Anwar al-Awlaki Killed in Yemen

[blueballs]

Obama has kicked ass - got OBL, hasn't been afraid to go after AQ whereever they're at with drones, doubled down (if briefly) in Afghanistan...

Post-911 however, where should we have fought AQ if not in Iraq? They were decentralized away from Afghanistan even before 911, and were brutally effective in spreading terror on all continents (well, maybe not South America). Forgetting about WMDs, Iraq did in fact draw them out onto a battlefield where not only could the US military fight them, but local Muslim populations could see them for what they are, a well-organized bunch of murderous thugs...

I disagree about post 9-11.

While Ansar Al-Islam was located in a base near the border with iran - specifically outside the "no-fly" zone - AQ was not in Iraq in any real noticeable way before we sent troops in. They DID have a presence in Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Somalia and (though less than several years before) Sudan.

The "Al Qaeda in Iraq" group was nominally linked to OBL - but not really. I have a buddy who worked on intel in Iraq on the ground - his take? they spread money around to pay off local kids to take pot-shots. When the Americans realized this - that the kids were getting like $100 to snipe our guys - they set up a deal - take the $100 bucks, turn in the AQiA guy who hired you - and if we capture or kill him - you get $250. Worked like a charm. They weren't really Al Qaeda as we think of them - a broader network of terrorists - they were almost a splinter group.

Honestly - I think Predator drone attacks on areas harboring AQ would do plenty to incentivize a local population to rally to get them the fuck out of their area.

I heard much the same story... also, the 9/11 commission report addressed AQ's dealings with Saddam and there simply wan't a whole lot going on there.

[kalm]

Ron Paul has an interesting take on this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la ... eedfetcher" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ron Paul makes a good point and that's the trouble with drone attacks. You can't put down your arms and surrender. I would think more conks might have a problem with government serving as judge, jury, and executioner. Especially one that is run by a radical Muslim socialist.

[SeattleGriz]

Say what you want, but the Obama administration has kicked ass on Al-Qaeda as a functioning threat in the world. Just think if that Iraq time had been spent on the REAL enemy.

I would like to reiterate what I have been saying since Obama got in office and adopted the blueprints the Bush administration layed down for this fight. If someone as left leaning as Obama is copying one of the most vilified administrations tactics in this battle, then the intel he gets on a daily basis must be pretty spooky.

[Ibanez]

I have an easy fix. Lets create a post-dated declaration that revokes his citizenship. Date in for sometime in 2002. Done!!!

THis will all be forgotten this time next week.

[SDHornet]

Glad this guy was finally knocked off. And for all those freaking out about the gov knocking off a citizen, it's not like this would be the first time and it sure won't be the last. The greater good here was that an American jihadist was killed.

[Ibanez]

Glad this guy was finally knocked off. And for all those freaking out about the gov knocking off a citizen, it's not like this would be the first time and it sure won't be the last. The greater good here was that an American jihadist was killed.

Shut up! The United States Government has NEVER killed it's own citizens.












oh wait.....

[BlueHen86]

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils, and I think that's what we did here. At the same time, we should decide as a people if that's the direct we want our country to be going in.

The war on terror may require extreme measures, we should be discussing how extreme we are comfortable with.

My opinion is that if you leave this country, and then incite violence against us, we are at war with you and you are no longer a citizen.

[Ivytalk]

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils, and I think that's what we did here. At the same time, we should decide as a people if that's the direct we want our country to be going in.

The war on terror may require extreme measures, we should be discussing how extreme we are comfortable with.

My opinion is that if you leave this country, and then incite violence against us, we are at war with you and you are no longer a citizen.

Well said!

[dbackjon]

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils, and I think that's what we did here. At the same time, we should decide as a people if that's the direct we want our country to be going in.

The war on terror may require extreme measures, we should be discussing how extreme we are comfortable with.

My opinion is that if you leave this country, and then incite violence against us, we are at war with you and you are no longer a citizen.

Like the Confederates

[kalm]

Sometimes you have to choose the lesser of two evils, and I think that's what we did here. At the same time, we should decide as a people if that's the direct we want our country to be going in.

The war on terror may require extreme measures, we should be discussing how extreme we are comfortable with.

My opinion is that if you leave this country, and then incite violence against us, we are at war with you and you are no longer a citizen.

Don't necessarily disagree. It's just too bad we don't have a guiding document, judicial branch, and over 200 years of social contract to decide these type of things.

