a fourth, were not sufficient to convince them quickly.