# U.S.-born al-Qaeda cleric Awlaki killed in Yemen



## jollyjacktar (30 Sep 2011)

If true, happy days.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/30/anwar-al-awlaki-yemen.html


----------



## OldSolduer (30 Sep 2011)

:cheers:

I'll drink to that. I can imagine a few others will as well.

Added: The SOB deserved what he got. Like Josey Wales said "some folk just need a good killin"


----------



## Container (30 Sep 2011)

I like to picture the car in my head and just before it gets struck the price is right losing horn plays.

Its hilarious.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Sep 2011)

I prefer to imagine high order detonation somewhere under the rear axle, so that like the proverbial windshield-bound insect, the last thing to pass through his mind is his asshole.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Oct 2011)

Two other HVT's also died in the same strike top Saudi bombmaker Ibrahim al-Asiri and American traitor Samir Khan.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Two other HVT's also died in the same strike top Saudi bombmaker Ibrahim al-Asiri and American traitor Samir Khan.



Gee that's too bad.....oh well. :cheers:


----------



## aesop081 (1 Oct 2011)

Some stuff from the interweb. Interesting thoughts at the very least. IMHO of course

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/09/awlaki-illegal-or-legal/

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/opinion/a-just-act-of-war.html?_r=1

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/the-thorniest-question-when-can-a-president-order-an-american-killed/245963/


----------



## Container (1 Oct 2011)

I do think thats interesting- the one article confirmed my suspicions that their has to be some sort of secret "trial" in place where they decide whats going on.

I dont have an issue with these types of targeted killings- I see the concern, but Im just of the opinion if a guy goes on record saying he's going to kill you, helps people try and kill you, and recruit people to kill you and you get him first he's kinda the author of his own demise.

What Id like to see, in the case of Mexico cartel guys too- the government provides notice of a trial on a murderous scumbag cartel guy, or terrorist of an appropriate level.

 The bad guy doesnt attend his trial and we appoint a lawyer to defend him. The secret intel parts are behind closed doors and the stuff that can be out in the open is released. At the end of the trial if the required level is met- notice is issued that they have 90 days or whatever to turn themselves in and be dealt with by the courts. 

They dont turn themselves in and they get a "black card" and the government can do whatever hits they want. 

Perhaps theres something wrong with my "system" but it gets rid of bad guys that are actually trying to kill people. I consider it like government level lethal force- the trial system is the verbal commands to the murdering badguy and the drone strike is the follow through after the reasonable commands arent heeded.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Oct 2011)

No need for a trial.Through their actions they were self selected as enemy combatants.As a result they are legitimate targets.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> No need for a trial.Through their actions they were self selected as enemy combatants.As a result they are legitimate targets.



I'm all for dropping bombs on bad guys, don't get me wrong, but they have to indeed *be* bad guys We do have to be careful and oversight is required. The GWOT has blurred the meaning of "combatant" and, as with alot of things, there is potential for abuse. The fact that this one was a US citizen (even if only remotely) does raise valid concerns for the future.


----------



## Container (1 Oct 2011)

Obama says that they dont use term enemy combatant anymore and its responses are to be governed by law......

You arent telling me that he says one thing and does another are you?

That may shatter my fragile world view.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm all for dropping bombs on bad guys, don't get me wrong, but they have to indeed *be* bad guys We do have to be careful and oversight is required. The GWOT has blurred the meaning of "combatant" and, as with alot of things, there is potential for abuse. The fact that this one was a US citizen (even if only remotely) does raise valid concerns for the future.


You do have a valid point. One can only hope (not a great plan) that the US Congress & President know what they are getting into.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Oct 2011)

I don't think presence or absence of US citizenship bears on the question.  All that is relevant is the determination of the status of the target.  If Yamamoto had been a US citizen who returned to fight for Japan, nothing about the circumstances of his "targeted killing"/"assassination" would have been different.  A person in the political or military chain of command or staff of the enemy should always be fair game.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Oct 2011)

If al-Awlaki and Samir Khan had stayed in Detroit then it would be an FBI matter.Anyone remember John Walker Lindh ? He was dubbed the american taliban after he was wounded fighting US troops in Afghanistan in 2001.


----------



## Container (1 Oct 2011)

All im saying is with the new wars between states and organization, and the way information is available to everyone-

We need to update or procedures- its not enough to use the old definitions, the old laws, and tell the people dont worry we'll do the right thing.

But its an American thing and its their kill. Im glad he's gone.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Oct 2011)

We try to capture the bad guys but,generally they operate in areas where it is easier to target them with a predator strike.The Israelis have been doing this for years and its a great tactic.In wartime enemy leadership and their facilitators are targets in places like Afghanistan,Yemen,Somalia and Pakistan.In the US or elsewhere those that support jihad will eventually be placed in the justice system.I suspect that those US citizens that do actively support jihad end up in Yemen or Pakistan because they dont want to be arrested in the US.


----------



## 57Chevy (1 Oct 2011)

Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act

Debate rages over whether U.S. had right to target al-Awlaki
By Carol J. Williams
Los Angeles Times September 30, 2011 

LOS ANGELES — The killing of two Americans by an American drone strike in Yemen has reignited a debate about whether targeting U.S. citizens — even terrorists — is legal under the rules of war, or constitutes an extrajudicial execution that ignores their rights.

The Obama administration contends that U.S.-born militant Anwar al-Awlaki was a legitimate target because he played an "operational" role in al-Qaida, alleging that, among other plots, he directed a 2009 Christmas Day plan to blow up a Detroit-bound jetliner. "Awlaki was the leader of external operations for al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula," President Barack Obama said Friday. "In that role, he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans."

But some human rights advocates and legal scholars said the administration had never produced evidence to back up that claim. They said the 40-year-old cleric was an influential recruiter and motivator, but there was little evidence to directly link him to belligerent operations against the United States.

The attack also killed Samir Khan, a U.S. citizen and anti-American propagandist who ran an al-Qaida-linked website that called for attacks on the United States.

Diane Marie Amann, a University of Georgia law professor who has monitored terrorism trials for the National Institute for Military Justice, said the debate over whether al-Awlaki's killing was legal hinges on whether the war against al-Qaida 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 al-Awlaki ahead of 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 Fort Hood," Silliman said of 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-Qaida 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 al-Awlaki. He said the operation appeared to have been carried out with appropriate preparation and care to avoid the "collateral damage" of civilian casualties _ despite the ostensibly unintended killing of Khan, who was with al-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 Israeli Defense Forces legal adviser involved in targeted killing decisions in the Gaza Strip in the mid-1990s.

