Terrorist and traitor Anwar al-Awlaki assumes room temperature with the assistance of Predator Drone strike

By the Full Metal Patriot

This morning, Anwar al-Awlaki abruptly imitated the consistency of chunky salsa after a careful applications of Hellfire missiles.
Senior Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen early Friday morning by a CIA-led U.S. drone strike, marking the highest-profile takedown of a terror leader since the raid on Usama bin Laden's compound.

Fox News has learned that two Predator drones hovering above al-Awlaki's convoy fired the Hellfire missiles which killed the terror leader. According to a senior U.S. official, the operation was carried out by Joint Special Operations Command, under the direction of the CIA.

"AQAP has lost its ideological leader, which is a huge blow," a former intelligence official who has tracked al-Awlaki for years told Fox News.

Al-Awlaki was a U.S.-born Islamic militant cleric who became a prominent figure with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the network's most active branch. He was involved in several terror plots in the United States in recent years, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits to carry out attacks. President Obama signed an order in early 2010 making him the first American to be placed on the "kill or capture" list.

The Yemeni government and Defense Ministry announced al-Awlaki's death, without giving details. But American sources confirmed the CIA and U.S. military were behind the strike on al-Awlaki, whom one official described as a "big fish."

The strike hit a vehicle with three or four suspected Al Qaeda members inside, in addition to al-Awlaki. The strike comes after a heavy presence of U.S. drones was spotted in the skies over the region over the last couple weeks, one source told Fox News.

The strike underscores the expanding nature of the drone program, which has migrated beyond the borders of Pakistan into Yemen, Somalia and other countries.

Yemeni security officials and local tribal leaders also said al-Awlaki was killed in an air strike on his convoy that they believed was carried out by the Americans.
In response, Uncle Nitwit Ron Paul jumped at the chance to beclown himself, criticizing the killing of an American traitor and terrorist, calling it an “assassination.”
Ron Paul aggressively criticized President Obama today for al-Awlaki's death.

"No I don't think that's a good way to deal with our problems," Paul said in a media avail after his remarks at the Politics + Eggs event here. "He was born here, Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad.

"I think what would people ... have said about Timothy McVeigh? We didn't assassinate him, who certainly he had done it. Went and put through the courts then executed him. To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this."

Does he feel the same about Bin Laden? "

Not exactly. Because he was involved in 9/11 and I voted for authority to go after those individuals responsible for 9/11. Al-Awlaki nobody ever suggested that he was participant in 9/11."
Those who conduct war against the United States should not be surprised when the United States returns the favor.

Al-Awlaki may have been born here, but he made a conscious and very public decision to wage war against America. He even left our country so he could train terrorists to conduct attacks against us. American soldiers didn't drag a U.S. citizen out of his house and shoot him in the street. He wasn't denied due process. This traitor was killed on the battlefield as he made preparation to murder American soldiers and our citizens.

Cross-posted at Full Metal Patriot


  1. "killed on the battlefield"? What battlefield? Yemen is a "battlefield"? What will keep the Govt to the rule of law? All they have to do is say "He was on the battlefield, so we killed him"!

  2. Sorry, I agree with Rep. Paul. The administration likely has me on an enemies list along with millions of other demonized Tea Party members.

    We know the fresh prince of Bill Ayers is a dangerous thug. The only question is how far he will go against the American public.

  3. I am, no doubt, on the White House enemies list (thanks to AttackWatch). But due to the fact that I won't be training jihadists in a terrorist training camp in Yemen, I think I'm fairly safe from having a close encounter with a Predator Drone.

    The literal definition of "battlefield" is an area of contention, conflict, or hostile opposition.

    So yes, I would classify a terrorist training camp in a foreign country as a battlefield situation. It is, quite literally, a militarized zone.

