US air strike targets Islamic state member

Uhm… that has literally zero to do with what I asked.

The US government gave orders to the US Air Force, which then flowed down the chain of command, to use a drone to fire a missile at Anwar al-Awlaki, an American citizen.

There was no judgement in a trial by his peers. He received no due process for the crimes he was accused of. He could have been tried in absentia with an appointed defense; there is a precedent to perform such actions. Yet that was not even entertained.

Instead it was done solely as a military operation by the executive branch. When the judicial branch should have been involved in such a case.

Was Al-Awlaki an anti-American piece of trash? Yes he was. But he was an American citizen and was not a member of the US military, where a person of his actions would tried by a form of military tribunal. He should have been tried for treason by civilian courts and if found guilty, then actions could have been taken to bring him into custody to serve a prison sentence or if necessary be given the death sentence and have it carried out in the method of which he was killed.

But it’s the lack of due process, the violations of his rights as an American citizen, that angered me. Not because of him personally; he was trash and the world is better without his presence. But because of the dangerous precedent that was set by those actions.

And he wasn’t the only one that was done to. And the executive branch grossly exceeded its authority, in my humble opinion.

It was the US government who made these decisions. Not a foreign power. So your examples have absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.

I respectfully disagree You have no rights as an American citizen in a foreign country.

None. If there were concerns on the citizens part he should have went to the American embassy where he does have rights.


Uh, you do when it comes to the US government.

The local government can do whatever they want to you. You have no rights in their jurisdiction outside of the rights they recognize.

But the US government does not have the authority to execute an American citizen without said citizen being afforded due process.

Had he been killing by the Yemeni government, yeah you’d be correct. His status as an American citizen wouldn’t mean ■■■■■

But he wasn’t killed by the Yemeni government now was he?

3 citizens. Including a 16 year-old boy.

1 Like

That post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of… everything.


We are not talking about your rights to protect you form the foreign government, we are talking about your protection from our government. Our government cannot violate your Constitutional Rights simply because we are outside the border. You cannot (legally, Constitutionally) be executed without due process by our government just because you are not in our country.


He knows that. He’s just playing obtuse.


Your opinion of course.

Mine differs.


Our government decided that the terrorist in question didn’t have due process rights.

If his family thought otherwise, there is something called the federal courts where disputes among govt and it’s citizens.



Just like W, who denied Jose Padilla his due process rights.

He fought him in court and won.

That bought the terrorist Padilla many years in supermax, where he resides to this day.


If terrorists are worried about their American due process rights, the place to fight for them is the courts.

Come back to America, get arrested, and them fight the govt to reside in supermax.

The govt of America will be glad to accommodate American citizens who are terrorists.


Dude. Are you serious right now?

You are completely missing the point.

The US government assassinated Al Awlaki. He never got a chance to go to court. They unilaterally made a decision to kill an American citizen without so much as a grand jury indictment.

Do you have any idea what you can justify with your line of thinking? With your philosophy an American citizen doesn’t even have to be formally accused of a crime. They can be put on a kill list solely because of HUMINT or SIGINT reports that state he or she is a terrorist without an investigation.

What if the intelligence gets it wrong? What if after the fact they state they ■■■■■■ up? What then? It’s all ok because someone reported that they were a “terrorist” without even fully vetting the intel that put them on the list in the first place?

Nope I disagree with your assessment.

You a citizen can bring a lawsuit in federal court, saying the POTUS denied him his 5th amendment right if you wish.


He might have been an innocent as the driven snow tourist.

He was, is and always will be a terrorist with evil intent towards the United States and its citizens.

Obama did an excellent thing in killing him.

You disagree.


So should the Rosenbergs been put in front of firing squad without a trial? After all they committed treason just like Awlaki. Yet they got a full trial and were convicted and then the sentence was carried out by electrocution.

No he wasn’t. That was the true low point of the Obama White House.

Well, that’s not true. Especially when the one deciding your American right to life is the American government. In that instance, you run up against treason, clear and present danger, etc.

But take heart: the only real reason they are concerned about this is because a democratic president ordered it. It’s totally in bad faith.

He discarded those rights, privileges, and protections when he took up arms against the US.

But again, this is all bad faith. The real issue is Obama. Had Trump done such a thing (and he may well have, but we can’t know), ya’ll would have been just fine with it.

Also, do you remember the right wing cacophony over the prisoner exchange for Bergdahl? I do. And ya’lls heads would have exploded had we sent a SEAL team to extract this guy for trial. And had that SEAL team taken casualties? Oh lordy.

This is fully bad faith, and you should stop it.