Constitutional rights advocates have clashed with that point of view throughout the so-called war on terror pronounced by President George W. Bush after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The killing of al-Awlaki was "the latest of many affronts to domestic and international law," said Vince Warren, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, disparaging the executive's claimed power to kill any U.S. citizen deemed a threat.

Ben Wizner, national security litigation director for the American Civil Liberties Union, argued that lethal force beyond the battlefield is lawful "only as a last resort to counter an imminent threat of deadly attack."

Much of the legal and ethical dispute festers because the administration has invoked state secrecy to prevent disclosing the evidence it claims to hold pointing to al-Awlaki's operational involvement to either the public or judiciary.

Micah Zenko, a Council on Foreign Relations fellow on conflict prevention, said the known evidence connecting al-Awlaki to al-Qaida operations is slim, but that the intelligence agencies and military special forces involved in such a strike would be unlikely to disclose any detail that could compromise intelligence gathering and future targeted killings.

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert 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 al-Awlaki's father, Nasser, seeking a court injunction against any attack on his son.

U.S. District Judge John D. Bates dismissed the elder al-Awlaki's case, saying it wasn't the court's role to intervene in military operations.

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

A 1942 U.S. 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. 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 1/8the fight with al-Qaida 3/8 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://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Debate+rages+over+whether+right+target+Awlaki/5482049/story.html#ixzz1ZXr5Gpuh


----------



## aesop081 (1 Oct 2011)

I'm not disagreeing that he needed to be taken out as a legitimate target. But....

He was legally a US citizen and was killed by the US government without due process. What if the target had not been such a clear-cut bad guy ?

The US has to be careful that this does not become a habit and citizens are not arbitrarily declared an enemy combatant and killed just because the POTUS says so. There is a potential slippery slope to be avoided.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Oct 2011)

Due process ? This isnt a court,its a war and some US citizens have put religion above their country by aiding and abetting AQ/taliban.These were dangerous people and a legitimate target.


----------



## canada94 (1 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm not disagreeing that he needed to be taken out as a legitimate target. But....
> 
> He was legally a US citizen and was killed by the US government without due process. What if the target had not been such a clear-cut bad guy ?
> 
> The US has to be careful that this does not become a habit and citizens are not arbitrarily declared an enemy combatant and killed just because the POTUS says so. There is a potential slippery slope to be avoided.



Exactly what came to my mind! The bleeding hearts are already, well pun intended "bleeding" for this.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Due process ?



Yes, due process.



> This isnt a court,its a war



Really ? How come i never heard of this before ?



> These were dangerous people and a legitimate target.



I couldn't agree more. But what happens when the "target" legitimacy is less clear ? Is it ok for POTUS to order the killing of a US citizen just because he says it is legitimate ?

US citizens have a right not to be killed by their government without due process. All i am saying is that there is a very fine line and your government must be transparent and choose its targets carefuly when they are US citizens. Nothing good will come from having that decision made arbitrarily and in secret.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> They targeted someone who took up arms against their countrymen and country.   Just as they did 150 years earlier in the US Civil War.  And we did in the NW Rebellion of 1885.  Take up arms and or work for the other side, it's not a civil criminal matter anymore.  You don't deserve due process of law, you're beyond it then...


----------



## aesop081 (1 Oct 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They targeted someone who took up arms against their countrymen and country.



Yeah, i got that. I agree. This guy's case was a no-brainer. He was bad, he deserved a Hellfire. I get it.

I'm not talking about him.


----------



## Maxadia (1 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator is correct.....care must be taken with this type of action.

At no point is he saying that he disagrees with what happened this time; he is simply stating that care and oversight must be a part of the process, as it could easily get out of hand in the future.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Oct 2011)

Fine.  I'm sure there is nothing arbitrary about the process or process of thought that would be put towards an executive decision at that level.  If that is what you are worried about.   If the authorities are taking a cold hard look at you, you have probably earned the scrutiny.  Unless the USG decides to throw the rule of law out the window and go rogue, no one should need to worry about slippery slopes in Washington or Ottawa for that matter.  If life imitates art and we see "V for Vendatta" coming to pass, we'll have bigger, worse things to worry about before that day.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Oct 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Unless the USG decides to throw the rule of law out the window



Yeah, thats never happened, right ?


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Yeah, thats never happened, right ?



Not in the context of "fingering" citizens, arbitrarily for extermination as a matter of new policy.  At least not that I can think of unless you care to refresh my memory with examples.  As per your suggested slippery slope of mass selective executions orders.  It's like potatoe chips, you can't eat just one, eh?


----------



## aesop081 (1 Oct 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> As per your suggested slippery slope of mass selective executions orders.  It's like potatoe chips, you can't eat just one, eh?



I never said "mass". I do contend that the temptation will exist to kill suspects who are US citizens, even when there is less that convincing evidence simply because it is expedient and there will likely be a sense of urgency attached to such decision. The recent case was simple because the target was a very public member of AQ. If he had simply been "Mohamed Bloggins", a US citizen, long suspected of making bombs for AQ, there would be more questions being asked about why the US Gov killed one of its own citizens.

Remember, Iraq was about WMDs, right ?


----------



## Container (1 Oct 2011)

I cant believe that the suggestion that the government be scrutinized for its decision to kill citizens- or anyone driving in a car in another country is met with "Meh- I m pretty sure the government has a good reason."

The vast majority of the intel to make these decisions is secret. If you ask the average person with Awlaki is they would say a bad guy but they couldnt really put their finger on why. But the government killed him.

He was a scrote, and an enemy of the state. But what happens when its more murky? We are free men and women in western society. We expect government to work in the best interests of the people. And yes I believe this strike was fair play. But I also believe that if we are to continue to have the high ground and maintain being free we need to get back on track- and that means being transparent in our actions. 

Everybody is scrutinized for killing someone. Thats a requirement because its the ultimate power- and it should be examined and be defended. "trust me" isnt good enough. And it isn't a slipery slope argument, IMHO, its going to be a reality in the coming years and a major point of contention. Im aware of the success Israel has had with the strikes- Im also aware of the wonders its done for international cooperation with Israel. It is definitely something that should continue- but a protocol needs to be developed to show that it is necessary.

The state should be able to kill bad guys in play anywhere when they are actively plotting or engaged in trying to kill "our guys". But the potential for being abused is there, and whether it is or not, just like in any lethal option, it will always be treated with suspicion- transparency (where it doesnt reveal methods or informants) should be expected of ANY government decision. From buying pencils to killing our enemies.