  4. Perhaps Paul, and those that support him, should read the constitution. It does have a death penalty for one crime and one crime only (the rest is up for interpretation): treason. This man was a TRAITOR! As much as I don't trust Obama with predator drones, what is a President to do when a man, in this case an "US Citizen" leaves to a hostile country, take up arms against the US, vows to bring down the government to replace it with a sharia theocracy and kill as many "infidel" citizens as possible, twice attempting it with Jihadi brand of fruit of kaboom and office supplies? If this isn't the definition of treason, then what is? What, should we wait for the Yemenis to extradite him? Demons will be throwing snowballs before that would happen. Remember, enemy combatant, which is in the Geneva Convention that basically defines a terrorist, are not granted the protection of the rules of war. They, in of themselves, are a battlefield and any government can do with them as they see fit. If you want to argue those merits, then do so there, but I, for one, am not, and it pains me to say this, going to chastise BO and the CIA for taking this traitor out.

  5. Since when are we killed first and found guilty by a jury of our peers latter!
    I don't like the guy either way... But Ron Paul has it RIGHT!

  6. John your naive scares me. Since when do enemy combatant have a right to trail. Are we going to have the Gitmo arguments again? This man opening admits and preaches the jihad and his desire for out death and destruction and openly admits to his participation thereof like in fruit of kaboom and the toner case. If you're going to have concerns about his due process, then you may as well surrender because terrorist have no such concerns. After all, do you really believe this guy, other than 12 jihadis or leftist morons like you or fools like Paul who have ended his chances of being elected by supporting this TRAITOR, could actually be found to be not guilty? Do you expect Yemen to actually ever extradite the guy? Does he have to actually kill somebody before you realize what kind of threat? This is a proud and confessed terrorist traitor we're talking about, not some crime spree by some obscure gang banger.

  7. @sadbath1
    Right to Trail? I guess you mean trial... Then why didn't we take out Bill Ayers? Is he any less threat to us?! Or how about Obama?!!! Is he not a very dangerous threat to the USA?! He has certainly had a serious threat to my freedoms and liberty! Since when do traitors have less rights than any other US citizen?
    And what the HELL do the SCHEIß people in Gitmo have to do with this subject (du Arschloch)!
    For those that do not understand German...(PG sugested)

    It is your Naivete that threatens our nation! Maybe you think you have it all together.. But the patriot act is a very serious threat to our freedom. Try thinking for your self instead if listening to the RNC mainstream.
    This isn't about that POS in Yemen... It's about where do we draw the line on freedom!
    Will I be a target when I don't agree with or Govt?!
    Look at how the Left has already called the TEA Party Racist, anti American, that "they can go straight to hell"!
    If I had half the chance, I would have taken that POS out back and Whooped his a$§ till the cows come home! But this was clearly an assassination!
    Don't let them get YOU in their cross hairs!

  8. madmath1, it is *because* Paul and his supporters read the Constitution that they know that it is illegal for the President to order the execution of a U.S. citizen without trial:

    Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

  9. Bullshit. A citizen who has decided to openly engage in warfare against the United States is entitled to nothing but death. The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

    BTW: This is settled law. It's nothing new.

  10. Chuck
    If you can't see how this may affect your future rights, then you deserve to lose them!

  11. I don't have a right to declare war on the United States and team up with America's sworn enemies in a foreign country. Furthermore, if I did claim that right or even desire it, I'd be a low-life scumbag who deserved to die in a violent manner.

    You people would morn the death of Hitler if it was the United States who killed him. You know nothing of rights. Only a stew of hatred, stupidity and insanity fuels your retarded "principles". Lew Rockwell has taught you well.

  12. Paul has it constitutionally correct as Wes pointed out in his quote of the fifth amendment.

    Is the guy a scumbag traitor? Absolutely! Should he have been captured and put on trial in the courts of the USA? Absolutely!

    Would the evidence been overwhelming enough to convict? Absolutely!

    Then the constitutional penalty of death would have been quite appropriate.

    On a personal note... Methinks a scumbag like this guy deserves a slow death by draw and quarter.

  13. If this scumbag traitor, an American citizen, can be executed without being charged or convicted of treason, then none of us US citizens have any rights. The constitution does provide for the death penalty for treason, but only after due process of law. Paul is right even if the things he says are not always popular.

    If this swine had been killed as a result of being with a group of legitimate targets, so be it. But if he himself was specifically targeted without due process, we have a problem, and a dangerous precedent.

