Bucket Guild | FUBU BH Forums

I'm sure that's an orange, and this is an apple. You trying to compare the two is laughable.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

Eturnal.

Allow me to ask you if you would have an issue with this had it been under Bush's watch? Please answer truthfully, and not just say yes to save face. If your answer really is yes, so be it. I just find it hard to believe that this would be an issue for you under Bush.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

Maintaining my integrity is one thing I pride myself in... I keep my word and I try to always be honest (even if my honesty isn't going to be well received... or unless I'm trollin').

To answer your question: Absolutely. The government should NOT be deliberately targeting and killing American citizens since we're all entitled to a trial... even if that American is accused of things like terrorism and treason. That right given to Americans by our Constitution is one of the great things that makes us better than most other countries. The President is in a position to defend and protect the Constitution and this is a clear violation of it.

Apparently the Obama administration mulled this over before actually executing the attack. They said that killing al-Awlaki would be justified only if they couldn't take him alive. That makes sense... if a suspected criminal dies in a fire fight with police it's not as if the police didn't try to take him into custody. The difference here is that it doesn't look like we sent soldiers into Yemen or tried to work with the Yemeni government to even try to take him into custody. On two accounts we attacked him with Predator drones and not a special operations team. Predator drones don't have the capability to 'try and take someone alive', so it looks like the Administration even violated their legal terms, in turn violating the Constitution.

Like the Patriot Act (which had parts that were ruled unconstitutional), if we allow or agree with the government shitting on an individuals Constitutional rights then we're giving them permission to shit on all of our rights. Unfortunately, there's no way to just fix this and make it better with a court decision. The best we can do is not support the government killing Americans without a trial.

While I disagree with Eturnal, I do still believe that he would still be against this had it been under Bush. Especially after having met him, I'm pretty sure that he is against things like this no matter what because it's a very slippery slope. If we allow this, hoe much more will we allow? Again, I disagree in this case, but I can see where one who holds this position is coming from.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

I respect your answer Eturnal and it satisfies my question.

If they ran scenarios involving special forces and deemed them too dangerous to execute, would that count? It's possible they didn't consult with Yemen to avoid leaks and security risks.

I'd like to draw a parallel to Osama bin Laden's operation. I feel like this subject may come up. Special Forced were used there despite extreme risk to losses because he was arguably the highest profile target in the entire hierarchy of terror groups. He was number one.

And at the same time, he did not hold US Citizenship. He used to visit the US all the time in his younger years and probably could have acquired citizenship in the 70s or early 80s had he pursued it.

If that were the case, would the mission to capture or kill him be justified?

Would a drone strike be justified?

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

Both al-Awlaki and bin Laden were incredibly high on the target list so it's possible that the government didn't talk to the Yemeni government like we didn't talk to the Pakistani government. One element the US special forces had on both bin Laden and al-Awlaki is the element of surprise. If we can land stealth black hawks in the cover of night, unload two dozen men and clear a building with little resistance then I have a hard time believing that all the scenarios to get an American blogger proved too dangerous. It's possible they could've come to that conclusion but we're talking about special ops swooping in on a hand full of guys.


If you're an American then you're entitled to a trial. Our government has a role to protect us while defending the Constitution. If OBL was American then I'd still be fine with the way he was taken out; covert operation in the dead of night with a team of highly trained men given the orders to kill unless he could be captured. A drone strike... eh, not so much. There is no capacity to capture the American in that strike... only kill. Wouldn't you be outraged if the police said, "We think Timothy McVeigh is the guy that blew up the Oklahoma City building... so, fire ze mizzelz!"

we went after bin laden with a strike team instead of a bomber for several reasons.

collection of intel.
the object was to hopefully take him alive, more collection of intel.
can you imagine the political fallout if we bombed pakistan, and didn't end up with proof that bin laden was in the building?

al-Awlaki was way, way more important for intel than bin laden was. Awlaki was (allegedly) actively planning and working with AQ, whereas Osama had been hiding in his compound for quite a while doing nothing.




