US citizen murdered by government without trial

He seems to have been involved in various operations on more than a propaganda level. I'm against the death penalty, but if a cop has to shoot someone that cannot be arrested and is a real threat to people, I'm all for it.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like what for example? What makes you say he couldn't be arrested? What makes you believe they tried to have him arrested?

See this?

"Al-Awlaki's ability to advocate violent jihad in plain English and his use of the Internet and social media such as Facebook and YouTube to disseminate his sermons made him an exceptional recruiter for violent jihad, especially among young, English-speaking Muslims."

That's all they could say about him. Do you know how many people are around the world making tapes like that and posting them on the internet? Know how many do so regularly out of London University in the UK? Difference is that those operating out of the UK are actually better known and Alwaki was hardly known by anyone ESPECIALLY in the ME. Its all bullshit.

What kind of specially trained Al Qaeda operative puts videos and messages of that nature on Facebook and Youtube for christs sake! Think about it. He's supposedly this really menacing figure but he couldn't conceal it in websites like his betters in the UK? He puts it on Facebook and Youtube like some teenager? And he's the master propaganda guy? Seriously? You buy that? You guys believe almost anything the government tells you at this point.


Meanwhile:

Others noted, however, that al-Awlaki wasn't among the top military commanders of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and that the group's top leader, Nasir al Wihayshi, a former aide to the late Osama bin Laden, its military commander, Qasim al Raymi, and its chief bomb-maker, Abdullah al Asiri, remain alive.

"In terms of the operations of AQAP, this will not have a debilitating affect; there are plenty of other AQAP figures that present a much greater threat," said Gregory Johnsen, a Princeton University Yemen analyst.

Word of al-Awlaki's death received little attention in Yemen, where he wasn't well-known. The country is enmeshed in a months-long political crisis over the rule of President Ali Abdullah Saleh. In Egypt, where bin Laden's death in May sparked marches on the U.S. Embassy by Muslim fundamentalists, there was no reaction to al-Awlaki's killing.

Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/09/30/3177590/al-awlakis-death-deprives-al-qaida.html#ixzz1Zlb0E1Vf

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This and That

It is, ultimately, a constitutional question.

There are many aspects of that question that are somewhat up in the air, though. While I'm unhappy with the policy, I recognize that there are argumentative and statutory elements involved that may well license this kind of hit.

S.A.M. and Mrs.Lucysnow have discussed the slippery-slope aspect, and I recognize it in no small part because, during the Cold War, this was the kind of thing we were supposed to fret about with Communists—tyrants declared whoever they wanted to be an enemy or terrorist, and settled the issue. This used to be a bad thing. But, like torture, apparently it's a good or perhaps merely acceptable thing when Americans do it.

With any luck, the hit on al-Awlaki and Khan will continue toward a dialogue that resolves the issue according to genuine justice; in that case, we can reasonably expect to see the executive power to commission assassinations curtailed significantly. And if that is the result, well, of all the lambs we might sacrifice, few will shed a tear for these two.

As I said earlier:

I'm unsettled, but unless that much of Congress wishes to change its attitude, I don't think we're going to see any change in things. So part of the operating theory going forward is that it was an act of war, but no, I don't like the lack of delineation.​

• • •​

We can no more reasonably conclude that al-Awlaki was "basically exercising his freedom of speech outside of the US by hosting an Al Qaeda inspired english speaking magazine" than we can accept without question the government's claim to have evidence against him without seeing it.

Thomas Joscelyn, writing for The Long War Journal, reviewed earlier this year what are asserted to be emails exchanged between Anwar al-Awlaki and one Rajib Karim; if this record is accurate, al-Awlaki was well beyond mere freedom of speech, and conspiring to strike against the United States.

What I meant about freedom of speech is that your appeal, as if the government went out and slew some poor, innocent person who had done nothing wrong, is perhaps a bit of an overstatement: "... I don't consider being a propagandist worthy of the death penalty."

I don't think it's fair to conclude that al-Awlaki was just a propagandist.

However, that doesn't clear the Obama administration. As I noted above, to Orleander, there are many aspects of this that are up in the air.

Quadraphonics pointed you to an article by William Saletan regarding the legality of the hit. Saletan's argument isn't definitive, but it is a more reasonable place to start than asserting the murder of an innocent man for exercising his First Amendment rights.