This doesnt even need to be complicated- you lay out the case and then kill the guy. Or kill the guy and then lay out the case- but the people have the right to know why their elected officials are assassinating people. Thats pretty much day one stuff for democracy isnt it?

I cant believe Im the hippy in this thread.  :'(


----------



## Container (1 Oct 2011)

If I may introduce some granola-

For ten years at the end of the 70's the military junta in Argentina caused the disappearance of 30000 (high estimate) with torture and murder. The state was able to do so because the citizenry basically believe that it wasn't possible that the government would do something like this.

I am certainly not suggesting that the American government is doing this. But the idea that the government wouldn't throw out the rule book has failed populations in the past.

Say it isnt 30 000. Say its twenty Americans- or five, who get nixed by the system being abused or slightly abused. Is that okay? At what number or potential should we examine the secrecy of the decision?

I do not love western society just because we're super awesome. I love our society because in most senses I am free- being free requires the state to be accountable.


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Oct 2011)

The present day USG is not as far as I can discern a military junta ala Chile/Argentina circa 1974 or Nazi Germany 1932-45.  Although I am sure there are those out there that would debate that point.  Until and if it does become such a place I believe there will be oversight and other checks and balances such as the rule of law over any such executive decisions as they will be made at that level of govenment.  The executive branch.  I don't believe the decision was made lightly or without merit.  Or without scrutiny of some form.

Trust.  While we have a democracy there will always be some form of oversight and scrutiny if it is to work.  If not, it is not a democracy anymore and it won't matter to you or anyone else if they are trustworthy and dependable as they will do as they damn well please whether you agree with it or not.  I don't say "Meh" to what they do.  I may not be a fan of those in power, but I personally have to have some trust that they work for my best interest as a citizen of this society, and that it runs with the rule of law.  If I don't have that, then I should consider leaving for somewhere that fits my ideals.


----------



## Container (1 Oct 2011)

The Argentinian junta had encouragement to finish its "dirty war" from the United States government, as is gleaned from declassified documents. This was a different time- socialism was a real threat. But it is clearly not above any government to be a little dirty. I also dont think we can assume how much the government knew-but they had to have suspicions.

I do believe in state secrets. But I believe that there should be a reason for something to be a secret.

We will have to politely disagree- I dont care that the government whacks people that threaten it. But without transparency the rest of the world, of whom we are a part of, will always be able to cast doubt on our motives. Not that we owe them anything but in order for diplomacy AND force to work there has to be some trust we are doing the right thing. That openness will shut down some of the mild tin foil hats and put some reality in the face of the conspiracy wing nuts running other countries.

But I've said my piece and all consider your point of view  

As a side- in order for me to trust the government in this manner it would have to be infallible. Since it makes mistakes it needs to be open to being examined. Trusting the government to do the right thing doesn't seem to be in line with democratic society......trusting the government to always do the right thing for its citizens is what makes communism attractive....and unrealistic....no?


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Oct 2011)

I'm always up for some friendly debate and discussion.  It's good to see other view points and consider alternate ideas.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Oct 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The present day USG is not as far as I can discern a military junta



I never once said that it was. All i ever said is that a careful eye must be employed to keep things from getting out of hand.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Trust.



I'm more of a "trust but verify" guy........someone famous said that too........


----------



## cupper (1 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I'm more of a "trust but verify" guy........someone famous said that too........



Don't you know you aren't supposed to quote Reagan to the right wing. It only stirs them up. 

And just because they have all of the intel they need to sign an order doesn't mean that the intel can't be wrong. WMDs in Iraq are a prime example of that. When the government has an agenda, they can cherry pick all they want, and fabricate what's missing. The uneducated masses will pretty much drink the Kool-Aid. :Tin-Foil-Hat:

Now having said that, Al Awlaki gave them everything they needed to prove their case (much like the criminals that video tape their sprees for all to see) so the only question left to be answered was why it took so long to nail him in the first place.

And as for his cohort, that's why we have terms such as collateral damage. However, there is enough evidence on the web to put together a pretty strong case as well.

Where I think the USG is overstepping their authority are the cases where they have nailed individuals and small groups by setting them up for a takedown. Like the latest guy who supposedly was planning to hit the Capitol Building and The White House using remote controlled model jets loaded with explosives. Many of these guys are pretty low on the intellectual food chain, and only came on radar because they spouted canned rhetoric on a blog or website. If the Fed's didn't provide the encouragement and supply the "Plan and Weapons" in the first place, would the supect have progressed beyond exercising his so called first amendment rights?


----------



## Kalatzi (4 Oct 2011)

The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans
link here http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/#.TopWhdTmqws.email

"The Department of Justice produced it prior to the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. But they won't release it. "

Plus ca change, plus ca meme chose. 

So much for openess and accountability.  :


----------



## wildman0101 (4 Oct 2011)

Jim S and Jolly J,,
Ill drink to that also
F/N A Cheer's Lad's,
Scoty B


----------



## FlyingDutchman (4 Oct 2011)

I wonder how news worthy it would be if they decided against the strike.  Then people would be screaming 'why didn't you kill him?'


----------



## Container (4 Oct 2011)

And they would be "screaming" it for the same reason as people are asking questions now- because there is no transparency to the process.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Oct 2011)

These US citizens had joined the jihad and were supporting AQ.I think most every country has seen some citizens go off to Afghanistan to fight NATO and most end up dead. No hand wringing about the legality. Awlaki and Khan by going to Yemen moved beyond the reach of law enforcement thus they felt safe to continue their efforts to radicalize as many young men as they could.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> These US citizens



One day, you might be able to think past today's events................maybe.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Oct 2011)

I dont follow ? These fellows were no different than Canada's own first family of terrorism the Khadr's.


----------



## Container (7 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont follow ? These fellows were no different than Canada's own first family of terrorism the Khadr's.



Agreed. And Omar was almost killed while in actively in play, as was his father- killed in combat.

I see the parallel youre trying to draw- but if he had been killed in a strike ordered by the Primeminister I would also expect the reasons, where they didnt compromise state secrets and the intelligence gathering apparatus, to become public.

We expect access to details like what their offices spend on "extras" and trips but we dont expect them to open the books on killing someone? Im starting to go in circles on this so Im done- but I understand your point.

And its not that killed the bad guy- its that in the future, should they kill more ambiguous bad guys, the process is ripe for abuse. And its abuse that can be easily diffused- so I see a responsibility of people to demand that it addressed PRIOR to it happening.