  14. Paul is an idiot. According to his retarded logic, someone mowing down a playground full of children with a machine gun should be allowed to finish his business and then be served an arrest warrant in the interests of protecting our collective constitutional rights.

    Where do you fools come from? From whence comes such stupidity?

  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

  16. "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

  17. .

    Just to make this crystal clear. You are cheering the fact the Obama Administration has killed an unarmed and defenseless citizen of USA.

    You find it laudable that the Obama Administration acted against the Constitution.

    The victim (USA citizen) had no trial. Is simply being accused by the Obama Administration enough for you to cancel the Constitution?

    Ema Nymton

  18. Defenseless? These people were mass murderers. If you don't find the death of a mas murderer "laudable", you are a sub-human life form.

  19. .

    Chuck - "These people were mass murderers. If you don't find the death of a mas murderer "laudable", you are a sub-human life form."

    This person (singular) was a citizen of USA. He had only been accused of being involved in an alleged crime.

    So is this how you stand up for the rights of the people under the Constitution of USA?

    Is the President of USA above the law?

    Ema Nymton

  20. People who have declared war against the United States and openly admit to murdering American citizens aren't "under" the Constitution. You are high off your ass. Your only motivation is contempt for your own country.

  21. .

    Chuck - "Your only motivation is contempt for your own country."

    Wow, Chuck. My 'only motivation is contempt for my own country'? Wow.

    So standing up for the Constitution is not what the TeaBagging/RepublicanT Party thinks is a good thing?!? And for those who do stand up for the Constitution, your response is "Your only motivation is contempt for your own country." Wow

    Is the President of USA above the law?

    Ema Nymton

  22. There is nothing in the constitution that applies to warfare, you half-wit. If you imagine there is, why don't you "Wow" everyone reading your moronic drivel and cite just where that part of the constitution is.

    While you're at it, cite what law a president is breaking when US soldiers kill members of an enemy army.

    Get on with it, Einstein.

  23. I'll say again, his citizenship is entirety irrelevant. The only relevant factor is that he is part of a military force that has, is, and will be attacking the US and its allies. He is BOTH a criminal under US law and a combatant under the Laws of Land Warfare. Under the latter, we may kill him as long as he remained in the fight.

    In every armed conflict there are turncoats on both sides. American citizens of Japanese and German descent fought against us in WWII. American defectors fought against us in other wars. I doubt you would believe we needed a jury trial before dropping a bomb on their heads.

    If the idea of "battlefield" is confusing you, it's because the nature of warfare has changed. You're actually siding WITH Obama, Kerry, and Holder who believe antiterrorism is primarily a law enforcement matter. There is an essential difference between the guy who murders a clerk at a grocery store to raid the cash register and the guy who joins a foreign military force intent on destroying America, killing Americans, and disrupting American interests.

    You're confusing the issue because you don't understand that the conduct of warfare is beyond the scope of the Constitution. The Constitution gave the powers to declare and wage war to Congress and the President, but remained silent on HOW they do so. Title 10 of the US Code and international laws and treaties define what's legal in that context.

    Our beloved Constitution set up our federal government, enumerated its limited powers, and defined some but not all of our liberties. It was not meant to be an all encompassing treatise on everything that might occur in perpetuity. That's why we have an amendment process.

  24. Well stated. Sadly, what you wrote should be obvious to all but the addled. It's really simple.

  25. He took another little piece of the constituio with him when he died.

    "The conduct of warfare is beyond the scope of the constition?" Bullshit. The constitution clearly outlines who gets to declare war, who gets to run the war, and even how treason is decided, and who gets to decide the punishment for it.

    Just because you support Obama doesn't mean the constitution is wrong - it means you don't support the constitution.

    Perhaps if you'd read the damned thing, you'd already know that the constitution clearly outlines the process of declaring treason,and specifically says that congress gets to decide the penalty.

    It's fine if you support this assault on the law of the land, but don't pretend you're a constitutionalist, or even a patriotic American when you do.

  26. Article III, Section 3:

    Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

    The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

  27. Angela, I plainly said the Constitution gave Congress the power to declare war and made the President the commander in chief. I also said it says NOTHING about HOW war would be conducted.

