Radical American Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Killed

[Kamakazie Sith]

Ah yes the capture of Noreiga is your "example"? You do realize that during that invasion 24 soldiers and 3 civilians on the US side were killed. Another 200 or so dead on the Panamanian side. Another 20,000-30,000 rendered homeless. What a shining example of what we should have done! Nevermind the fact that comparing the Noreiega situation with Awlaki's is still quite a stretch.

Not only that but US force knew exactly where Noreiega was and had him surrounded in the Vatican compound. In the previous thread this was discussed in detail. If capture is not possible then deadly force can legally be used because of who Awlaki is. (This assumes that Awlaki is a dangerous man)

Yep they could have just flown a helicopter over and arrested him. It was just that simple. I'm sure its unlikely anyone in the convoy would be armed with an RPG. And of course it comes as a given that they would have had time to get a commando force together and raid his convoy rather than a small window of opportunity to take him out.

Also, capture operations take time to setup and execute. You don't just send a special forces team in without proper recon because you wouldn't want them taken out by some asshole with a MANPAD. The idea that a special force team is sitting on the deck ready to launch just in case some high priority target is close by is ridiculous.

[Bakustra]

Ah yes the capture of Noreiga is your "example"? You do realize that during that invasion 24 soldiers and 3 civilians on the US side were killed. Another 200 or so dead on the Panamanian side. Another 20,000-30,000 rendered homeless. What a shining example of what we should have done! Nevermind the fact that comparing the Noreiega situation with Awlaki's is still quite a stretch.

Over a million and a half people have been killed in the course of this War on Terror, but you still support it! You're willing to risk lives as long as it means killing other people, but when it comes to arresting people, oh no, that's way too big of a price to pay! You disgust me. If anybody has ever loved you, you sure as hell have done nothing to deserve it. Not a goddamned thing.

You're right, though- Noriega was better protected than Awlaki could ever hope to be.

Yep they could have just flown a helicopter over and arrested him. It was just that simple. I'm sure its unlikely anyone in the convoy would be armed with an RPG. And of course it comes as a given that they would have had time to get a commando force together and raid his convoy rather than a small window of opportunity to take him out.

See, what you could do is monitor him, over the year and a half you've got, and keep forces on a little thing called "standby", much like they kept drones on standby to be ready to blow him into shreds. Then they can be ready to go and intercept the convoy. Certainly it's not much riskier than sending a couple helicopters to raid Osama bin Laden's hideaway, but you'll claim that that was an entirely different situation where there was no chance of anybody in bin Laden's support staff having an RPG at hand, whereas just flying accidentally above al-Awlaki's convoy was certain death because God demanded that the USA kill him with a Predator drone.

What you could do, is take the year and a half it took and prepare for this. You're concocting a strawman, wherein the attempt to capture the man is done half-assed so that you fuckers can put on your smuggest faces and chortle about how those idealist pansies just don't have the masculinity necessary to defend this country. Why is it so important to you people that we blow people into bleeding viscera, spreading their intestines all over the countryside, such that you immediately distort any other option so that the people performing it are all incompetent? Are you snuff fetishists of some kind?

Weren't you just bitch about the US taking over the top reactions to men like Awlaki? His function was as a recruiter and planner. The longer he was alive, it stands to reason the more he would have recruited to his cause. And the more attacks he would have been involved in planning. That's not really a "ticking time bomb" as much as it is a wild fire that continues to burn as long as there is fuel... Unless someone steps in to put it out.

And again, this is want Awlaki wanted. This guy called for the deaths of Americans everywhere, and we got two of them in this incident.

I wasn't advocating that scenario. Did your mother try to suffocate you as a baby and give you brain damage? I was pointing out that your logic would seem to demand the maximum force possible to kill him as quickly as possible, but you don't get that. You probably think that waiting a year and a fucking half was the quickest and most effective way it could be done.

