News with opinion (it's worth reading I'd say): http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/04/07/assassinations

News by itself:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

I'm just posting it separately for people who would rather just read the news with the opinion, or read the news without it. For the record, the opinion author does not twist the original story, the opinion article merely just has more depth to it with some more context.

Anyways, while I think odds might be against this guy being innocent (i'm sure the government has loads of illegally obtained evidence that this guy is a terrorist), and he may just be the most evil dude on the face of the planet, I must say that coming out and just basically saying "Kill this Mother******" is a pretty extreme move. Do you think the President alone should have the ability to do this without a vote? Let alone the ability to do it without any evidence available to the public?

Thoughts, wookies, concerns, mentats, praises, antonys?

The only real problem I have with this is the fact that everybody knows about it.

Just effing do it, don't make a scene to try and gain Republican support or whatever. Send some elite squad sworn to secrecy just like in the movies, take care of business, get out of there, and deny deny deny.

Eh, treason is treason in my opinion. When it comes to personally attacking other countrymen I'd say your open game. I certainly wouldn't want a monster like that having the opportunity to harm my family in the future.

Put a treat from uncle sam right through his living room window I say.

How about- Find him, arrest him, give him a trial for treason?
If you can find him to kill him, you can find him to arrest him.

My question is if they really have enough evidence to think this guy is a terrorist, why don't they just release it to the public? It would strengthen their case, make it seem less aggressive.

How about giving people a fair trial?

This is some Orwellian **** we got here.

I really don't know enough to know where I stand here. It bothers me that the american government is ordering the killing of an American citizen, but also it appears to be little different from ordering the killing of, say, bin Laden, or any number of enemy forces, it's really just incidental that he's an american citizen. Beyond that I just don't know.

Same thought than ran through my head.

Concerning the OT's title - I thought that in the previous thread you guys established that he's black? So now he's also a lizard?

Huzzah! Hahaha, you made me chuckle good sir

Otherwise, I dig the article. It's like a thriller plot.

.

Person suspected of terrorism against America receiving a fair trial in an American court?

Not gonna happen. A lot of people don't even have to be terrorists to not receive a fair trial.

Nope, this definitely bothers me. As someone who is pretty much almost definitely on some kind of watch list for some super-secret CIA anti-domestic-terrorism list :tinfoil:, I don't like it one bit. Tried to give 'em the benefit of the doubt for a moment, but this is messed up, and is exactly the kind of thing that fuels my tiny, timid, gubmint distrusting tinfoil.

V made it pretty clear that alien lizards have a similar domestic agenda.

Obama wants to steal our water?

Universal Health Care.

UHC is a plot to inject us with R6.

My God, I wish I didn't know that much about the V storyline.

No one ever gets a truly fair trial, the point is to make it as fair as possible. The real problem is that this guy isn't getting a trial at all. American law is clear that every person is due a trial. I can't imagine this will go very far, I hope that the judicial system steps in and smacks Obama down on this.

This is a step in a very scary direction.

Also these guys need to watch the episode of Galactica with Gaius' trial.
That episode should be given a Nobel prize.

To me it seems those of you who are paranoid about this are making a mountain out of a molehill. Sure, you can say Obama's decision seems tolitarian and the likes, and how it will be the undoing of our freedoms we enjoy such as innocent until proven guilty etc,

BUT

This guy isn't your every day con man, fraud specialist, thief, murderer, thug, etc. He is a terrorist who is probably guilty of 10+ murders, most of which are probably american lives. Just speculating here but I'm fairly certain that if there was a serial killer like that running around the streets of america, cops will shoot first and ask questions later.

ALSO: sidenote here but I am of the belief that the day you turn your back on your own country and commit treason is the day you give up all of its comfortable rights, including right to a trial. Why should you receive ANY benefits from the country you so hate and from its people you wouldn't hesitate to kill? I certainly don't think many other countries would extend the leiniencies (sp there) and comforts that we do for such said "citizens". That is purely my opinion though and is probably not shared by many others.