[BDKJMU]

That doesn't matter. He betrayed his country and incited violence against it.

So Due Process goes out the door?


Shouldn't a jury decide that? Isn't that the Constitution?

No.

WSJ editorial (have to retype because can't get a workable link) cited Associated Forces Doctrine and 1942 Ex parte Quirin "Citizenship in the United States of an enemy belligerent does not relieve him from the consequences of belligerency"

LA Times article also mentions

".....Diane Marie Amann, a University of Georgia law professor who has monitored terrorism trials for the National Institute of Military Justice, said the debate over whether Awlaki's killing was legal hinges on whether the war against Al Qaeda is an armed conflict or an international police action.

"Viewed through the lens of ordinary criminal justice, for the government to kill a suspect rather than put him on trial is summary execution, clearly forbidden by U.S. and international law alike," Amann said. "Viewed through the lens of armed conflict, the result is different, however: The laws of war permit a state to kill its enemies."

An array of international law experts defended the legality of the airstrike, illustrating the conflicting interpretations of law in the fight against terrorism.

"There is strong linkage between Awlaki and the Christmas Day bomber," said Duke law professor Scott Silliman, a former Air Force staff judge advocate, referring to the young Nigerian reportedly groomed by Awlaki before his botched attempt to detonate explosives smuggled aboard the plane in his underpants.

"We do know there were also some email links between Awlaki and Maj. [Nidal Malik] Hasan at Ft. Hood," Silliman said, in reference to the U.S. Army psychiatrist accused in the Nov. 5, 2009, shootings that left 13 dead at the U.S. military base in Texas.

"When you put that together, and with some indications in the intelligence community that he was the head of or at least very active in the leadership of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, I think it was clear he was more than just a propagandist. That type of activity puts him in the category of a legitimate target."

Amos Guiora, a University of Utah law professor and author of a forthcoming book on targeted killings, said U.S. military and intelligence agencies were within their rights to eliminate Awlaki. He said the operation appeared to have been carried out with appropriate preparation and care to avoid civilian casualties, despite the ostensibly unintended killing of Khan, who was with Awlaki at the time.

"This attack appears to have met the criteria of proportionality, military necessity and the absence of alternatives to be in full accordance with a state's right to aggressive self-defense," said Guiora, a former Israel Defense Forces legal advisor involved in targeted killing decisions in the Gaza Strip in the mid-1990s...................

........................Then-Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates made that position clear in a federal court filing a year ago, when he asserted a state secrets privilege in urging a federal judge to dismiss a suit brought by Awlaki's father, Nasser, seeking a court injunction against any attack on his son. U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the elder Awlaki's case, saying it wasn't the court's role to intervene in military operations.

Awlaki's U.S. citizenship didn't entitle him to any special right of due process beyond what a foreign terrorism suspect would have, the legal analysts said.

A 1942 Supreme Court decision upholding the war-crimes convictions and death sentences of Nazi infiltrators caught attempting to sabotage East Coast defense operations rejected special consideration of one saboteur who claimed U.S. citizenship. The justices found all eight men to be "enemy belligerents" subject to the prosecution and punishment allowed under the law of war.

In Ex parte Quirin, the justices found all eight men to be "enemy belligerents" subject to the prosecution and punishment allowed under the law of war.

"The constitution guarantees due process for every 'person,' not just for citizens, and the laws of war do not preclude the possibility of one state's citizen taking up arms against his own country," said David Glazier, a national security law professor at Loyola Law School.

"From the U.S. government's perspective, that's the real beauty of treating [the fight with Al Qaeda] as an armed conflict," Glazier said. "Both U.S. national and international law are in agreement that the nationality of the target doesn't matter."

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/sep/30 ... 20111001/2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BlueHen86]

That doesn't matter. He betrayed his country and incited violence against it.

So Due Process goes out the door?


Shouldn't a jury decide that? Isn't that the Constitution?

If they are in custody, then yes; they are entitled to a trial by jury. If they are at large all bets are off. I don't think it's much different from pursing violent criminals. I'd like the police/FBI to take them alive, but that's not always possible.

[kalm]

Still don't like it.

It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki.  No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him).  Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt.  When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts.  He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.  When Awlaki’s inclusion on President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.”

After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.).  It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its.  The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world.  The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.

What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government.

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[BlueHen86]

Still don't like it.

It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki.  No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him).  Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt.  When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts.  He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner.  When Awlaki’s inclusion on President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.”