We have been bombing terrorist sites in Pakistan since 2004. The Pakistani government has publicly decried our bombing, that's all the fallout. They are (or were) getting so rich off the American government we could have marched in there and butt-fucked their grandmothers and nothing would have happened.

Dvergar /
Quisling

That's a bullshit reason to have bombed al-Awlaki. Osama bin Laden had a trove of information... but don't you think the guy who was the lead for recruitment, head of operations in Arabia, the front-man for the internet propaganda and who was in contact (through training or sermon) with several terrorists that attempted to attack the country would have equally valuable information? This is the same guy who was important enough to be put on the CIA Kill List and was also convicted by the Yemeni government for conspiring with Al Qaeda. In that attack we also bagged ourselves one of Al Qaeda's top bomb makers that was responsible for a couple of the devices that were used against the US.


If an assault if good enough for bin Laden it should be good enough for al-Awlaki... especially since he's an American (that's the key, here). Also, wouldn't the political fallout have been just as great if we infiltrated the country, breached the compound, killed some couriers and family members and then didn't find OBL?

As for proof of body, al-Zarqawi was hit with two larger bombs and they had ample evidence of his death. It's not like a Hellfire missile vaporizes everything within a one mile radius


When we took out OBL the Pakistani's were pissed that we did it without their knowledge. We said, "Since we feel you didn't share his whereabouts, we might cut your 'support'", to which Pakistan replied, "That's cool guys. You cut our 'support' and we stop helping you fight the Taliban." It's almost like we're buying their allied help.

if you think OBL phoned it in after 9/11 you're a fool. crazy people don't stop being crazy.

He was a dangerous person to know for a couple years, he was moving constantly and wasn't involved running an international terrorist organization. By 2011 he was a figurehead at best. He had some information, but nothing near what al-Awlaki would know.

The Yemeni government was no more or less helpful than the Pakistani government, there was no reason we couldn't have extracted him. Even if we lost a few special forces it would still be worth it, that's the whole point of the special forces. They don't just do the safe jobs. If an officer gets killed on a dui stop no one suggests that dui stops are too dangerous and we shouldn't be doing them.

Dvergar /
Quisling

You're probably right. Obama likely just wanted to avoid the media circus and republican dissent that would ensue if he tried to put the guy on trial. Especially before an election year.

Worth it for a terrorist ringleader who maintained an American dual citizenship probably for no other reasons than to create complications if this kind of shit were to happen, and to prevent a drone strike. It didn't work. If you are more or less renouncing your citizenship and then plot attacks against that country, I think that qualifies as a loss of rights otherwise guaranteed. This isn't Timothy McVeigh so don't pretend it is.

Brawlsack

Taking an extended hiatus from gaming

The underlined stuff is basically what I was trying to say. We cannot have a blanket rule, because situations such as these demand fluidity. Yes he was an American citizen. No, he did not FORMALLY renounce his citizenship, though he did everything but. Yes he did plot against our country. Yes he wanted to kill his fellow citizens. Yes he was extremely dangerous.

Yes he deserved to be taken out, drone strike or otherwise.

Like I said, I understand the whole Constitution argument, but the Consitution cannot account for all the changes in the world 200+ years later.

[✔] [item]Thunderfury, Blessed Blade of the Windseeker[/item] (Three)
[✔] [item]Sulfuras, Hand of Ragnaros[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]32837[/item] & [item]32838[/item]
[✔] [item]Thori'dal, the Stars' Fury[/item]
[✔] [item]46017[/item]
[✔] [item]49623[/item] (Two)
[✔] [item]71086[/item]

There is a sizable list of American criminals just within the last decade that fit every one of your descriptions. None of them were summarily executed when they could have been brought in to stand trial.



This isn't an argument about the second amendment applying to nuclear weapons. American citizens wanting to do serious harm to the state and fellow citizens have existed since the beginning of the Union and well before it. The Constitution does account for this, it's called the 6th amendment.

Dvergar /
Quisling