I think your getting worked up over nothing honestly. Sure you can say if its ok here it will be ok elsewhere blahblahblah. The same can be said for 10000 different other things in politics and every other aspect of daily life. This guy is evil and obama wants to get rid of him asap, I can't blame him.

Just my 0.02 Not trying to flamewar with anyone.

I was pretty sure OJ Simpson was guilty but somehow he was proven Innocent, guess the trial was a little too fair.

But on an honest note, even though I don't fully support Obama, I think this article is a bit blown out of proportion.

I think the worry here is not that they can kill Islamist extremists, but that eventually they'll start killing anyone they think is a terrorist.

Well, obviously for this administration at least, only if they're American citizens.

8 U.S.C. § 1481

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States, violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section 2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a court of competent jurisdiction.

oh my god, this lapse in bureaucratic process is so orwellian

oh my god, a man who has admitted he is guilty of treason has been given a death sentence for it. how orwellian! this man who technically isn't an american citizen anymore deserves due process!!

That's awesome! I hadn't thought of it in that regard. Since he has, essentially, given up his citizenship he sould be entitled to greater protection by this administration!

if obama is willing to assassinate a violent traitor it surely means the cow-eyed punctual taxpayers of middle america are next!

I think it would be a lot more understandable to simply give the guys orders to capture him if it's reasonably possible, but kill him if it isn't.
Give him a trial, it will inevitably lead to his execution, but everyones hands are clean.
If they end up killing him, well he was fighting back and they had to use deadly force in self defense, hands clean.

yeah man, obama should have like totally told a bunch of soldiers to risk their lives to capture a guy so they can kill 'im proper like with sterile needles

As a caveat, (b) in that statute requires that "Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961 under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act, the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence."

Of course, that requires that there be a proceeding; there hasn't been and probably won't be before the guy's dead. Accounting for executive immunities, I'm not sure there could be any kind of proceeding (for wrongful death or what have you) even after his death. But I've had a few beers, so I'm sure there's something I've missed.

And yeah, Wookie, you fail law forever.

Only if the trial is in California. Then, everyone's hands will be clean because he will die of old age!

That's not the point, the point is that the system only works when the worst people are given fair trials, everyone has a right to one no matter how terrible of a person you are,
Unless that was sarcasm/satire, but I have a hard time picking up either on the internet.

You're fat. And ugly. And nerdy.

It's ok guys, the guy checked "guilty" on the census.

I'm not sure the step is in a new direction, though. How many people, during the Bush Jr. administration, were trapped in Guantanamo without receiving any sort of trial at all? Or does the law you refer to only apply to American citizens, which wouldn't seem very fair either, considering a bunch of those people captured by the US turned out to be not guilty? I do, however, agree that the guy should be subjected to his country's judicial system before the execution instead of skipping the former, if only because it would elevate a sense of justice!

I don't see why it matters when we've already killed over a million innocent people.

I'm sure this stuff has happened all the time, it's just that this time we found about it.

It's about the principle. If the CIA is compiling hitlists of suspected terrorists, and it takes only the president's authorization to carry out the sentence, then the intelligence / evidence is never weighed in a proper court.

This is much like Guantanamo Bay.

No need to worry though, the CIA is always right. There were tons of WOMD in Iraq.

Credit where credit is due:

1.) All of the first-hand reports about Iraqi WMDs were from one angsty D.C.-resident expatriot who wanted the US to kill Saddam out of spite, and who made a comfortable living by spinning wild stories about Iraq for politicians.
2.) The really bad intelligence (yellow cake uranium) came from the UK, not from the CIA.
3.) Bush and co. wanted to go to war with Iraq no matter what the intelligence said.
4.) Saddam deliberately falsified evidence that he had WMDs, to scare other countries out of attacking him.

The CIA is wrong a lot, but Iraq really isn't their fault.

This isn't any worse than extraordinary rendition, guys. If you want something to cry about, how about the fact that your government takes citizens of other countries from the streets of other countries and hands them over to Egypt and Syria to be tortured?
Oh right. Those are people from other countries. God forbid the US government should extend their policies to people who can pass the easiest history test ever written. Cry me a goddamn river.