Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Al Qaeda Cleric Targeted by CIA

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/05...erican-cleric/

    Updated May 16, 2010
    Al Qaeda in Yemen Defends Radical U.S-Born Cleric Associated Press
    CAIRO
    CAIRO -- The leader of an Al Qaeda offshoot in Yemen vowed Sunday to protect a U.S.-born Muslim cleric who has been placed on a CIA list of targets to be captured of killed.
    In a 10-minute audiotape posted on militant websites, the commander of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Abu Baseer al-Wahishi, praised Anwar al-Awlaki as "an example to the Islamic nation" and said "we will never surrender him to the infidels."
    Al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and is believed to be hiding in his parents' native Yemen, has used his personal website to encourage Muslims around the world to kill U.S. troops in Iraq.
    He has emerged as a prominent Al Qaeda recruiter and has been tied by U.S. intelligence to the 9/11 hijackers, along with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day, as well as Maj. Nidal Malik
    Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people in November at Fort Hood, Texas.
    Al-Awlaki's growing involvement in planning and operations by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has prompted the Obama administration to place him on a target list for terrorists to be killed or captured, a senior U.S. counterterrorism official said, speaking on condition of anonymity in order to discuss intelligence matters.
    But al-Wahishi pledged in his audiotape to defend al-Awlaki, saying that "no harm" will come to the cleric "as long as there is a pulse in our veins, whether the American accusations prove true or not because jihad (holy war) is not a crime."
    Al-Wahishi also said that U.S. efforts to get al-Awlaki "dead or alive do not benefit the American people and the war will not end by killing or arresting a leader."
    "The war is going on for 10 years in Iraq and Afghanistan despite the killing and arresting of many leaders," he said.
    The audiotape was produced by Al Qaeda's media arm, al-Malahem. The authenticity of the recording could not be immediately verified, but the voice sounded like that heard on previous audiotapes of al-Wahishi, whose real name is Naser Abdel Karim al-Wahishi.
    Al-Wahishi also ridiculed Washington's 20-year effort to capture Al Qaeda leader Usama bin Laden.
    "Each White House ruler lied in promising to kill or arrest him .. they left one after the other, but the sheik (bin Laden) is still standing high and is a thorn in the Americans' side," he said.
    Al-Awlaki is reportedly hiding in Yemen's Shabwa province, the rugged region of towering mountains where his tribe lives. His family and many members of his powerful tribe deny the 38-year-old is a member of Al Qaeda, depicting him as a victim of Yemeni and U.S. persecution.
    **********************************************

    Anwar al-Awlaki is an American citizen. He's being accused of recruiting terrorist and working with Al Qaeda against the United States. The CIA has issued a capture or kill order. Just how far are our rights protected as American citizens? Does our government really have the just power to execute a criminal based on an accusation, or should they only kill him if engaged in open warfare or self defense?

    I've never been accused of being a liberal, but I can't help but think we're taking things too far. Anwar al-Awlaki probably has it coming, but I'd rather see him captured, dragged in front of a jury, and THEN executed. What happens when the government accuses one of us of "extremism" or some other trumped up charge? Stranger things have happened. If Anwar al-Awlaki knows someone is coming to kill him without trial or a chance to surrender, would he be justified in defending himself?

    Just my random thoughts and I'm curious what others think. I don't want to start an argument so please remain respectful.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    guntersville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    111

    Post imported post

    Rightsare notjust forcitizens, they are human rights. Any man is justified in defending himself. We need to but out of other countries business. How many do we occupy again? I know it's over a 100. I don't know about u but I would be pissed to see foreign boots on our soil. Some say there already are, maybe true but I have not seen for myself.

    No matter how you view the war thereis something you need to consider. Much like the "war on drugs" this is a war on "terror" an act, not a country. A war that will have no victory. The more you fight it the worse it gets. Though it's hard for me to believe given the early history of this nation, there are others not as tolerant to tyranny.