    The Constitution gives Congress the power to make laws regulating the army and the navy. It DOES NOT say who we can and cannot bomb! The Constitution does not require the President to get Congressional permission for everyone we kill in combat. In fact, the US KNOWINGLY killed innocent US citizens in bombing operations of military targets, e.g. the POWs in Nagasaki. These are LAWFUL ACTS.

    The Constitution defines what treason is, but it DOES NOT say we must haul treasonous individuals before a court while they still have a gun in their hands! If we had managed to capture him alive, we would have been required to put him on trial for treason and other things. If he willingly surrendered or was captured hors d' combat, we would have to try him. But we are not required to TRY to capture him. As long as he is a combatant, he's a lawful target for death.

    I was a soldier, Angela, who taught Law of Land Warfare in the US Army JAG Corps. I'm pretty sure I know both the Constitution and the Law of War better than you.

  28. .

    Just to make this crystal clear.

    When it comes to the killing unarmed and defenseless citizens of USA (Constitution be damned!), you support Barrack HUSSEIN Obama. Rah, rah sis boom bah.

    When it comes to helping the poor, the working class, and the needy of USA by increasing access to health care and increasing government spending on social welfare/Social Security/Medicare you vilify Mr Obama and want to impeach the President because he does not follow the Constitution?

    Ema Nymton

  29. Ron Paul has committed an category error, incorrectly applying the constitution.

    Congress authorized the president to prosecute a war against Al Qaeda, with no geographical boundaries or limitations on citizenship.

    Awlaki joined AQ and bragged about how proud he was to be helping AQ kill Americans. He thus became a valid military target.

    Those who still disagree are left only to say that we can kill non-US enemy combatants, but not US ones. OK, all AQ has to do to thwart our GWOT and drone strike program is to station an American citizen traitor in every camp and convoy.

    Obama did the right thing. The military and intelligence lawyers reviewed the plans to get this guy, and because he was a US citizen, they also had the Justice Dept review it. It was done transparently and with due diligence and befits a democratic republic.

    Legally, we never treated him as a criminal. No charges were ever filed. Government records and actions show we clearly considered him an enemy combatant.

    He chose to join AQ and fight against the United States of America, and now he's died like the AQ enemy combatant he was.

  30. Also, based on Ron Paul's logic, if a group of home-grown terrorists got together and formed a military brigade and started attacking US soldiers in Iraq, our military could not engage them.

    We'd have to send a team of FBI agents in to arrest them, I suppose.

    I love Dr. Paul on most things, but his head is screwed on backwards when it comes to issues such as this.

    You are an enemy combatant and valid military target when you declare yourself an enemy of the US and join an organization congress has authorized the president to go after militarily.

  31. "The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, "

    Those people weren't being "punished" for treason, you dumbass. They were killed in battle. They were agents of an enemy army. They died while waging war against this country.

    I'm beginning to think you people aren't really stupid enough to not understand this. You simply hate seeing success in our war against those devoted to killing us. Either that or you are just a bunch of mouth-breathers incapable of seeing whats right in front of your slack-jawed, cross-eyed faces.

  32. They weren't killed in battle. As far as we know they weren't even armed, they weren't driving a truck towards a base or an embassy....they were just "there."

    If they were so obviously guilty, why wasn't he convicted in absentia in open court? If you look, there wasn't a single charge filed against these guys.

    You neocons are a scary bunch. You spent the last 20 years rabidly asserting that rights don't apply to anybody but the citizens, and now you've apparently decided that only certain citizens have those rights.

    You and yours are a bigger threat to our way of life than he would have ever been.

    But Obama thanks you for your support! After all, if we didn't have war-mongering thugs running the GOP, we could impeach his butt over this.

  33. And by the way, Chuck - what exactly do you think treason is, since you don't seem to think it is defined by joining up with the enemy?

    First you decided that the constitution didn't mention war, then that it didn't apply to battle, and now you're saying that treason isn't treason.

    But hey, when logic fails, you can certainly call people names there with the best of 'em...I'll give you that.