One thing I would like to see established, either way, is how American constitutional authority extends to other states, such as Yemen.

True. Some have noted the hit commission for al-Awlaki—

• "Moral Fabric, Rot & Mildew - Pt.1 Assassination" — Thread on assassination order for al-Awlaki, May, 2010.

• "Franks and Beans, Is the Dream Dead?" — #2623000/19, post considering assassination order for al-Awlaki, September, 2010.

• "Was OBL's assassination legal, ethical and righteous?" — #2749608/134, post considering TWAT in the wake of OBL death, May, 2011.​

—but you are correct that the issue hasn't attracted much attention. Indeed, whatever conservative opposition Obama faces over the hit will largely be political and not genuine.

I share your doubts. However, you're being a bit hardline about constitution and identity; American judicial history is generally tedious—the saying is that the wheels of justice turn slowly. The suit filed by al-Awlaki's father, for instance, was dismissed for lack of standing. That sort of thing happens all the time. It's not that there aren't any pertinent questions, but Anwar al-Awlaki himself was apparently the only one with legal standing to make that argument on his behalf. And perhaps that is a mistaken perspective, too, but it's as far as the process got.

Unfortunately, that is now a matter of theory. There is a practical difference, I think you can agree, between shooting missiles from the skies over Yemen, and putting enough troops on the ground to bring in the suspect.

Indeed, it is ultimately left to the people, but we cannot pretend that changing the general outlook of Congress is a task easily or quickly resolved.

:wallbang:

Just to reiterate:

If Yemen said no? I don't know, maybe another Abbottabad, and then I could just say they resisted arrest. But, no, I'm not certain.​

Abbottabad was an operation with boots on the ground; it wasn't a drone strike.
____________________

Notes:

Joscelyn, Thomas. "Awlaki's emails to terror plotter show operational role". The Long War Journal. March 2, 2011. LongWarJournal.org. October 3, 2011. http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/03/anwar_al_awlakis_ema.php

Saletan, William. "Drones Are Death Warrants". Slate. October 3, 2011. Slate.com. October 3, 2011. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...e_strikes_on_u_s_citizens_due_process_wo.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@Tiassa

You obviously have a reading comprehension problem if you assert that my point is that the US killed a poor innocent person. I have repeated over and over and over again that I am not claiming his innocence. I am making a case against executive order assassinations of american citizens without DUE PROCESS! Please take the time to read my posts and stop misrepresenting my point. First of all the father's claim was not dismissed because of its lack of standing, it was dismissed because the judge said he couldn't stop the government from doing it as it was a military case BUT he was concerned over the legality of assassinating an american citizen. According to the NYTimes:

"Judge Bates acknowledged that the case raised “stark, and perplexing, questions” — including whether the president could “order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization.”

Hello? That's what I'm saying.

We can indeed conclude he was exercising his freedom of speech both in the US and abroad because he's the one who made the videos and the pamphlets. Surely youtube and Facebook are accessible no?

Do you know what those emails entailed? Do you? Take a look at this:

"Two cases illustrate al-Awlaki's ability to attract followers online. The best known is the messages exchanged between him and U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is being tried for the murder of 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas. In subsequent interviews, al-Awlaki said Hasan had initiated e-mail correspondence with him in December 2008. Al Jazeera reported: "He was asking about killing U.S. soldiers and officers," says al-Awlaki. "His question was, is it legitimate" under Islamic law. More than a dozen e-mails followed, with Hasan asking al-Awlaki about martyrdom, about when jihad is permissible (about which al-Awlaki had written volumes), the death of innocent bystanders in attacks. And after the shootings, al-Awlaki was quick to praise them. In the Al Jazeera interview, he calls the shooting "a heroic action."