[TheHammer]

Ah yes the capture of Noreiga is your "example"? You do realize that during that invasion 24 soldiers and 3 civilians on the US side were killed. Another 200 or so dead on the Panamanian side. Another 20,000-30,000 rendered homeless. What a shining example of what we should have done! Nevermind the fact that comparing the Noreiega situation with Awlaki's is still quite a stretch.

Over a million and a half people have been killed in the course of this War on Terror, but you still support it! You're willing to risk lives as long as it means killing other people, but when it comes to arresting people, oh no, that's way too big of a price to pay! You disgust me. If anybody has ever loved you, you sure as hell have done nothing to deserve it. Not a goddamned thing.

You're right, though- Noriega was better protected than Awlaki could ever hope to be.

Yep they could have just flown a helicopter over and arrested him. It was just that simple. I'm sure its unlikely anyone in the convoy would be armed with an RPG. And of course it comes as a given that they would have had time to get a commando force together and raid his convoy rather than a small window of opportunity to take him out.

See, what you could do is monitor him, over the year and a half you've got, and keep forces on a little thing called "standby", much like they kept drones on standby to be ready to blow him into shreds. Then they can be ready to go and intercept the convoy. Certainly it's not much riskier than sending a couple helicopters to raid Osama bin Laden's hideaway, but you'll claim that that was an entirely different situation where there was no chance of anybody in bin Laden's support staff having an RPG at hand, whereas just flying accidentally above al-Awlaki's convoy was certain death because God demanded that the USA kill him with a Predator drone.

What you could do, is take the year and a half it took and prepare for this. You're concocting a strawman, wherein the attempt to capture the man is done half-assed so that you fuckers can put on your smuggest faces and chortle about how those idealist pansies just don't have the masculinity necessary to defend this country. Why is it so important to you people that we blow people into bleeding viscera, spreading their intestines all over the countryside, such that you immediately distort any other option so that the people performing it are all incompetent? Are you snuff fetishists of some kind?

Weren't you just bitch about the US taking over the top reactions to men like Awlaki? His function was as a recruiter and planner. The longer he was alive, it stands to reason the more he would have recruited to his cause. And the more attacks he would have been involved in planning. That's not really a "ticking time bomb" as much as it is a wild fire that continues to burn as long as there is fuel... Unless someone steps in to put it out.

And again, this is want Awlaki wanted. This guy called for the deaths of Americans everywhere, and we got two of them in this incident.

I wasn't advocating that scenario. Did your mother try to suffocate you as a baby and give you brain damage? I was pointing out that your logic would seem to demand the maximum force possible to kill him as quickly as possible, but you don't get that. You probably think that waiting a year and a fucking half was the quickest and most effective way it could be done.

LOL just fuck off. Why don't you, your red herrings and your strawmen all have a threesome together. You bore me.

[Elfdart]

Here's Salman Rushdie, saying essentially that Awlaki got what he deserved:

RUSHDIE: Just to say that there, there is a crime called treason.

MAHER: Right.

RUSHDIE: And when people commit the crime of treason…

MACFARLANE: You just sounded like something out of the HMS Pinafore. That was great.

RUSHDIE: You should hear me sing. Gilbert and Sullivan, I can do it.

MACFARLANE: Ah, yeah.

RUSHDIE: But, you know, when people commit treason, join the enemy, fight against their own country, they usually sacrifice a few rights.

MAHER: Right. And also the penalty for treason is death, I believe.

GRANHOLM: Exactly right.

Ignore the other three panelists, of whom only the one who does unfunny cartoons said anything sensible. Salman Rushdie thinks that Awlaki forfeited his rights (among them the right to life) because he committed "treason". No, actually treason is determined by a court of law and according to the Constitution can only be charged when a person confesses in open court or if there are two eyewitnesses to the act of levying war against the nation or adhering to the enemy. There's nothing in the Constitution about presidential hit lists. But it's not Rushdie's ignorance of civics that makes him a total prick.