----------



## canada94 (10 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont follow ? These fellows were no different than Canada's own first family of terrorism the Khadr's.



When did Khadr's family have a predator drone drop a present on them in Canada?

Sure Omar himself was a combatant, he had thrown a grenade that had killed someone, and he was still taken alive. Awlaki was never put through court, the best conviction they had against him was that his writing "inspired people". Jesus we have that going on in both of our countries NOW, and we don't even take action?

How can we here in the West preach the right to fair trials, then turn the cheek in these countries. So much for setting an example, and we wonder why "they" hate us.


----------



## Container (10 Oct 2011)

Awlaik chamged to being actively engaged in recruiting people, in a very public fashion, for terrorist missions like the christmas plane bomber fellow. Hardly the same as the inspirational terrorists that we have operating in the open round these parts.

The one  thing they have said about Awlaki is that he had recently changed from passive to active. So going on about a Khadr comparison really starts to break down.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2011)

I'm on the horns of my own dilemma: I, broadly and generally, favour (carefully) targeted assassinations - I think they work on two levels: they, obviously, take a "bad guy" out of service (we know he's a "bad guy" because our targeting is *careful*) but, additionally, they weaken the morale of all the other "bad guys" by reminding them that they are never safe and they can never retire.

But my "favour" rests, I suppose, on the assumption that the "bad guys" are _aliens_ with whom we are at (some sort of) war.

We have spent 1,500+ years depriving the state, the monarch, the dictator or president or whatever of the _legal_ means to arbitrarily kill subject, citizens, etc. Suddenly Barack Obama appears to have regained this _power_. As a matter of *principle*, no one, in any country worth the name, ought to have the power, for any reason at all, to arbitrarily kill a citizen - it negates our most fundamental natural right, it gives the state power which no state should ever have, under any circumstances. It sets _civilization_, itself, back more than 1,000 years.

_Home;and security_ was a stupid concept when it was conceived - and yes, I'm happy with word "stupid" - and, in the USA, it has been managed in a ham-fisted and now dangerous way.

America is allowing mindless fear to trump fundamental law, justice and right. No state, no president, no judge, not even a whole nation in arms has the *right* to deprive its citizens of their fundamental rights ...

_"*We hold these truths to be self-evident*, that all men are created equal, that *they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life*, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That *whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it*, and to institute new Government ..."_

Maybe it's time the people of the USA read their own foundation document and altered and abolished their government which is, clearly, destructive of their inalienable rights. But, perhaps bin Laden won the "war on terror," perhaps Americans are so terrified that they will give up what matters to assuage their fears.

My  :2c:


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Oct 2011)

I said this at the outset,IF Awlaki and Khan had remained in the US providing support to AQ,they would be alive today. Instead they decided to practice what they preached and they were killed. I dont know why this is so hard to understand. Citizens have certain rights,but they dont have the right to deprive other citizens of their lives. With citizenship comes responsibility.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont know why this is so hard to understand.



I can say the same about you.



> Citizens have certain rights,



Do they somehow stop having those rights because they are outside the US ?



> but they dont have the right to deprive other citizens of their lives.



Exactly. Be careful, you are close to agreeing here.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Oct 2011)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I said this at the outset,IF Awlaki and Khan had remained in the US providing support to AQ,they would be alive today. Instead they decided to practice what they preached and they were killed. I dont know why this is so hard to understand. Citizens have certain rights,but they dont have the right to deprive other citizens of their lives. With citizenship comes responsibility.




No question about either point and no argument, either.

But the nation, the people and president have responsibilities, too, and the individual citizen's individual _rights_ must, always, trump the states 'right' to defend itself against him (or her). That's what 3,000 years of _liberal_ tradition mean. That some, too many, Americans are willing to toss aside rights for (ephemeral) security speaks poorly for their intellect and moral courage.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Oct 2011)

But, if you are a law abiding citizen who is not trying to cause, or cheerleading to cause, or recruiting to cause the murder and mayhem of your fellow citizens as this shitrat was, you should have no reason to fear the state.  He brought it upon himself, and reaped what he had sown.  I appaud the results, method and decision that made it so from the state's side of this little drama.  Maybe it's time the state got some teeth back.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Oct 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But, if you are a law abiding citizen who is not trying to cause, or cheerleading to cause, or recruiting to cause the murder and mayhem of your fellow citizens as this shitrat was, you should have no reason to fear the state.



I agree but governments never make mistakes, right ?




> He brought it upon himself, and reaped what he had sown.



You and T6 are suffering from the same shortsightedness. Not a single person here is shedding a tear for Awlaki. 



> Maybe it's time the state got some teeth back.



How much teeth is acceptable to you ? What will you say next time a US citizen is killed by the US Government but is only a suspected bad guy ?

No need to answer that last one, i'm sure we will have such a topic to comment on in the near future.


----------



## brihard (10 Oct 2011)

It's a curious situation. I belief there is somewhat of a legal gulf that exists between the domestic criminal law jurisdiction, and the jurisdiction traditionally imposed over conventional war. The law, bluntly put, has not caught up to the fact that a war that is real in every sense that matters can be waged by non-state entities.

In this instance we have an American born citizen who has declared himself an enemy of his own country, and was an active belligerent. He need not pick up an AK and fight; in war an enemy's command and control, communications, and logistical infrastructure is all fair game. You need not seek a judicial warrant to launch an artillery barrage on an enemy's command post in the field. Conversely, to arrest a criminal suspect you generally do.

So where do we draw the line with regards to an active belligerent in a war (one which has been, moreover, as formally 'declared' as an entity such as Al Qaeda that lacks a legislative or head of state is able to) who is beyond the geographical jurisdiction of American law enforcement, and where even a special forces raid on Yemeni soil could de jure been considered an act of war?

There is a clear constitutional issue with Obama ordering the targeted killing of American citizens. That's unquestionable. At the same time, is it realistic to attempt to constrain every manifestation of counter terrorism to existing legal constructs? While this must inevitably return to the legislature to offer new clearly legitimate options (or to decisively state 'thou shalt not'), in the interim something must still be done by America about those who are actively seeking to kill American citizens. al-Awlaki appears to have been the ideological figure behind Malik Nidal Hassan, for instance, who took so many lives at Fort Hood (a conventionally 'acceptable' military target, I would note as a point of curiosity). Planner/operational figure or however he is defined, he is as much a combatant as the G3 Operations branch of an armed force, whether those soldiers ever leave their desks or not.

