J
jollyjacktar
Guest
If true, happy days.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/30/anwar-al-awlaki-yemen.html
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/09/30/anwar-al-awlaki-yemen.html
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 20,434
- Points
- 1,260
: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"
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"
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,559
- Points
- 1,040
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.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 20,434
- Points
- 1,260
tomahawk6 said:
Gee that's too bad.....oh well. :cheers:
A
aesop081
Guest
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/
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/
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
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.
A
aesop081
Guest
tomahawk6 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.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 20,434
- Points
- 1,260
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.CDN Aviator said:
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 10,559
- Points
- 1,040
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.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
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.
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.
- Reaction score
- 66
- Points
- 530
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.
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
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
A
aesop081
Guest
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.
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.
Similar threads