  34. Ema, you're right.

    They have no right to call themselves constitutionalists. And the ex-military personnel defending this horror have forsaken their oath to defend the constitution. May God have mercy on their souls.

  35. And by the way, despite the glowing adoration for the powers bestowed to an imperialistic presidency, it is indeed illegal for the president to order an assassination, and also for any one to carry that order out. :http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12333.html#2.11

  36. .


    Will you please stop bringing up nasty little things like facts and laws? It only confuses the hate filled TeaBagging/RepublicanT types.

    It really has Chuck all upset. Poor Chuck has resorted to calling everyone 'idiot', scumbag, and sub-human.

    You keep this up and poor Chuck will just soil himself in rage.

    Ema Nymton

  37. Ema and AngelaTC: You are impervious to facts, logic and reason.

    Congress authorized the executive branch to conduct military activities against Al Qaeda. Awlaki chose to join that organization, therefor he was a legitimate military target.

    It was a military action authorized by law. No due process or subpoenas necessary.

    The US government clearly did not treat him as a criminal, since it filed no charges against him. The established facts and government actions make it clear they considered him an enemy combatant, which he indeed was by his own statements and deeds.

    You're trying to cloud the issues, but the only thing cloudy are your facts and your logic.

  38. "And the ex-military personnel defending this horror have forsaken their oath to defend the constitution.

    Killing the leaders of al Qaeda is now a "horror"?
    Your stupidity is exceeded only by your hatred of this country. You bring nothing to a discussion of constitutional jurisprudence but abject ignorance. May you rot.

  39. "First you decided that the constitution didn't mention war, then that it didn't apply to battle, and now you're saying that treason isn't treason. "

    When crappy people know they can't win an argument, they lie. You're a liar. And a rather inept one at that.

  40. "Will you please stop bringing up nasty little things like facts and laws?

    What "facts" and/or "laws" are you claiming were brought up, you gutless turd? You were given an opportunity to cite law and articles of the US Constitution that support your retarded thesis that our Marines and soldiers must surrender to American born members of alQaeda in the interests of fair play. You've cited nothing. You're as gutless as the day is long just as your ridiculous screen name shows. (not my N amE spelled backwards)

    Lying scum abound.

  41. "If you look, there wasn't a single charge filed against these guys."

    You don't "file charges" against members of an enemy force, you half-wit. They were leaders of the world's largest terrorist network, and proudly so. Can you shitwits find anyone on Earth that will claim that the two alQaeda members our military successfully smoked in their terrorist refuge were in fact NOT the alQaeda leaders they openly claimed to be? Do YOU even make the claim? If so, why? Were the two of them wrong about their status? What do you Nobel nominees know that they didn't?

    Do tell, you drooling idiots.

  42. Having fun yet Chuck? I'm betting you were the bully on the block everywhere you lived.

    Civilized debate certainly isn't your strong suit.

    Give the insults a rest why don't you.

    They add nothing to your position.

  43. On Feb. 3, 2010, Dennis Blair, then the country's director of national intelligence, admitted before the House Intelligence Committee that "Being a U.S. citizen will not spare an American from getting assassinated by military or intelligence operatives." This open admission by an Obama administration official, not even attempting to keep it classified or top secret, sets a dangerous new precedent in our history.

    The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frightening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States - even if they are a citizen - can be taken out on the President's say-so alone. Part of the very concept of citizenship is the protection of due process and the rule of law. The President wants to spread American values around the world but continues to do great damage to them here at home, appointing himself judge, jury and executioner by presidential decree.

  44. "The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frightening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States - even if they are a citizen - can be taken out on the President's say-so alone."

    Had they shot him on a city street somewhere I'd agree with you. But that is not what happened.

    He was an AQ operative, operating in Yemen, where that terrorist organization is currently waging war against that country. Awlaki made himself a legitimate military target. Congress authorized the president to conduct such military actions.

  45. "
    The precedent set by the killing of Awlaki establishes the frightening legal premise that any suspected enemy of the United States "

    There is no "precedent" because never in the history of this or any other country has the citizenship of someone waging war against a country insulated them from being killed on the battlefield. You people are either incredibly stupid, incredibly dishonest, or both.


Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.