I lean, perhaps predictably, to the side that if one has declared war on a state, even if a citizen, that individual should perhaps be taken at face value, particularly when there are demonstrable links between them and an organization such as Al Qaeda. I think that in the longer term a comprehensive legislative approach is necessitated to provide for proper powers of war against non state actors. In the interim, where one is clearly a belligerent, and where it does not appear feasible for traditional custody to be effected, exigent circumstances exist that fall outside that which has been anticipated by existing law. The constitutional questions, and the minor risk to the rule of law are within what I'd deem proportionate to the protection of the lives of American citizens against an individual who has long demonstrated him by his actions to be a clear and present danger to national security.

If the world were black and white, a black and white way to kill him as a combatant would already have existed.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I agree but governments never make mistakes, right ?
> 
> Don't be bloody silly.  Of course mistakes  can be and are made as governments are composed of humans.    If you want perfection, you need a computer.  And they never make a mistake, do they?
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2011)

Really, I'm sorry. I just can't care enough of the political and legal nuances surrounding this individual.

I do, however, care enough that I'm glad this fucking gluebag is dead and I don't care how it was done or who did it.


----------



## Nemo888 (10 Oct 2011)

The killing of foreign nationals is not new. I don’t think it ever really stopped.  What do you think Delta Force or the Seal Teams have been doing for the last 40 years? “Training exercises,” ya right. Ignorance is bliss. So pretending that these things don’t happen regularly,…


My preference would be for an in absentia trial for treason with a possible death sentence. Because we said he was bad but it’s a secret so trust us does not really cut it for me. One bad election and that power turns into an Argentina style nightmare with no recourse but armed revolt.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Really, I'm sorry. I just can't care enough of the political and legal nuances surrounding this individual.



Playing ostrich and sticking your head in the sand is a common response.............


----------



## brihard (10 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Really, I'm sorry. I just can't care enough of the political and legal nuances surrounding this individual.



The political and, moreso, the legal nuances are exactly what separate free societies bound by the rule of law from states where the exercise of violent force is purely arbitrary and unaccountable.

It's never the easy cases that challenge legal or moral principles. It's the complex ones.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Oct 2011)

>a black and white way to kill him as a combatant would already have existed.

Noncombatant status is pretty easy to determine.  Was he a noncombatant?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The political and, moreso, the legal nuances are exactly what separate free societies bound by the rule of law from states where the exercise of violent force is purely arbitrary and unaccountable.
> 
> It's never the easy cases that challenge legal or moral principles. It's the complex ones.





			
				CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Playing ostrich and sticking your head in the sand is a common response.............



And neither of you is morally superior to myself. You just think you are.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand. I just don't care in this particular case. Feel free to go work at the UN.


----------



## brihard (10 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> And neither of you is morally superior to myself. You just think you are.
> 
> I'm not sticking my head in the sand. I just don't care in this particular case. Feel free to go work at the UN.



I have not claimed to be morally superior. I'm merely not so casually dismissive of our society's underlying principles, such as rule of law and due process. Apply whatever judgements you wish to that, but they're your words, not mine. 

My greatest thrust of argument in this particular case has simply been acknowledging that 'realpolitik' in the form of a hellfire has filled in because of a demonstrable gap in clear laws; a gap that must be filled legislatively and judicially to allow for more clarity in the future. Where the constitutionality of an action is heavily in question that is clearly a problem. The current legal definitions surround hostilities are not sufficiently developed in the case of non state actors.

Note that I'm not saying the wrong thing was done, merely that the proper legal system needs to be put into place, since that's how free countries that are worth defending work. I question how anyone can not be at least somewhat concerned that a free state can kill one of its own citizens outside of a proper legal framework. It's the inevitable 'slippery slope' of governments taking on more authority than they have been given. That authority needs to be given for these cases, and it needs to be done properly.


----------



## aesop081 (10 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Feel free to go work at the UN.



Brilliant and expected response. What are you going to do next ? Peel the banana before eating it ?


----------



## canada94 (10 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> And neither of you is morally superior to myself. You just think you are.
> 
> I'm not sticking my head in the sand. I just don't care in this particular case. Feel free to go work at the UN.



Soooo your sticking your head in the sand ?


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Oct 2011)

Maybe its the mood I'm in, but I'm all for doing away with human vermin.
I'm all for the rule of law and all that.....BUT like every rule.....there are exceptions.

Let's get a few more.


----------



## brihard (10 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Maybe its the mood I'm in, but I'm all for doing away with human vermin.
> I'm all for the rule of law and all that.....BUT like every rule.....there are exceptions.
> 
> Let's get a few more.



'Exceptions' to the rule of law merely mean that the rules need to be refined for clarity's sake. Exceptions can be provided for in an accountable manner. I'm all for forcibly putting a missile up an enemy's fifth point of contact, but our state is delinquent if it doesn't make sure proper legal mechanisms are in place.


----------



## canada94 (10 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Maybe its the mood I'm in, but I'm all for doing away with human vermin.
> I'm all for the rule of law and all that.....BUT like every rule.....there are exceptions.
> 
> Let's get a few more.



If there are to be "exceptions" then there must be a definition of what the exception is to be. Slippery slope ideal, who defines it? Obama in behind a locked door (which he did in this case)? Or judges? 

The difference between most exceptions and this one, is that there is no definition of who is applicable to the (death) sentence. Awlaki yes, probably was not a good guy. In any sense. But at the same time he never had a chance to defend his name in court, this guy was INVITED to the Pentagon after 9/11 for being a "modern Muslim", for a seminar.. It just freaks me out to know that this sets a precedent to a President killing someone because we "think" they are bad.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Oct 2011)

canada94 said:
			
		

> If there are to be "exceptions" then there must be a definition of what the exception is to be. Slippery slope ideal, who defines it? Obama in behind a locked door (which he did in this case)? Or judges?
> 
> The difference between most exceptions and this one, is that there is no definition of who is applicable to the (death) sentence. Awlaki yes, probably was not a good guy. In any sense. But at the same time he never had a chance to defend his name in court, this guy was INVITED to the Pentagon after 9/11 for being a "modern Muslim", for a seminar.. It just freaks me out to know that this sets a precedent to a President killing someone because we "think" they are bad.



We can talk about this all day.....all year and then some. Screw him....he CHOSE to betray the country of his birth in a violent way and he got his just desserts.

Defend his name in court? 3000 citizens of the world never had that opportunity on 9/11....

But maybe I'm just a bit bitter.....


----------



## canada94 (10 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> We can talk about this all day.....all year and then some. Screw him....he CHOSE to betray the country of his birth in a violent way and he got his just desserts.
> 
> Defend his name in court? 3000 citizens of the world never had that opportunity on 9/11....
> 
> But maybe I'm just a bit bitter.....