See, I remember back in 1989 when the government of Iran considered one of Salman Rushdie's novels an attack on the state and the Ayatollah Khomenei put Rushdie on a hit list and offered a cash reward for Rushdie's scalp. I wonder if Rushdie believes he forfeited his rights when he committed a death penalty offense against the Iranian government.

[Crateria]

Ignore the other three panelists, of whom only the one who does unfunny cartoons said anything sensible. Salman Rushdie thinks that Awlaki forfeited his rights (among them the right to life) because he committed "treason". No, actually treason is determined by a court of law and according to the Constitution can only be charged when a person confesses in open court or if there are two eyewitnesses to the act of levying war against the nation or adhering to the enemy. There's nothing in the Constitution about presidential hit lists. But it's not Rushdie's ignorance of civics that makes him a total prick.

See, I remember back in 1989 when the government of Iran considered one of Salman Rushdie's novels an attack on the state and the Ayatollah Khomenei put Rushdie on a hit list and offered a cash reward for Rushdie's scalp. I wonder if Rushdie believes he forfeited his rights when he committed a death penalty offense against the Iranian government.

As much as I hate fundamentalist theocratic dupes like Awlaki, I have to agree. Making a person should die because they broke a law (that may or may not be just) is insane and drives right into the arms of totalitarians. Sure, the USA should punish the guy since he willingly, directly supports a violent, mass murdering organization that will realistically bring absolutely no long-term benefit to the world in terms of freedom, happiness or intelligence (as well as threw the first spear in the war, so to speak).

But he took up no arms against the government (and might not have decided to join had the USA not supported the regressive, oppressive right-wing dictatorships in the middle east in the first place, as this is a major source of Al-Qaeda recruits). He should be imprisoned or rehabilited rather than killed, since it defies the Constitution (no allowance of secret assassinations) as well as makes him a marytr.

It also sets a dangerous precedent, as others have noted: Awlaki today, who else tomorrow? Given our human rights records, this could easily be turned against the people. My (US) government is not the wisest of ones, considering it's the one that supported stuff like Noriega in Panama (DRUGS 4 EVERYONE), Trujillo in the Dominican Republic (convicted rapist and a repressive asshole) and (these were fucking RETARDED ones) Gulbuddin Hekmatyar in Afghanistan (Al-Qaeda lite, and hated the USA to boot) and Pol Pot in Cambodia (Hey, lets starve and murder everyone in the country! Also hated USA)
I suspect our government's morals are pretty nonexistent given time and power. But I ramble on too much, so I'll get the point.

tl;dr:
What stops them from targeting people like you and me? Do they care about civilians or moral concerns? It certainly didn't stop them this time.

[PeZook]

Anarcho-capitalist hijack split to here. All further discussion of the topic should take place in the new thread.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Here's Salman Rushdie, saying essentially that Awlaki got what he deserved

Yea, Rushdie can go fuck himself. I didn't particularly enjoy being put on a fucking potential enemies list by The Department of Homeland Stupidity back in 2009:

http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/mia ... report.pdf

[Crateria]

Here's Salman Rushdie, saying essentially that Awlaki got what he deserved

Yea, Rushdie can go fuck himself. I didn't particularly enjoy being put on a fucking potential enemies list by The Department of Homeland Stupidity back in 2009:

http://www.constitution.org/abus/le/mia ... report.pdf

Sorry but I didn't see Anarcho-Capitalists listed on there. If you self-identify as one of the members of the militia movements or their associates/allies then there's not much I can say. The militia movement is a very scary federation of groups (as shown on there) and though not as powerful as in the 1990s it is still not to be toyed with.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

Sorry but I didn't see Anarcho-Capitalists listed on there. If you self-identify as one of the members of the militia movements or their associates/allies then there's not much I can say. The militia movement is a very scary federation of groups (as shown on there) and though not as powerful as in the 1990s it is still not to be toyed with.