  3. #3
    Regular Member okboomer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Oklahoma, USA
    Posts
    1,164

    Post imported post

    I agree that placing Awlaki directly on the shoot on sight list is going a little far because of his citizenship. IMHO, I would like to see him tried in absentia at least so that the case can be made.

    Then, if convicted, he can be declared a terrorist, stripped of his citizenship (based on his actions, he has avowed his citizenship, and is, in fact, waging war on the US.), and pursued until caught or killed.

    Steveman01, it scares me that you can vote. You have such polar opposite views from me, I worry that you would trample my rights simply because they are not the same as yours.
    cheers - okboomer
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Lead, follow, or get out of the way

    Exercising my 2A Rights does NOT make me a CRIMINAL! Infringing on the exercise of those rights makes YOU one!

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578

    Post imported post

    okboomer wrote:
    I agree that placing Awlaki directly on the shoot on sight list is going a little far because of his citizenship. IMHO, I would like to see him tried in absentia at least so that the case can be made.

    Then, if convicted, he can be declared a terrorist, stripped of his citizenship (based on his actions, he has avowed his citizenship, and is, in fact, waging war on the US.), and pursued until caught or killed.

    Steveman01, it scares me that you can vote. You have such polar opposite views from me, I worry that you would trample my rights simply because they are not the same as yours.
    You cannot strip the citizenship of a natural born citizen. He can be charged with treason. He took no oath upon birth, which he has violated. He has chosen to take up arms against his homeland. The idea that a government agency could put out a contract on an American citizen without a huge public outcry is absolutely unbelievable to me.

    I hope this treacherous bastard will be found, tried, given the death penalty. Now, if he resists arrest and is killed during a proper attempt to arrest him, so be it, his choice
    AUDE VIDE TACE

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    First of all, this is totally off-topic for OCDO.

    Secondly, you don't want to start an argument, but, in the middle of a war against Islamic terrorism you advocate not taking a typical wartime action against a Goebbels for the Islamo-fascists because he was born in America??? I'm sorry, but that will start an argument.

    There is a difference between law enforcement and national security. When fighting a war, you don't read folks their rights. You don't give enemy combatants a lawyer. You hold enemy combatants for the duration without a trial. You don't put your folks in danger by affording the enemy the same level of concern for their lives that you would for suspects being taken into custody by LEOs.

    I am sure they will make some kind of effort to take this guy alive--not for his sake, but for any usefulness he will provide for our effort. However, he won't go quietly and will probably be killed during an attempt to capture him. Yawn.

    I strongly encourage folks to ponder the different ways that we handle criminals and wartime enemies. There is a reason that we don't task cops with fighting wars and don't task the Army with law enforcement.

    For some reason, we have lately been blurring this line between law enforcement and national defense in the direction of treating enemies as criminals, in the direction of requiring those who protect our national security to act like law enforcers. Do we really want to blur the line between the Army and the police? In our effort to get our warfighters to act more like police, isn't it possible that our police might start to act more like war-fighters? Is that really how we protect the rights of suspects in America?

    Edited to remove unwarranted assertion.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    First of all, this is totally off-topic for OCDO (and has quickly morphed into LEO-bashing, as I suspect the original intent was).

    Secondly, you don't want to start an argument, but, in the middle of a war against Islamic terrorism you advocate not taking a typical wartime action against a Goebbels for the Islamo-fascists because he was born in America??? I'm sorry, but that will start an argument.

    I know it may be a little OT, but I did try to tie in "self-defense" into my line of reasoning. As to my intent, I believe I stated that I was simply curious where others stood on the issue. You seem to be the only one with ruffled feathers so far.

    Cop bashing? I'll give you some time to look through my 500+ posts and then you can come back and retract that statement with an apology. Most cops are out to do their jobs in an honorable fashion and for you to suggest I believe otherwise is unfounded.