Awlaki had nothing to do with 9/11. I think you might just be a bit bitter, I am not going to sit here and defend Awlaki but at the same time I will not just believe he was guilty for things he "allegedly" did. 

Every time on, every thread that has something to do with a CF member in bad light, we are always instantaneously told to not "speculate" and wait for due process. I guess that all goes out the window for "exceptions".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Brilliant and expected response. What are you going to do next ? Peel the banana before eating it ?



Hate the game. Not the player. You're the one that started with the ad hominem, which just seems to be continuing with your self expression of minimal intellegence.

You show such an amazing lack of wit from someone so self absorbed.



			
				canada94 said:
			
		

> Soooo your sticking your head in the sand ?



You're grasp of the obvious is astounding. Not. :


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Oct 2011)

canada94 said:
			
		

> Awlaki had nothing to do with 9/11. I think you might just be a bit bitter, I am not going to sit here and defend Awlaki but at the same time I will not just believe he was guilty for things he "allegedly" did.
> 
> Every time on, every thread that has something to do with a CF member in bad light, we are always instantaneously told to not "speculate" and wait for due process. I guess that all goes out the window for "exceptions".


I'm pretty much convinced the US government had the goods on this traitor. I don't think for a minute President Obama would authorize it unless he was convinced.
Like I said, good riddance to one more traitorous SOB.


----------



## canada94 (11 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm pretty much convinced the US government had the goods on this traitor. I don't think for a minute President Obama would authorize it unless he was convinced.
> Like I said, good riddance to one more traitorous SOB.



I sure hope they did. I also hope they release the evidence soon, if they indeed have any.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> You're grasp of the obvious is astounding. Not. :



As is yours!


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Oct 2011)

But what happens when this precedent is set and some dirt bag gets elected? Basically the government is allowed to shoot anybody it doesn't like in the face. With modern political roulette eventually you will get a bad apple.

What would be wrong with only allowing the courts do it? In absentia trials for treason with the ability to seal the execution order until the day the scum bag is dead.

This is merely hypothetical though. We will continue to send special forces on "training exercises" like we always have. It just won't get put in the news.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Oct 2011)

Apparently there was a memo drawn up last year by the Dept. of Justice that would justify any U.S. government attempt to assassinate Awlaki.  More info can be found here:

 Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (11 Oct 2011)

Maybe when you know you're on a  list  like this you try and make an appeal for disclosure or clemency or even publically state that your innocent??,.......no?, didn't think that was necessary?

  Ok,...buhbye.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (11 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I'm pretty much convinced the US government had the goods on this traitor. I don't think for a minute President Obama would authorize it unless he was convinced.
> Like I said, good riddance to one more traitorous SOB.


I thought it was the Department of Homeland Security that ordered the strike.  Did Obama 'get his hands dirty,' so to speak, in this at all?


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Oct 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> I thought it was the Department of Homeland Security that ordered the strike.  Did Obama 'get his hands dirty,' so to speak, in this at all?



The taking of human life is a serious matter, and the very nature of this makes it very sensitive. I'm thinking he had the final say.


----------



## brihard (11 Oct 2011)

Quite likely he did.

At minimum, a legal opinion drafted by part of the government that legally justifies such targeted killings ought to be disclosed to the public. The very essence of law is that it can't be secret. American shave a right to know what framework is being used to make these calls.


----------



## Sythen (15 Oct 2011)

Small update

http://www.cnn.com/2011/10/15/world/meast/yemen-drone-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t2



> (CNN) -- The son of U.S.-born militant cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki was among those killed in a trio of drone attacks in southern Yemen on Friday night, a security official said.
> The attacks, carried out in the Shabwa district, killed seven suspected militants, the defense ministry said. It would not confirm that Abdul Rahman Anwar Awlaki was among them.


----------



## cupper (15 Oct 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> I thought it was the Department of Homeland Security that ordered the strike.  Did Obama 'get his hands dirty,' so to speak, in this at all?



No, this was not in Homeland Security's purview.

In Washington, turf is so heavily defended that capabilities of one agency or department can't be controlled by another without cabinet level decrees or higher. The Peds are CIA owned and operated, and there is no way they would take orders specifically from Homeland Security.

And authority for something like this has to come from the top, more likely through a classified presidential finding that may never see declassification in anyone's lifetime.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Oct 2011)

I still fail to see the relevence of the 'against' people.

Our job is to kill bad people that do bad things. I don't see any grey here.


----------



## cupper (16 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I still fail to see the relevence of the 'against' people.
> 
> Our job is to kill bad people that do bad things. I don't see any grey here.



I think what they are afraid of is the slippery slope that leads us to future President Palin sticking a Hellfire suppository up the butt of her ex-brother-in-law for allegedly being a wife-beating douche.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Oct 2011)

> I think what they are afraid of is the slippery slope that leads us to future President Palin sticking a Hellfire suppository up the butt of her ex-brother-in-law for allegedly being a wife-beating douche.



Quite a defamatory statement there cupper.


----------



## cupper (16 Oct 2011)

Yeah, I was kinda taking it beyond the breaking point. But I think a lot of the hand wringing over the issue is due to a case of if we let them take out this guy, where do we draw the line? Personally I don't have a problem with it.

But I can see that there is some validity to the arguments as well. It does take you down a path that can lead to more problematic issues of jurisdiction, sovereignty and such. 

For instance, Regan signed off on a presidential directive regarding a ban on targeted killing or assassinations. Then Clinton signed off on a list of specific terrorist suspects after Bin Laden started his jihad. Then Congress granted Bush powers "by all necessary means".
(For reference on the history of this subject http://www.mbc.edu/faculty/gbowen/AssassinationPolicy.htm)

Now we all know that this essentially was intended to go after terrorist threats to the US, but again where does that line get drawn. Do we take the quick and easy solution on Syria and put a hell fire into Assad's bedroom while he's sleeping. I'm pretty sure that the 3000 Syrians who died trying to create a new form of government wouldn't complain.

Or, better example from a law / criminal prosecution stand point, do we take out various members of the Iranian ruling elite and Quds force for their role in the assassination plat against the Saudi Ambassador in DC?

Again, not that I would have a problem with either of those, but I can see where the other side is coming from and has merit.

Maybe I was a little defamatory and for that I apologize (although I did say allegedly, and I never believed her story anyway), but sometimes hyperbole helps make a point. Like killing flys with a sledge hammer.