After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.).  It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its.  The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world.  The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.

What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government.

http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sad if true. We should at least be trying these people in absentia.

[SDHornet]

Still don't like it.



http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sad if true. We should at least be trying these people in absentia.

Or killing them if they pose a threat to national security.

[native]

This was too good for him. I wish they would have caught him and stretched his neck. In public. On pay per view.

[native]

Still don't like it.



http://www.salon.com/writer/glenn_greenwald/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sad if true. We should at least be trying these people in absentia.

Sad and partially true.

Yes, there should be some form of due process, but it must take national security into account. The game changer is someone who commits treason by taking up arms against the United States in concert with U.S. enemies. Perhaps treason and sedition charges should have been raised in the Congress? There is a legal and moral way to do this.

The U.S. "...again showed its true colors...?!?!???" That part of the Salon article is pure B.S.

The assasination of Awlaki was an ugly - but perhaps necessary - pimple on the face of the greatest nation on earth, compared to the assasinations at Waco and Ruby Ridge, which were dangerous and unnecessary self-imposed cancers.

[kalm]

Sad if true. We should at least be trying these people in absentia.

Sad and partially true.

Yes, there should be some form of due process, but it must take national security into account. The game changer is someone who commits treason by taking up arms against the United States in concert with U.S. enemies. Perhaps treason and sedition charges should have been raised in the Congress? There is a legal and moral way to do this.

The U.S. "...again showed its true colors...?!?!???" That part of the Salon article is pure B.S.

The assasination of Awlaki was an ugly - but perhaps necessary - pimple on the face of the greatest nation on earth, compared to the assasinations at Waco and Ruby Ridge, which were dangerous and unnecessary self-imposed cancers.

Ah, that pesky and inconvenient constitution again.

  It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its.

As Greenwald points out, both Obama supporters and right wing hawks are quick to applaud while ignoring our values and the fact we are willing to work with violent and greedy dictators like Saleh and Ghaddafi for expediency sake.

Where's Cluck when I need him?

[GannonFan]

Sad and partially true.

Yes, there should be some form of due process, but it must take national security into account. The game changer is someone who commits treason by taking up arms against the United States in concert with U.S. enemies. Perhaps treason and sedition charges should have been raised in the Congress? There is a legal and moral way to do this.

The U.S. "...again showed its true colors...?!?!???" That part of the Salon article is pure B.S.

The assasination of Awlaki was an ugly - but perhaps necessary - pimple on the face of the greatest nation on earth, compared to the assasinations at Waco and Ruby Ridge, which were dangerous and unnecessary self-imposed cancers.

Ah, that pesky and inconvenient constitution again.

  It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its.

As Greenwald points out, both Obama supporters and right wing hawks are quick to applaud while ignoring our values and the fact we are willing to work with violent and greedy dictators like Saleh and Ghaddafi for expediency sake.

Where's Cluck when I need him?

Little late to this debate so forgive me if I missed a key point, but how much does the Constitution really play into this? In WWII we had US citizens make their way to Germany to join them in various forms in order to fight against the Allies. I don't recall there being a Constitutional question then regarding whether we should apprehend those guys on the battlefield and bring them back to the States for a trial by jury or just kill them on the battlefield. We've clearly defined this fight against terrorism as an armed conflict - obviously the clarity of whether it is a "war" or not is not the same as it was 70 years ago - but if we consider people armed combatants in a conflict, then I would imagine they will be treated as such. It's not like this guy was just publishing a web site critical of the US - I'm not sure where the trepidation in this comes from. Being a US citizen does not protect you from the potential consequences of fighting in a war against the US.

[kalm]

Ah, that pesky and inconvenient constitution again.



As Greenwald points out, both Obama supporters and right wing hawks are quick to applaud while ignoring our values and the fact we are willing to work with violent and greedy dictators like Saleh and Ghaddafi for expediency sake.

Where's Cluck when I need him?

Little late to this debate so forgive me if I missed a key point, but how much does the Constitution really play into this? In WWII we had US citizens make their way to Germany to join them in various forms in order to fight against the Allies. I don't recall there being a Constitutional question then regarding whether we should apprehend those guys on the battlefield and bring them back to the States for a trial by jury or just kill them on the battlefield. We've clearly defined this fight against terrorism as an armed conflict - obviously the clarity of whether it is a "war" or not is not the same as it was 70 years ago - but if we consider people armed combatants in a conflict, then I would imagine they will be treated as such. It's not like this guy was just publishing a web site critical of the US - I'm not sure where the trepidation in this comes from. Being a US citizen does not protect you from the potential consequences of fighting in a war against the US.