    The issue isn't how we treat criminals, or how we treat so called "enemy combatants". The issue is how we classify them in the first place. No government should be so powerful as to strip a citizen of their very right to life without due process. If our government has a duty to protect the country (and I believe they do) they equally have a responsibility to do so within the bounds of our constitution.

    "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

    Furthermore, we are NOT in a state of war, unless you're speaking metaphorically as in "war on drugs". I believe the last time our country declared war was WWII. I wouldn't mind being in a state of war if that was needed, but congress has not done so.

    What are you and the government so afraid of that you're unwilling to give someone due process before we hang them? Again I ask, what happens when it is taken too far? Anyone here old enough to remember the Japanese internment camps? Why not throw all of us in jail without trial; certainly some of us have some "extreme views". Are we not entitled to due process before we forfeit our lives?

    The way I see it, if I'm wrong, you'll simply have to wait a little longer to satisfy your blood thirst. But if I'm right, we could end up (and have) executing innocent people based on wild accusations.

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    It's not a little OT. It is way OT. Mentioning the words self-defense (in a contrived way) does not bring it any closer to being about open carry.

    You are right on the cop-bashing. I was wrong. I am sorry. The reference was not even directed at your post. However, I was still wrong and have edited the assertion out of my post.

    Due process is a law enforcement concept. We are not sending the cops after this guy. When one makes war on the US, even if one is a citizen, he should expect the response to be a war-like response, not a law enforcement response.

    If we find him, I hope we capture him and hold him until we no longer are at war with terrorists. And, make no mistake, we are at war with terrorists. Even if we decide we are not, they long ago decided we are.

    However, rather than risk the smallest injury to an American trying to effect this terrorist's capture (not arrest), he should be killed at the slightest sign of resistance. Cops don't do it that way, but, again, this is not a law enforcement situation.

  8. #8
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    500

    Post imported post

    okboomer wrote:
    Steveman01, it scares me that you can vote. You have such polar opposite views from me, I worry that you would trample my rights simply because they are not the same as yours.
    people exercising their freedoms shouldn't scare you. isn't that one of the many points of this website? god forbid you ever scare someone while OC'ing.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Lakewood, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,250

    Post imported post

    I agree that Carrying a firearm, openly or not, was never mentioned in the original posters initial words. In accordance with rules and regulations on OCDO; this thread is dead.

    General Discussion means Firearms discussions, primarily carrying discussion, that does not fit exactly into our other sub sections.

    General Discussion does not mean Discuss anything about anything. It has to be firearms related and hopefully carry related.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    bomber wrote:
    okboomer wrote:
    Steveman01, it scares me that you can vote. You have such polar opposite views from me, I worry that you would trample my rights simply because they are not the same as yours.
    people exercising their freedoms shouldn't scare you. isn't that one of the many points of this website? god forbid you ever scare someone while OC'ing.
    That some people vote scares me too. That's not to say that I think they should not vote. Same thing about OC. I don't think their right should be revoked, but, based on some of the posts on OCDO, I wouldn't want to be within a mile of some folks here (a tiny minority) who have guns!

    I am glad we live in a republic and not a democracy. The republic presents a buffer to some of the stupid votes that we have had to endure.

  11. #11
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    SEMO, , USA
    Posts
    578

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    It's not a little OT. It is way OT. Mentioning the words self-defense (in a contrived way) does not bring it any closer to being about open carry.

    You are right on the cop-bashing. I was wrong. I am sorry. The reference was not even directed at your post. However, I was still wrong and have edited the assertion out of my post.

    Due process is a law enforcement concept. We are not sending the cops after this guy. When one makes war on the US, even if one is a citizen, he should expect the response to be a war-like response, not a law enforcement response.

    If we find him, I hope we capture him and hold him until we no longer are at war with terrorists. And, make no mistake, we are at war with terrorists. Even if we decide we are not, they long ago decided we are.