Notice my avatar? According to the assjackals at DHS, anyone who uses the Gadsden Flag (or variations thereof) is somehow linked to the militia movement. Anyone who stumped for/supported Dr. Ron Paul is somehow linked to the militia movement. Its called Guilt-by-Association. Its also fucking unConstitutional as hell since it basically criminalizes Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech.

[Crateria]

Notice my avatar? According to the assjackals at DHS, anyone who uses the Gadsden Flag (or variations thereof) is somehow linked to the militia movement. Anyone who stumped for/supported Dr. Ron Paul is somehow linked to the militia movement. Its called Guilt-by-Association. Its also fucking unConstitutional as hell since it basically criminalizes Freedom of Association and Freedom of Speech.

The militia movement tends to use the Gadsen flag (or variations thereof) as one of its symbol. If the DHS is implying you are a potential terrorist by simply using the flag, then they are both retards and authoritarians. Your flag avatar is a variation on both the Anarcho-Capitalist flag and the Gadsen flag (I admit your avatar has taste). My avatar is the Anarcho-Syndicalist/Communist flag with the Christian cross colored green and white to represent both goodness and environmentalism (before anyone chimes in, I understand that Christianity is considered on SD.Net to be among things reactionary and fundamentally stupid. I just wish it would actually be the positive force it says it is rather than, yknow the tyrannical one it really is) Before you ask, I didn't choose it just to stand in opposition to you. Although the Gadsen flag is also used by the Tea Party (yuck).

I actually used to like Paul's suggestions for reducing government and keeping out of other countries' businesses, but SD.Net has enlightened me.

[BrooklynRedLeg]

If the DHS is implying you are a potential terrorist by simply using the flag, then they are both retards and authoritarians.

Do you think the average donut-munching jackass that report was written for is going to take the time to find out that I'm NOT a member of some violent group? They will see a Ron Paul-supporter with a Gadsden Flag and "Its on like Donkeykong".

[Kamakazie Sith]

If the DHS is implying you are a potential terrorist by simply using the flag, then they are both retards and authoritarians.

Do you think the average donut-munching jackass that report was written for is going to take the time to find out that I'm NOT a member of some violent group? They will see a Ron Paul-supporter with a Gadsden Flag and "Its on like Donkeykong".

Yeah, they will take the time to find out if you're a member of some violent group. It doesn't do much good to waste time on people that aren't members. That report lists organizations and the symbols that they identify with. If you have a Gadsden flag posted to the rear window of your car or whatever then that is an indicator for the officer to be more wary. Just as there are certain symbols that the violent Zeta Cartel members place in the rear windows of their vehicles.

Though these same symbols are used by innocent people trying to convey a different and non-violent message. However, because of the widespread use of these symbols among violent organizations and people it would be stupid not to identify these symbols and spread this information.

In other words, Brooklyn. Just because you're not violent doesn't mean others who use that same symbol aren't. If you actually read the report you'd see why.

[Thanas]

^This thread hijack stops now.



Anyway:

Execution by secret WH committee


Here is what the Democratic President has created and implemented, and what many party loyalists explicitly endorse (when there’s a Democrat in the White House) — from Reuters:

American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions . . . . There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council . . . . Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate. . . . The role of the president in ordering or ratifying a decision to target a citizen is fuzzy. White House spokesman Tommy Vietor declined to discuss anything about the process. . . .

Representative Dutch Ruppersberger, was asked by reporters about the killing. The process involves “going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president” . . . .Other officials said the role of the president in the process was murkier than what Ruppersberger described. They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC “principals,” meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval . . . But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals’ decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.