So okay. Nidal get's in touch with Awlaki, Awlaki then goes on to tell Al Jazeera exactly what the exchange was, the cleric gave him lessons on the texts of martyrdom and when Jihad was permissible. Fine. He calls the shooting a heroic action but considering Read-Only's glee over Awlaki's death (Read-Only also thinks its a 'heroic action') I don't see how that makes him the mac-daddy of jihadi crimes. Remember that those who are going to commit acts of violence are already convinced by the time they reach out to someone like Awlaki. My point is that if you were going to bring him up on criminal charges what would that be? Inciting violence? Well then you better start killing more clerics. As a matter of fact you might as well whack most of the students who attend the Islamic Society at London University. His video action may have been enough to bring him up on criminal charges but not enough to kill him, except if that's what you plan on doing from now on, killing muslim clerics for preaching jihadi religious stuff.


What about this:

"In early October 2010, University College London (UCL) published its official inquiry into the radicalization of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who is currently awaiting trial in the United States for attempting to destroy a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day 2009. The inquiry concluded that “there is no evidence to suggest either that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was radicalized while a student at UCL or that conditions at UCL during that time or subsequently are conducive to the radicalization of students.”[1] To reach this conclusion, the report overlooked abundant evidence that Abdulmutallab had not only entrenched his extremist leanings while studying in London, but also actively sought to popularize such views among his fellow students."

"During the 1990s, British university campuses played a key role in the evolution of international jihadist networks, providing extremist groups a steady source of motivated and high-caliber recruits whose UK passports enabled them to move freely around the world. One of the earliest such recruits was Omar Saeed Sheikh, a British Muslim from a privileged Pakistani background, who was radicalized in the early-1990s while at the London School of Economics (LSE). After hearing Omar Bakri, the leader of the radical al-Muhajiroun group, speak on campus about the then-ongoing massacre of Muslims in Bosnia, he embarked on a career of jihadist action, becoming involved with militant groups in Bosnia, India and Pakistan. In 2002, Sheikh was found guilty of leading the kidnapping and beheading of U.S. reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan."

http://www.ctc.usma.edu/posts/british-universities-continue-to-breed-extremists


What was Alwaki the only cleric teaching jihadi martyrdom rubbish? You going to send drones over the universities now? How many of these propaganda guys do you think are being produced on a daily basis?

Quad's legality line was based on someone 'bearing arms', this guy didn't bear arms but a Facebook account and a computer.

Until there is evidence of otherwise then yes Alwaki was just a propagandist, if there was evidence to the contrary then why does the military and the government keep going on about his propaganda? Why aren't they going on about his bomb making skills or his planned attacks on americans?

Why do you think you need troops on the ground to bring in some low level guy like Alwaki? He was in Yemen, they could have picked him up at any time and given him over the americans. You guys have no imagination. Remember David Koresh? Well he used to walk around the streets of Waco all the time to pick up gum and shit the Feds could have picked him off the streets at any time. Instead they used that heavy handed approach. Alwaki could have been picked up at any time by Yemen, oh so cooperative with the americans Yemen, and bring him back to the states where he would have to stand on charges. But wait, they would have had to have charges against him first wouldn't they? And they didn't nothing that they care to name anyway, all they keep harping about is his bloody youtube account and emails.

So yeah I want to ask you is that what you're planning on using the death sentence for? Emails and inflamed religious rhetoric?

 

Not even Bells. I have yet to read one statement by the government or military where they refer to him as such. They even admit that he wasn't even a higher echelon member of Al Qaeda, what his is though is an extremist cleric who deals with religious text. He believes in martyrdom and isn't ashamed to say it. He thought the Fort Hood killing was a 'heroic act' meanwhile you have Read-only saying the exact same thing about Alwaki's death. So who's the extremist? I mean they're both running around 'waging war' on one another and they both agree that killing each other is a good idea. Alwaki didn't even think killing american civilians a good idea, he thought underwear man should have chosen a military target and not a civilian one. But at the end of the day Alwaki was a talker, an ideologue, there is no evidence of him being number two to Bin Laden (or even close) or even having such a strong following that anyone in the ME knew who he was. Can you imagine? A muslim jihadist that's ignored by other muslim extremists in the ME. You would at least think they would acknowledge him for his bringing new blood into the fold, but no. Its all "Alwaki who"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Freebasing again?