----------



## Nemo888 (16 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> I think what they are afraid of is the slippery slope that leads us to future President Palin sticking a Hellfire suppository up the butt of her ex-brother-in-law for allegedly being a wife-beating douche.



I think what they are afraid of is the slippery slope that leads us to future President Patriot McFlagwaver sticking a Hellfire suppository up the butt of their perceived ideological enemy.
Obvioulsy he was overstating the fact for effect. But this is all moot. We've been shooting bad guys for decades. We just don't invite the press.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 Oct 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Apparently there was a memo drawn up last year by the Dept. of Justice that would justify any U.S. government attempt to assassinate Awlaki.  More info can be found here:
> 
> Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen





			
				cupper said:
			
		

> And authority for something like this has to come from the top, more likely through a classified presidential finding that may never see declassification in anyone's lifetime.



You are right about that. As I posted earlier (see above link) the actual memo justifying the attack was drawn up last year and the article I link to gives its broad outline. Whether the memo will actually be de-classified remains to be seen.

I doubt very much this will lead to the "slippery-slope" where more attacks are carried out against U.S. citizens. Awlaki is was the only U.S. citizen that I know of who had gained a high profile position in any Islamic group. Sure, there are U.S. citizens (and Canadians for that matter) who have run-off to join some Islamic group in Pakistan or Somalia, but these guys are minor players/cannon fodder of no consequence. I look at the Awlaki hit as a one-off thing because of his prominence and links to some high-profile cases involving attacks/planned attacks against the U.S..


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Oct 2011)

It is that memo that bothers me.

As far as I am concerned there is no doubt, not even one tiny one scintilla, that Awlaki had taken up arms against America - and the _Quran_ and a video camera constitute "arms" in this day and age, remember William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw)? - and could, therefore, be killed whenever and wherever he was found.

But the damned memo suggests that the US Government isn't so sure. It makes it appear that the President needs "cover" for an illegal or maybe just _improper_ act.

It, clearly, requires high level bureaucratic, even political approval to launch attacks in "third countries," like Pakistan, but when an American or Brit or Canadian "takes up arms" against us, when we are engaged in combat operations, then they are "fair game," no matter where they are and the "high level" folks don't need a memo from a lawyer to cover their asses.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Oct 2011)

I, as I have made it clear don't give a damn about who made the decision and how it was done.  If you are against us and a threat, then doom on you.  And if you are found you can and will be zapped like a bug.  The would do no less to us and are activily endeavouring to do so at every turn.  It's pandering to the "slippery slope" fear mongers out there where this memo would have arisen.  Bloody fools would have us surrender to the dark side if they could.


----------



## Nemo888 (16 Oct 2011)

Exactly. We are the big dog and we make the rules.(_sarcasm_)


----------



## aesop081 (16 Oct 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Bloody fools would have us surrender to the dark side if they could.



Please do not presume to know what i would or would not have us do.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Please do not presume to know what i would or would not have us do.



Oh I don't presume what you, personally, would or would not do.  However, I have spent the last couple of years working alongside some who do feel the US is the great Satan and have already gone beyond your slippery slope and we here in Canada are marching in lockstep as their complacent robots if you will .  They believe the bad guys are just misunderstood, it's all a big conspiracy because they really don't mean us any harm.  911 was a set up orchestrated by the Bush Administration so they could Jackboot all over the globe.   I could go on at length with more in the same vein of worry and doom from that quarter.  And those misguided, bloody fools would sell us down the river in a heart beat with a desire of peace at any cost.  So, if you are one of them, well maybe I do have you pegged after all.


----------



## aesop081 (16 Oct 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They believe the bad guys are just misunderstood, it's all a big conspiracy because they really don't mean us any harm.  911 was a set up orchestrated by the Bush Administration so they could Jackboot all over the globe.



I have no such beliefs. It is entirely possible to want to kill the bad guys and still have some concern about how it is done.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I have no such beliefs. It is entirely possible to want to kill the bad guys and still have some concern about how it is done.



Then we shall have to agree to disagree on your last point.  I don't give a damn how the garbage gets taken out, so long as it does.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It is that memo that bothers me.
> 
> As far as I am concerned there is no doubt, not even one tiny one scintilla, that Awlaki had taken up arms against America - and the _Quran_ and a video camera constitute "arms" in this day and age, remember William Joyce (Lord Haw Haw)? - and could, therefore, be killed whenever and wherever he was found.
> 
> ...




And, speaking of Lord Haw Haw, Christopher Hitchens takes up my point in a column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/17/christopher-hitchens-what-executing-haw-haw-can-teach-us-about-assassination/


> Christopher Hitchens: What executing Haw Haw can teach us about assassination
> 
> Christopher Hitchens
> 
> ...




Americans and Canadians should not be shy about killing our own nationals when they take up arms for or serve our enemies - those who are killing our soldiers. I appreciate that an American in America and a Canadian in Canada has constitutional rights - to a trial, for example - that might preempt the state's _right_ to kill him (or her) because (s)he is an enemy combatant, but is not, at this moment, in a foreign place. But if you go to Yemen and preach that it is right, on religious grounds, to kill Canadians, wherever they are, then the Government of Canada ought not to need a memo to kill you.


----------



## brihard (17 Oct 2011)

Certainly. Neither I, nor I think anyone else here has any problem with the principle of returning hostilities against belligerent parties of any stripe. In my books, if a person has chosen to be our enemy and to present a threat, then they are a morally legitimate target and circumstances may well be that it's appropriate to drop a bomb on or put a bullet into them.

Like everything else, however, we remain subject to the rule of law, even in all of our conventional war powers. My main position on this is simply that the legal definitions surrounding war powers need to be expanded and formalized so as to encompass belligerents who are non state actors, so that what the state can and cannot do is again codified. Someone hit it earlier with the question of President Patriot McFlagwaver picking and choosing ideological enemies to drop hellfires on twenty years in the future.  The slippery slope argument is one best headed off, I believe, through proper legislation, rather than a 'wait and see' approach to whether exceptional executive power gets abused.