So a panel operating out of the White House — that meets in total secrecy, with no known law or rules governing what it can do or how it operates — is empowered to place American citizens on a list to be killed by the CIA, which (by some process nobody knows) eventually makes its way to the President, who is the final Decider. It is difficult to describe the level of warped authoritarianism necessary to cause someone to lend their support to a twisted Star Chamber like that; I genuinely wonder whether the Good Democrats doing so actually first convince themselves that if this were the Bush White House’s hit list, or if it becomes Rick Perry’s, they would be supportive just the same. Seriously: if you’re willing to endorse having White House functionaries meet in secret — with no known guidelines, no oversight, no transparency — and compile lists of American citizens to be killed by the CIA without due process, what aren’t you willing to support?

Of all the things I’ve seen over the past several years, easily one of the most repellent has been the number of people — especially journalists — who are running around definitively asserting that Awlaki had an “operational role” in Terrorist plots and had “taken up arms” against the U.S. even though they have no idea whether that’s actually true (Politico‘s Roger Simon: “U.S. citizen living overseas and plotting the death of American citizens from, let’s say, Yemen, you can say hello to our little friends, the 100-lb. Hellfires”; Josh Marshall: Awlaki was “a key leader of an international terrorist group, organizing and inspiring terrorist attacks within the US” ). Just consider how even the anonymous government officials who spoke to Reuters in order to defend the Awlaki killing characterize the “evidence” they have to support that claim:

The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks.

But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki’s hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy.

For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants.

There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. . . . But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab.

Someone spoke to someone on “a phone known to have been used by Awlaki”: maybe it was Abdulmutallab, maybe it wasn’t. Maybe it was Awlaki, maybe it wasn’t. Who knows? Who cares? Some officials “believed” it may have involved those two, so it’s time to kill Awlaki. Remember, Good Democrats hate the death penalty because they think it’s so terribly barbaric to execute people whose guilt is in doubt (even if, unlike Awlaki, they’ve enjoyed an indictment and full jury trial, lawyers, the right to examine evidence and to confront witnesses, multiple appeals, and habeas petitions). There’s also this:

Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee’s computer showed what an investigator described as ” operational contact” between Britain and Yemen.

Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother’s side when the messages were dispatched.

There was a “strong suspicion” — not that Awlaki participated in this email plotting, but that he was “at the side” of someone who did. Who needs “beyond a reasonable doubt’? That is so pre-9/11. ”A strong suspicion” that he may have been next to someone plotting an attack: that’s the McCarthyite standard Democratic Party loyalists are holding up to justify the due-process-free execution of their fellow citizen by a secret, lawless White House “panel.”

What’s crucial to keep in mind is that nobody can see this “evidence” which these anonymous government officials are claiming exists. It’s in their exclusive possession. As a result, they’re able to characterize it however they want, to present it in the best possible light to support their pro-assassination position, and to prevent any detection of its flaws. As any lawyer will tell you, anyone can make a case for anything when they’re in exclusive possession of all the relevant evidence and are the only side from whom one is hearing; all evidence becomes less compelling when it’s subjected to adversarial scrutiny. Yet even given all those highly favorable pro-government conditions here, it’s obvious — even these officials admit — that the evidence is “partial,” “patchy,” based on “suspicions” rather than knowledge.

But no matter. Officials in the Obama White House and then the President decreed in secret that Awlaki should die. So the U.S. Government killed him. Republicans who always cheer acts of violence against Muslims are joined by Democrats who reflexively cheer what this Democratic President does, and now this death panel for U.S. citizens — operating with no known rules, transparency, or oversight — is entrenched as bipartisan consensus and a permanent fixture of American political life. I’m sure this will never be abused: unrestrained power exercised in secret has a very noble history in the U.S. (Reuters says that the only American they could confirm on the hit list is Awlaki, though Dana Priest reported last year that either three or four Americans were on a hit list).

Anyway, look over there: wasn’t it outrageous how George Bush imprisoned people without any due process and tried to seize unrestrained power, and isn’t it horrifying what a barbaric death cult Republicans are for favoring executions even when there’s doubt about guilt? Even for those deeply cynical about American political culture: wouldn’t you have thought a few years ago that having the President create a White House panel to place Americans on a CIA hit list — in secret, without a shred of due process — would be a bridge too far?