Something about smoking crack goes here, madam, for you certainly have some sort of memory trouble if you don't recall your own statements:

• "Does anyone here care that Anwar al-Awlaki, an american citizen, was targeted and killed by a drone for basically exercising his freedom of speech outside of the US by hosting an Al Qaeda inspired english speaking magazine?" (#1)

• "I'm not arguing freedom of speech, I'm arguing that the guy should have been brought back to the US to stand trial, he wasn't a major player in Al Qaeda, in fact he was nothing more than a propagandist from all accounts." (#40)​

 

Nay the pipe is yours. Where in either of those sentences do you see me refer to the guy as 'innocent'? And what of the dozen posts or so where I continuously bring up the rule of law and due process as the basis of my case? You need to read my posts first Tiassa.

Anyway, the cleric is actually being targeted for his freedom of speech, he must be because your administration keeps bringing up his nasty ole speech. They don't bring up his guns or bombs or his plans for violence just his horrid videos and facebook sermons. Be real, what else do you have on the guy? And go back and read my post again and answer whether you plan on hitting all of the ideological locations of extremism which are everywhere but come out of universities. I'm curious, want to know if you people plan on whacking them all.

Think about it for a second how bad could his speeches have been if they were hosted by youtube? How evil could it be if on Facebook? Wouldn't youtube and Facebook notice violence being advocated on their sites? Wouldn't they notice an extremist? Or maybe there are so many of them now that they don't even bother.

 

You said he was just issuing Islamic radical propaganda, but it seems he was recruiting people for violent missions. Why wouldn't he use facebook? It's not like he would use his real ISP so they could track him, there are ways to get around that sort of thing.

What sort of mission do you think it would require to arrest him? A couple cops in suits just walk up and say, "praise Allah, may we have a word with you?". There would have been a shootout, and he probably would have died anyway. And then you have a bunch of Americans in a very unfriendly place trying to get out. No, the best thing to do in such an emergency situation is to blow him up.

 

@Spidergoat

Yes, he's not a moderate, he's one of those Quran thumping old time religion type of clerics that believes Islam will inherit the earth and that its righteous to fight in the name of allah (martyrdom), but he's not unique in that.

All clerics could be said to recruit others in the sense that they inspire other's. Is it your contention that you are going to kill all radical muslim clerics? If so you better start making extra drones and you're going to have to use them all over Europe and Indonesia and Southern Thailand and Chechnya and Gaza, Saudi Arabia and probably more than half of the ME.

He wasn't hiding his name on Facebook or youtube. He told Al Jazeera in an interview of how he had a nice conversation with the Ft. Hood shooter who had contacted him to get information on what the Quran says about martyrdom and the rules etc. My point is that its not like he was hiding or anything. He used to preach right here in the US of A. He was at George Washington University as an imam no less.

All you needed to do was have Yemen security forces (which are paid for by the US) go to his house, knock on his door, take him in for questioning to make sure he's the right guy and then hand him over to the americans. Why would there have been a shootout?:bugeye:

He's not known for carrying arms or building bombs. He's not like Bin Laden hiding out with a bunch of security guards and an M16 by his bedside, he was hanging out with a friend at his house. He's described by the CIA as:

In the past two years, Awlaki had been described as “inspirational,” “charismatic,” an “effective communicator” who’s “internet presence magnifies the threat.”

Internet threat. Adoucette is an internet threat but I wouldn't suggest having him killed

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But seriously, the argument that you should kill him because there may have been a shootout is like saying cops should drop bombs on perpetrators because they may have a gun if you try and apprehend them. All I am saying is that it would have been more helpful if they had brought him in and tried him and stating what the charges are. He's had contacts with a lot of jihadists but so has many of the radical students at London University, one even was radicalized at the prestigious London School of Economics. Are you planning on attacking all of the ideological leaders who can radicalize others?

 

It depends what you mean by radical. If that includes aiding a known terrorist organization who kills Americans, then there should be a drone missile with your name on it. Maybe they looked at the security situation, thought about the prospects of arresting him... or maybe revealing to the public what they know and therefore how they know would be dangerous.

 

Well it could couldn't it, I mean I am not saying he hasn't aided known terrorists, I'm saying the government isn't showing evidence of this. But even if it exists, they need to try people who engage in such activity not simply sweep down and 86 them. What will happen when they discover the same of other clerics in Europe or other parts of the world? Its not an effective way of dealing with an ideological problem.