Well shit then. We've declared war on drugs, poverty, and childhood obesity too. Let's bust out some more drones.

[Ibanez]

Little late to this debate so forgive me if I missed a key point, but how much does the Constitution really play into this? In WWII we had US citizens make their way to Germany to join them in various forms in order to fight against the Allies. I don't recall there being a Constitutional question then regarding whether we should apprehend those guys on the battlefield and bring them back to the States for a trial by jury or just kill them on the battlefield. We've clearly defined this fight against terrorism as an armed conflict - obviously the clarity of whether it is a "war" or not is not the same as it was 70 years ago - but if we consider people armed combatants in a conflict, then I would imagine they will be treated as such. It's not like this guy was just publishing a web site critical of the US - I'm not sure where the trepidation in this comes from. Being a US citizen does not protect you from the potential consequences of fighting in a war against the US.

Well shit then. We've declared war on drugs, poverty, and childhood obesity too. Let's bust out some more drones.

The only dunce is the one that thinks it's practical to waltz into a mud hut and arrest the American terrorists but kill everyone else. Would you feel better if it were a fire fight and he was killed while we were attempting apprehension? We shouldn't go making martyrs out of these guys, but regardless of it we are at war and this guy was clearly and activley against us and apparently successful at it.

[GannonFan]

Little late to this debate so forgive me if I missed a key point, but how much does the Constitution really play into this? In WWII we had US citizens make their way to Germany to join them in various forms in order to fight against the Allies. I don't recall there being a Constitutional question then regarding whether we should apprehend those guys on the battlefield and bring them back to the States for a trial by jury or just kill them on the battlefield. We've clearly defined this fight against terrorism as an armed conflict - obviously the clarity of whether it is a "war" or not is not the same as it was 70 years ago - but if we consider people armed combatants in a conflict, then I would imagine they will be treated as such. It's not like this guy was just publishing a web site critical of the US - I'm not sure where the trepidation in this comes from. Being a US citizen does not protect you from the potential consequences of fighting in a war against the US.

Well **** then. We've declared war on drugs, poverty, and childhood obesity too. Let's bust out some more drones.

I don't get it - you don't seem to be joking (where's the smilie? ) and I can't imagine you think the war on terrorism is like the war on childhood obesity. Do you just not have a better argument to come up with and hence the attempt at being glib? And heck, if you're going to be glib, it should be much funnier than that. Come on, whichever way you go - serious discussion or funny - you have to step it up. Try again - call this one a mulligan.

[GannonFan]

Well **** then. We've declared war on drugs, poverty, and childhood obesity too. Let's bust out some more drones.

I don't get it - you don't seem to be joking (where's the smilie? ) and I can't imagine you think the war on terrorism is like the war on childhood obesity. Do you just not have a better argument to come up with and hence the attempt at being glib? And heck, if you're going to be glib, it should be much funnier than that. Come on, whichever way you go - serious discussion or funny - you have to step it up. Try again - call this one a mulligan.

Speaking of mulligans, I have to put the obligatory picture of Carey Mulligan in here - she's no Pippa, but beggars can't be choosers. (hint - now that's a proper way to be glib about something - take notes if you need to!)

http://careymulligan.files.wordpress.co ... 986b30.jpg

[Ibanez]

Well **** then. We've declared war on drugs, poverty, and childhood obesity too. Let's bust out some more drones.

I don't get it - you don't seem to be joking (where's the smilie? ) and I can't imagine you think the war on terrorism is like the war on childhood obesity. Do you just not have a better argument to come up with and hence the attempt at being glib? And heck, if you're going to be glib, it should be much funnier than that. Come on, whichever way you go - serious discussion or funny - you have to step it up. Try again - call this one a mulligan.

We need to send out drones to all those waddling out of a Hardees...

[dbackjon]

Glad this guy was finally knocked off. And for all those freaking out about the gov knocking off a citizen, it's not like this would be the first time and it sure won't be the last. The greater good here was that an American jihadist was killed.

Shut up! The United States Government has NEVER killed it's own citizens.












oh wait.....

WEAK.

Those TRAITORS were in open rebellion against the United States. They declared war on the United States. Fuck them - they all deserved to die.