So....real great job there. Evidence he was involved? What evidence?

[Crateria]

So....real great job there. Evidence he was involved? What evidence?

How bad do you think it will get in the future, Thanas?

[Thanas]

That depends on how the political mood in the USA continues to shift, really.

[Block]

Source?

[TheHammer]

His own words are evidence enough for me.

Video in the link
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... ssage.html

In his last broadcast message, the senior al-Qaeda figure said Americans are from the "party of devils" and so don't require any special religious permission to kill.

In the 23-minute Arabic language video entitled "Make it known and clear to mankind," al-Awlaki said it was "either them or us".

He also called all Arab and Yemeni leaders "corrupt" and said it was time for religious scholars to take charge.

Its clear he placed himself on the opposite side of this conflict. "Either them or us" he says... I for one am glad it was him in this case.

Even if he never planned the details of terrorist attacks, and I'm not asserting that as fact, he undeniably convinced many of his "students" to make those attacks. That goes beyond mere "propaganda" and he needed to be stopped.

[Thanas]

His own words are evidence enough for me.

So now people deserve to be killed for speaking?

Even if he never planned the details of terrorist attacks, and I'm not asserting that as fact, he undeniably convinced many of his "students" to make those attacks. That goes beyond mere "propaganda" and he needed to be stopped.

If you apply the standards of agitating for violence then you should also support the US bombing Fox News, Limbaugh's studio and nearly every other extremist talking head. How about you argue for the bombing of Bush's home, considering his words actually resulted in warcrimes on a vastly higher scale than those of the dead scumbag.

Your position is even more hilarious for the very fact that if he had said these words while living in the USA he would be protected. It is even more hilarious considering there was no indictment of the dead scumbag in any court whatsoever. ,

To justify this killing it has to be shown that he had an operational role. That requires clear evidence. Where is it?

Source?

Link

[Crateria]

If you apply the standards of agitating for violence then you should also support the US bombing Fox News, Limbaugh's studio and nearly every other extremist talking head. How about you argue for the bombing of Bush's home, considering his words actually resulted in warcrimes on a vastly higher scale than those of the dead scumbag.

I would support the US bombing all of the above!

I wonder, did Awlaki ever make instruction manuals for suicide bombers? or willingly direct/participate in videos for Islamic Fundie militants? That would be a great more reason to prosecute him. Notice I said PROSECUTE, not assassinate. Unless he's directly responsible for killing someone (and not even then unless there's an absolute certainty that we'll never catch him) he should be tried for inciting violence.

[TheHammer]

His own words are evidence enough for me.

So now people deserve to be killed for speaking?

Morally speaking? When they are making statements along the lines of "It is your duty to kill Americans" and "its us vs them"? Yes, yes they do. To put it this way, if anyone ever threatened the life of me or my family and I felt like they were willing and capable of carrying that threat out, you better fucking believe I'm going to do what I have to to eliminate that threat. Maybe Awlaki felt the same way, but in an "Us vs them" scenario I'm not going to shed tears when its "them" that gets it in the end.

Even if he never planned the details of terrorist attacks, and I'm not asserting that as fact, he undeniably convinced many of his "students" to make those attacks. That goes beyond mere "propaganda" and he needed to be stopped.

If you apply the standards of agitating for violence then you should also support the US bombing Fox News, Limbaugh's studio and nearly every other extremist talking head. How about you argue for the bombing of Bush's home, considering his words actually resulted in warcrimes on a vastly higher scale than those of the dead scumbag.

I'm not a fan of Limbaugh, but please find something equivalent he said so we can have an apples to apples comparison. I doubt you'll find him saying anything along the lines of "Its the duty of every American to kill Muslims". Besides, it does matter whose side you are on and who you agitate. If you are agitating the side with predator drones, that makes it more likely you'll end up on the wrong end of a missile. Or you might get paid a visit by a suicide bomber whichever the case may be.