    However, rather than risk the smallest injury to an American trying to effect this terrorist's capture (not arrest), he should be killed at the slightest sign of resistance. Cops don't do it that way, but, again, this is not a law enforcement situation.
    This topic is no more off OC topic than these



    I want to buy an AR 15



    Lawmakers want to deploy the Nat'l Guard in Chicago



    Question about the U.S. Military and unconstitutional laws



    NYC People Ignore Good-Samaritan Bleeding To Death

    Luckily they seemto belittle more lenient in the General Discussion forum and let us discuss topics that may simply be of interest to the members of the community of OCDO.


    AUDE VIDE TACE

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    cscitney87 wrote:
    I agree that Carrying a firearm, openly or not, was never mentioned in the original posters initial words. In accordance with rules and regulations on OCDO; this thread is dead.
    I'm sorry. Please close the thread with your moderating powers.

    Eye95, thanks for the apology. I have lots of cops for friends and while I have a distrustful view of government in general, I have a lot of trust in our men and women in blue.

    The on topic part I was trying to push this conversation towards was the effect this has on our movement/beliefs as a whole. He's a "radical" muslim. We're "radical" gun owners. Many of our ideas and beliefs scare people, usually out of ignorance, but it still scares them. Do any of you believe that this website isn't being monitored by law enforcement/government? Is it possible for our government to get this out of control with us and our beliefs? I'm sorry if the point was subtle, but I think it's very "on topic" and related to the issues we face while trying to expand and protect our right to carry. Again, the issue isn't how we treat criminals versus "enemy combatants"; the issue is our government and how they choose to classify people into one of these categories.

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    IndianaBoy79 wrote:
    cscitney87 wrote:
    I agree that Carrying a firearm, openly or not, was never mentioned in the original posters initial words. In accordance with rules and regulations on OCDO; this thread is dead.
    I'm sorry. Please close the thread with your moderating powers.

    Eye95, thanks for the apology. I have lots of cops for friends and while I have a distrustful view of government in general, I have a lot of trust in our men and women in blue.

    The on topic part I was trying to push this conversation towards was the effect this has on our movement/beliefs as a whole. He's a "radical" muslim. We're "radical" gun owners. Many of our ideas and beliefs scare people, usually out of ignorance, but it still scares them. Do any of you believe that this website isn't being monitored by law enforcement/government? Is it possible for our government to get this out of control with us and our beliefs? I'm sorry if the point was subtle, but I think it's very "on topic" and related to the issues we face while trying to expand and protect our right to carry. Again, the issue isn't how we treat criminals versus "enemy combatants"; the issue is our government and how they choose to classify people into one of these categories.
    He is at war with the US. Folks at OCDO (well most of us) aren't.

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Eagle, Idaho, USA
    Posts
    639

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    He is at war with the US. Folks at OCDO (well most of us) aren't.
    Allegedly. yes. Are you willing to just take their word? As to your second comment, I agree; I've met a few people here with views even I consider extreme. Violence should only be used against our government in the gravest of circumstances, and I, like yourself, am from from thinking we're at that point yet.

    The point is, our activities could one day be considered criminal, even treason es, and they could very well classify one of us as the enemy. It's not a far stretch...we've had to fight to get our carry rights back the past 20-30 years. We're making progress, but it's easy to see that we could once again start down that slippery slope. I'd rather head it off now, before it gets that bad; it starts by holding our government accountable BEFORE it gets to that point.

    I love my country, and I think we have the best system of governance in the world, but I'm not willing to just take their word that someone is a terrorist. I want evidence. What does our government have to fear from sharing the truth with everyone?

    I've watched you debate before Eye95; I honestly expected more from you. While I don't think we'll see eye to eye (pardon the pun) I would think you'd at least have a better argument to support your viewpoint than mere allegations of guilt or "we're at war!" (we're not) which somehow means we should suspend certain parts of the constitution.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •