An American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaqui, was killed yesterday by a drone missile on the orders of President.  Awlaqui preached jihad against the U.S’  (so far as I know not a crime)

Let’s cut to the chase here.   This was American citizen, with all the rights that accrue to that position.  He had not been charged with any crime.  He had not been found guilty of anything.  He had not been sentenced to anything.  Furthermore the American presented no real evidence that he was doing anything wrong.  Nothing that suggested he was in any way shape or form an imminent threat to the United States.

Instead this guy was murdered in cold blood by an operative pushing a button in a military installation in Florida.

Fortunately, there are Americans who are outraged by this murderous use of unconstitutional power.  Ron Paul said it was a sad day for America.  THE ACLU wrote  that “If the constitution means anything, it surely means that the president does not have unreviewable  authority so summarily execute any American who he concludes is any enemy of the state.”

Doesn’t that make your blood run cold.  An American government could kill any American they deemed an enemy (political maybe)

Another prominent attorney wrote that “if we allow such gross overeaches of power to continue w we are setting the stage for increasing erosions of civil liberties and the rule of law.”

Should the United States be in the assassination business?

What do you think?


  1. 1
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Let’s see if I’ve got this straight, Neil. You’re saying:

    – the guy killed was no threat to the U.S.;

    – there’s no real evidence he did anything illegal;

    – he was never charged with anything;

    – he wasn’t sentenced;

    – he wasn’t found guilty;

    – he was, in your words, Neil, “murdered in cold blood”.

    Methinks, Neil, you’ve just described a crime.

    Would you agree that the person who gave the order for committing this crime should be held respinsible under the law?

    Do you agree that the person responsible is guilty of either a crime or misdemeanor?

  2. Tony, asking the question is answering it. However, Neil may have some facts wrong, although it does not justify targeted assassinations and Obama, in doing so, becomes liable before the UN International Tribunal for what looks like a war crime.
    Awlaki was linked to Major Hasan and some of the guys involved in the Twin Towers massacre, he preached violence against all Americans but that does not justify his assassination. He should have been arrested, extradited to the U.S. and judged with all due process in accordance with his rights as an American citizen. The Roman Empire treated its citizens better than the U.S. does.

  3. 3
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    SECTION 4 of article 1 of the Constitution of the United States:

    “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

  4. 4
    Neil McKenty Says:


    I refer you to Pardiss Kbriaei, a prominent attorney with the Centre for Constituional Rights/ She writes: “If it was in the absence of imminent threat of deadly harm, this was an illegal killing under the U.S Constiution and international law;|” She calls for an immediate inquiry.

    Of course there was a crime.

    Whether it rises to high crimes and dismeanours is a place I have no intention of going.


  5. 5
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Neil, Bill Clinton was impeached because he lied about where he put his willie.

    If “murder” (your words) isn’t a “high crime”, then what is?

  6. 6
    jim Says:

    When a dozen or so lawyers from various branches were convened at the White House to discuss the issue, not one lawyer dissented on the plan.
    It seems that citizenship is not a factor in determining whether a person can be lawfully killed under the laws of war. The die is cast.

  7. 7
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    jim: you, those twelve lawyers, and Obama therefore disagree with Neil McKenty who called the killing “murder in cold blood”.

  8. 8
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Neil writes:

    “Whether it rises to high crimes and misdemeanors is a place I have no intention of going.”

    Why is that, Neil?

    It was YOU who brought up the subject. It was YOU who used the quite unambiguous and pointedly damning words in describing what occurred, particularly “murder in cold blood”.

    You’ve obviously become quite unsettled by Barack Obama’s crime of murder (again, your words not mine). Why the hesitancy to bring the discussion to its logical conclusion? To where the law and the Constitution demands that it goes?

    It seems to me your hesitancy to even discuss it may mean that you may have to admit you erred in your bubbly, enthusiastic, giddly, school-girl crush-like support of Obama (indeed, if memory serves me, you called him the greatest president ever or of the past 50 years or some sort of over-the-top platitude). Is this what you are afraid of?

  9. 9
    jim Says:

    Tony – I am not going to speak for Neil, but I got a different nuance from his thoughts.
    I thought that the “high crimes and misdemeaners” remark meant that it was too big of a subject to elaborate on at this moment.
    Watch it Tony, you’re chomping at the bit again, and you’re beginning to sound like jaws again. Have a nice day, unless you’ve made other plans

  10. 10
    Tony Kondaks Says:


    Neil’s a big boy of whom I have every confidence can and will speak for himself.