Your position is even more hilarious for the very fact that if he had said these words while living in the USA he would be protected. It is even more hilarious considering there was no indictment of the dead scumbag in any court whatsoever. ,

To justify this killing it has to be shown that he had an operational role. That requires clear evidence. Where is it?

If that's all he did, maybe he would have been protected making those statements. However, his words could also very well be interpreted as an "incitement to violence or producing imminent lawless action" which would not be protected. It would have been an interesting trial. Maybe he should have surrendered himself to stand it rather than running around the desert attending "death to America!" parties.

And no, you wouldn't need to justify that he had an operational role, even though that is still the contention. He was very much a member of Al Qaeda, which is a militant group with whom the United States was at war, and thus a legitimate target. That is a point with which I'm sure you will disagree. The legal question will likely not be settled anytime soon, but the moral question, at least for me, certainly is.

[Shroom Man 777]

So, what should be done to hypocritical psycho conservative Americans who shriek shit like hanging liberals, bayoneting protesters, white phosphorusing union strikers, nuking brown people, converting them to Christianity or killing them, along with all sorts of racist or homophobic shit, etc.?

[TheHammer]

So, what should be done to hypocritical psycho conservative Americans who shriek shit like hanging liberals, bayoneting protesters, white phosphorusing union strikers, nuking brown people, converting them to Christianity or killing them, along with all sorts of racist or homophobic shit, etc.?

They should be dealt with on a case by case basis. If you gave me a more specific example I could give a more specific answer, but this probably isn't the thread for it.

[Crateria]

So, what should be done to hypocritical psycho conservative Americans who shriek shit like hanging liberals, bayoneting protesters, white phosphorusing union strikers, nuking brown people, converting them to Christianity or killing them, along with all sorts of racist or homophobic shit, etc.?

Force them to fight against each other forever. BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD (aka Hitler)! CONSERVATARDS FOR THE CONSERVATARD GOD!

Or how about making them live in a world where everything they fear and oppose came true (ie, national healthcare, rights for ethnicites and gays, an end to empire, etc) I DON'T HAVE TO PAY AN INSURANCE COMPANY ANYMORE!!! HELP ME GO BACK TO MY STUPID OLD WORLD!!!
SORRY BUCKO, THAT'S GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION TO DO THAT, Y'KNOW!

[Count Chocula]

If you apply the standards of agitating for violence then you should also support the US bombing Fox News, Limbaugh's studio and nearly every other extremist talking head.

Yeah, show some evidence of any of that bullshit you just pulled out of your ass, Thanas. Specifically, Fox News and Limbaugh since you didn't call any others out by name. Should we also bomb Brad Blanton of Luray, VA for saying this at the Occupy Wall Street march?

“They‘re devouring us and now it’s time we start devouring them back,” Blanton said. “I’m advocating cannibalism.”

But actual cannibalism? Apparently so.

“We ought to cut ‘em up and have a little ritual where we call it communion,” Blanton said. “We’re all cannibals, all human beings are cannibals. What we need to do is start eating from the top instead of the bottom.”

And again, just so there was no mistake:

“First we ought to kill them and eat them. I think cannibalism is the answer. Second to that, just regulate the hell out of them, that’d be okay,” Blanton said.

Or maybe fat rich bitch Roseanne Barr who said, from the same article,

I, first, would allow the guilty bankers to pay back anything over $100 million (in) personal wealth, because I believe in the maximum wealth of $100 million. If they're unable to live on that amount, they should go to re-education camps. And if that doesn't work, they should be beheaded," she told Max Keiser of Russia Today.

Russia Today. Heh.

[PeZook]

Yes, if you believe saying "You should kill Americans" makes you a target for assassination, then all these people should've been dragged out of the crowd and shot in the head by the police.