 

He wasn't killed for being a cleric. Can you at least admit that? You are minimizing his terrorist activity by calling it merely ideological. What if their evidence is an intercepted communication, such that revealing it would reveal an Al Quida security weakness that could be exploited in the future?

 

Even if he was a serial killer who shot 600 children in broad daylight and full view of everyone, I think its preferable to bring him to trial rather than assassinate him extra judicially. If you abandon due process, you've lost the basis of civil society

 

No, I'm not implying he was killed for being a cleric. I'm suggesting he was killed for being an extremist ideologue with legs, meaning others who did engage in radical action positions turned to him for religious doctrine 'clarification' or spiritual support and inspiration. Terrorist activity means directly engaging in violence, what the government is doing is turning the ideology into violence without even realizing that they too are engaging in the same reaction; by that I mean taking their ideas and using direct force to enforce them when other more liberal and civil measures are at their disposal. Even if there was such a communication as you pointed out this doesn't warrant him being killed without oversight or due process. There have been cases against mafioso where such communications were intercepted and yet it it lead to criminal prosecution and not executive kill orders. As judge bates who took on this case said:

“stark, and perplexing, questions” — including whether the president could “order the assassination of a U.S. citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization.”


My ultimate judgement against this kind of executive privilege is that it was based on mere assertion, hearsay and alleged crimes, all of which should have been worked out before a kill mandate was enacted. I deeply worry, and I mean this genuinely, that this kind of laissez faire privilege by executive order without having to back up their claims, can and will be abused in the future. These kind of laws once installed enable less judicious governments to attack those they believe are threats. When one accepts a law, one should look past the immediate circumstances that allows for the law and also look at how it can be used in the future. This is why documents such as the Magna Carta and the US constitution are so unique and special in their preservation of citizen rights, because they try and pre-emp possibilities of abuse. Remember we are talking about the government's ability to use such an action against its own citizens. We are talking about the government's right to turn lethal force against americans without any judicial overview or without even pressing charges but just on the issuing of an executive order. All they have to do with this precedent is declare an individual or individuals 'enemies of the state' without any demand of evidence or overview. Its all based on executive or military say so. Think about that for a moment.

 

Here! Here!:cheers:

 

He was American? I thought he was Muslim?


Ha!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

On a serious note, we should never assassinate American Citizens. Never.
I'll take my chances against the redneck theobots. It's another example of Obama's "Change We Can Believe In". Does ANYONE other than Joe believe this guy?

 

Well that's probably why you shouldn't join a terrorist organization like Al Qaeda.
Our information on someone's exact role in the organization is not likely to be that great, but then the military doesn't need great information to strike.

The military doesn't operate like the police, they don't need warrants or even probable cause. If you are a member of Al Qaeda you are a legitimate target.

The only issue about his designation as being an "operational tactician and strategist" is that it moves him higher on the list as a priority target, but EVERY Al Qaeda member is already a target, even if they are just a cook, and the fact that a few of them may be US citizens doesn't change that.

Lucy's attempt to make this a judicial matter has run out of steam because no one who believes Al Qaeda remains a legitimate threat to the US buys that reasoning and since that's most of Congress, the president is not likely to be stopped from excercising this authority as CIC.

Lucy argues that Al Qaeda members shouldn't be killed unless they are actually pointing a gun at an American.

But terrorists like Al Qaeda are danergous and deadly without the use of guns.

Thus it is the entire organization which is corrupt and needs to be stopped, and because of their past attacks they have justified us using our military and lethal means to do so against every member of the organization.

Just like every member of the German/Japanese war machines was a legitimate target in WW2, and if you argue that we shouldn't drop a bomb on this guy then you are saying we shouldn't have bombed Berlin or Toyko either.

But of course we should have then and we should do so as long as Al Qaeda has declared war on the US (and this guy was one of the ones very actively saying that killing Americans was a GOOD thing, thus promoting the ongoing nature of their war against us)

Thus the whole idea that this quy is not a legitmate target because he only handled their PR is just so much BS.

Arthur

 

I agree.

In legal matters.

But this isn't a legal matter, it's a MILITARY matter.

Arthur

 

We have thought about it and the president's authority to do so is watched by the Congress and they can indeed stop it, and the US Military is precluded from operating within the US, so this is a very measured and limited use of power with appropriate oversight.