I think I said already earlier- there needs to be an unequivocable lawful ability to take out turds like al-Awlaki under these sorts of circumstances. My complaint is not with the rightness of the action, but with the legal ambiguity.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2011)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Certainly. Neither I, nor I think anyone else here has any problem with the principle of returning hostilities against belligerent parties of any stripe. In my books, if a person has chosen to be our enemy and to present a threat, then they are a morally legitimate target and circumstances may well be that it's appropriate to drop a bomb on or put a bullet into them.
> 
> Like everything else, however, we remain subject to the rule of law, even in all of our conventional war powers. My main position on this is simply that the legal definitions surrounding war powers need to be expanded and formalized so as to encompass belligerents who are non state actors, so that what the state can and cannot do is again codified. Someone hit it earlier with the question of President Patriot McFlagwaver picking and choosing ideological enemies to drop hellfires on twenty years in the future.  The slippery slope argument is one best headed off, I believe, through proper legislation, rather than a 'wait and see' approach to whether exceptional executive power gets abused.
> 
> I think I said already earlier- there needs to be an unequivocable lawful ability to take out turds like al-Awlaki under these sorts of circumstances. My complaint is not with the rightness of the action, but with the legal ambiguity.




Nor do I dispute that; and it's why the memo annoys me. I think there is a  _prima facie_ case that killing enemies, whatever their nationality, is legal and proper, so long as we are engaged in hostilities.

There are always some interesting questions about who to kill and why - see e.g. Operation Vengeance which still provokes some controversy.

But times and circumstances change. One of my "heroes" is Henry Stimson, a man of many admirable moral, intellectual and political qualities. But Stimson was slow, for example, to recognize the value of intelligence and, _"in the late 1920's, when Secretary of State Henry Stimson partially rolled up [the] nation's capability in signals intelligence — in sniffing that "gendemen do not read each other's mail". (That fastidiousness was enthusiastically abandoned during World War [2], which could well have turned out less favorably had we not taken a different attitude.)"_* Fortunately Stimson recognized both the error of his ways and the changing face of war and he adapted quickly and, being Stimson, correctly.

__________
* STATEMENT OF JAMES SCHLES1NGER  BEFORE THE PERMANENT SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 22 MAY 1995


----------



## Kalatzi (17 Oct 2011)

I tend to agree, that in this case he deserved to get whacked. Here's another view that I found interesting

Obama’s Death Panel

Link here  http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2011/10/06/obamas-death-panel/


"Okay, fair enough, but what I want to know is this: what is the name of this panel? Every government agency has a moniker, an acronymic identity, along with a symbol – like a coat of arms – that, taken together, makes up its bureaucratic persona: FBI, ATF, CIA – they all conjure particular representations of authority that imbue the agency with a certain character, a particular penumbra of power. So what do they call their death panel: the *Department of Death? The Office of Assassinations?* And what about an appropriate symbol? Now there‘s a rich lode of blackest humor waiting to be mined! My suggestion: *an American eagle clutching a shredded Constitution in one claw and a drone missile in the other.  * "


----------



## cupper (17 Oct 2011)

I would suspect that it's a similar court like the one set-up under the FISA act for wire taps and so forth.


----------



## Kalatzi (21 Oct 2011)

The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son 
link here http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/singleton/

Nice :


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Oct 2011)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son
> link here http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/singleton/
> 
> Nice :



 :boring:


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Oct 2011)

Kalatzi said:
			
		

> The killing of Awlaki’s 16-year-old son
> link here http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/the_killing_of_awlakis_16_year_old_son/singleton/
> 
> Nice :



I read the article and noted the birth certificate item. The USA has its own issues over the b/c of the President......still.


----------



## cupper (24 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> I read the article and noted the birth certificate item. The USA has its own issues over the b/c of the President......still.



Apparently it is any up and coming politician who is a minority with questionable national origins.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-birthers-eat-their-own/2011/10/21/gIQA6Xc43L_story.html

Say what you will about the birthers, but don’t call them partisan.

The people who brought you the Barack Obama birth-certificate hullabaloo now have a new target: Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, a man often speculated to be the next Republican vice presidential nominee. While they’re at it, they also have Bobby Jindal, the Republican governor of Louisiana and perhaps a future presidential candidate, in their sights.

Each man, the birthers say, is ineligible to be president because he runs afoul of the constitutional requirement that a president must be a “natural born citizen” of the United States. Rubio’s parents were Cuban nationals at the time of his birth, and Jindal’s parents were citizens of India.

The good news for the birthers is that this suggests they were going after Obama, whose father was a Kenyan national, not because of the president’s political party. The bad news is that this supports the suspicion that they were going after Obama because of his race.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2011)

Reminds me of the mid 19th century _nativist_ movement; one nativist party was, appropriately, called the _Know Nothings_.*  But the name became popular and was used by the "American Party" in e.g. Millard Fillmore's (unsuccessful) 1856 presidential campaign.









----------
* Because they were formed from a secret society and when asked about it they professed to "know nothing."


----------



## GAP (20 Jul 2012)

Awlaki family files suit against US government over drone strikes
Published July 18, 2012 FoxNews.com
Article Link

Relatives of three U.S. citizens killed in drone strikes in Yemen last year, including radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, are suing the U.S. government for targeting the terrorism suspects "without due process."

The wrongful death lawsuit, filed Wednesday, claims that the killings of U.S. citizens al-Awlaki, his 16-year-old son Abdulrahman al-Awlaki and operative Samir Khan were unconstitutional. Khan was the publisher of the terror magazine Inspire. 

The complaint, prepared by the American Civil Liberties Union and Center for Constitutional Rights, was filed against four senior national security officials: Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, CIA Director David Petraeus and senior commanders of the military’s Special Operations forces, Adm. William McRaven of the Navy and Lt. Gen. Joseph Votel of the Army.

The lawsuit says: "The U.S. practice of 'targeted killing' has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people, including many hundreds of civilian bystanders. While some targeted killings have been carried out in the context of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, many have taken place outside the context of armed conflict, in countries including Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, Sudan, and the Philippines."

"These killings rely on vague legal standards, a closed executive process, and evidence never presented to the courts. ... The killings violated fundamental rights afforded to all U.S. citizens, including the right not to be deprived of life without due process of law," the lawsuit says.

Anwar al-Awlaki, though, was considered a dangerous enemy of the United States linked to several attempted attacks and plots. 

President Obama said after his death that Awlaki "took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans."

Al-Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico, and Khan, a naturalized U.S. citizen whose family lived in Charlotte, N.C., were killed Sept. 30, 2011, during a U.S. drone strike in Yemen. Al-Awlaki's teenage son, Abdulrahman, who was born in Colorado, was killed in a separate strike on Oct. 14.

Click here to read the lawsuit
end


----------



## cupper (20 Jul 2012)

They were discussing this on NPR while I was going to work. The interviewee was saying that there is a low percentage of success, as judges typically do not want to insert themselves in the process of target selection. And the White House could invoke privilege based on national security and protection of state secrets.

It will be interesting to see how this goes.


----------