  11. 11

    I had built up high hopes about Obama. I must admit he is the let down of the year, very unfortunate and cynicism nurturing.

  12. 12
    jim Says:

    Tony – You are repeating what I said, in my first sentence, about Neil. In my second sentence, I then proffered my own opinion, in what I thought Neil had said, not that he had said it. How does one define a high crimes. It could mean in some circles that they committed a crime whilst they were on a high and so on and so forth.
    BTW – When answering Neil you shouted “YOU” twice at him. You also berated him for being “giddy and having a school-girl crush-like support of Obama”.Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know he can speak for himself, but would he lower himself to such a level to deal with your picayune remarks. Do you have to be so unmetrical. Why don’t you join me and sink to my levity. What a way to go. Look Ma, no hands, I’m free, no sticks or stones.

  13. 13
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    jim: right now, I feel for Neil. Paul expressed how let down HE feels over Obama; imagine how Neil feels who has so much emotional investment in him (recall that Neil and his wife actually drove down to the States to see him, like pilgrims going to Lourdes).

    It must have taken a lot for Neil to accuse Obama IN WRITING of “murder in cold blood”.

    By the way, my use of capitals is not shouting. I am typing on an Android and its texting board has no option for italics so I must use capital letters for emphasis

  14. 14
    jim Says:

    Tony – The wife whom Neil had in his car on his visit to Unity, New Hampshire, to see Obama was a guy, he could have been one of those Androids. Rumours have filtered down to me that they slept in the same room, at a motel, overnight. Do you think……..
    Well of course they were pilgrims going to Lourdes, they were praying for a miracle, a miracle that a relatively unknown, a relatively black man, a relatively Muslim politician, a relative target for all the bigots, he, whose humane actions in his life up until then, was pressing the flesh with the disenfranchised. This a free country. If we change our mind about some politician I hope we will always be allowed hear the Vox Populi.

  15. 15
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Oh, oh. Sorry for making an assumption about Neil’s personal life. I apologise. I thought for sure Neil had in the past mentioned a wife; perhaps he used the word “partner” and I incorrectly made an assumption I should not have.

  16. 16
    jim Says:

    Tony – He didn’t use the word “partner” . Neil has mentioned his wife in the past but not in relation to Unity N.H.. Am glad that you are sorry for making assumptions about Neil. Did I detect another assumption when you wrote the words”Oh, oh”
    Getting back to your remarks in previous transmissions, whether Neil was right or wrong in what he was saying, it wasn’t right for you to try to box him in, with your supercilious sentences. My, this, remark has nothing to do with Neil. It has to do with la politesse. Was it necessary to say that he was using some sort of “over-the-top platitude” when referring to Obama? What gall! I know that you are a better man than what your recent comments indicate. Where are you? Find your way back. We need the otherTony.

  17. 17
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    I disagree, jim, with your assessment.

    It was Neil who laid the ground rules for the tone of the discussion with his very strongly worded no-nonsense phraseology in the original post, not least of which was “murder in cold blood”.

    I just rose to the occasion.

  18. 18
    jim Says:

    Tony – I’m going to leave you with the rose. Take time to savour its aroma.
    It’s the best I can offer. It seems to be the right thing to do. Your olfactory will bring you back to kinder and gentler days.

  19. 19
    Neil McKenty Says:

    After studying all these interesting comments I must get consolation wherever and whenever I can.

    Concolation for me is to contemplate the GOP candidates for president. What a mixture of mental midgets. (Even the Rep[ublicans think they are such political runts Christie to get in at this late stage)

    Worried about Obama? Me? Against the opposition ranged against him.
    He’s still anodds on favourite.

  20. 20
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    Ron Paul on the impeachment question:

  21. 21
    jim Says:

    I noticed that two of R.P.’s. compatriots, Bachman and Romney,disagreed with R.P.

  22. 22
    Tony Kondaks Says:

    The probability of a U.S. citizen winning the Powerball lottery: one in 180 million

    After President Obama kills just one more time, the probability of a U.S. citizen being murdered by him is one in 165 million.

  23. 23
    jim Says:

    Nope they will be hit by lightning first.

RSS Feed for this entry

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: