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

[tomahawk6]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[aesop081]

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]

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]

  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]

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]

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.

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

Oct 17, 2011

The first thing to say, when reviewing the question of what America should do about those of its citizens who advocate the murder of random numbers of its civilians, is that it is flat-out astonishing to see the debate being conducted at all. Faced with jeering, sniggering, vicious saboteurs who hide from the daylight and pop up on blogs and cheap CDs, calmly awarding religious permission for the capricious taking of life, what do we imagine Vladimir Putin would do? Or the police and security forces of the People’s Republic of China? Or Israel or Saudi Arabia? To ask the question is to answer it.

The United States happens also to be almost uniquely generous in conferring citizenship: making it available to all those who draw their first breath within its borders. For comparison purposes, try looking up what it takes for a person of Turkish origin born in Germany to become a citizen of the Federal Republic, or what is involved for a subject of the British “Commonwealth” in establishing that he or she has the right of residence in the United Kingdom. (In the waning days of British Hong Kong, there were actually British travel documents that did not give the bearer the right to reside in Britain.)

The appeal of the so-called universal jihad is in any case a call to abandon all national allegiance and instead identify only with the umma, or community of believers, so that at the outset we are confronted with the ugly idea of dual loyalty. Or perhaps of non-loyalty, disloyalty or — give it another name — treason.

Those who oppose the inclusion of people like the late Anwar al-Awlaki on what we shudderingly do not call a kill list have correctly cited the passage in the Constitution that prohibits the authorities from inflicting the penalty of death, and many other penalties, without “due process of law.” So far, very little has been done to dispel the opacity that surrounds this concept as applied in this case. A judge has ruled that al-Awlaki’s father, backed by various civil liberty groups but otherwise appearing only in his own name, lacked standing to bring a suit against the death sentence that had been pronounced in advance by the Obama administration. It was stipulated that al-Awlaki Junior would have to appear and claim the many rights that go with American citizenship. (It has also been noted that a Yemeni court was asking al-Awlaki to explain his doings in that country: another opportunity of which he did not avail himself.)

Just as most precedents for controversy about citizens joining foreign armies or insurgencies come from the British “Foreign Enlistment Act,” so the best precedent that I can find, in the world where treason meets broadcasting, is a celebrated one from the Second World War. During that conflict, a man named William Joyce was employed by Joseph Goebbels’ Ministry of Propaganda to make continuous appeals to the British people to surrender. At other times, he went among British prisoners of war, attempting mostly in vain to recruit them to a “British Free Corps” that would fight under the colours of the swastika. He actually became rather a popular entertainment item in Britain, his arrogant drawling tones earning him the nickname “Lord Haw Haw.”

William Joyce, nicknamed Lord Haw Haw, was a Nazi propaganda broadcaster to the U.K. during the Second World War.

Captured in 1945 and hit with three counts of high treason, he pleaded that he was and always had been an American, and thus owed no duty of loyalty to the British Crown. This defence at first seemed a plausible one. But then one of the British prosecutors at Nuremburg, Sir Hartley Shawcross, discovered that on one occasion, seeking to move countries in something of a hurry, Joyce had applied for a passport to the British consulate in New York. In the minds of the judges, this was enough to establish that he had a duty of allegiance to the Crown. He was duly hanged, leaving behind a slight impression that Shawcross had won on points, even if slightly tricky ones.

One possible way of approaching the whole question of due process might be to re-examine the question of citizenship. After all, al-Awlaki went further than any Nazi propagandist, telling his readers and listeners (and some specific later perpetrators) that they were at liberty to kill any Americans, any time, anywhere. The evidence is that he carefully walked at least one perpetrator — Maj. Nidal Hassan of Fort Hood — through all the stages that supposedly qualified him to declare lethal holy war on his colleagues. Lord Haw Haw never got anywhere near that far. For al-Awlaki to continue to claim that he wants to be numbered among us (the target population, after all) is a bit rich, to put it mildly. Instead of the pretzel shapes of casuistry into which the Justice Department seems to be contorting itself in the search for a justification, why may we not lawfully strip him and those like him of their right to call themselves American, and of the protections and privileges that accrue?

We do not seem to know whether al-Awlaki’s father was acting for his son when he petitioned the court, but from now on it would become necessary for the younger man or rather his emulators to plead his own case, perhaps even by proxy, and have the nerve to do so. He should have to show good cause why he did not choose to appear in person, and if that alibi happened to be the brute fact of his having fled all known jurisdictions, it would tend to tell against him. (Of course, he could always have the courage to renounce his citizenship.) Precedent would be set for any would-be emulators: You have been amply warned that this very tolerant and conscientious society has strict limits to its patience. Such a hearing would fall short of an ideal definition of due process, but only to the precise extent that the defendant had already put himself outside the law.

One of the Obama administration’s reported arguments is that Yemen’s president has already agreed, albeit in secret, to the killing of al-Awlaki. It’s bad enough that America’s President should be so evasive on this matter, without his citing the unaccountable fiat of another one who seems to have forfeited the confidence of his people.

Future Awlakis should have their day in court, however much we may have to grit our teeth, because the plain text of two constitutional amendments requires it, and because it might whisper to quite a large watching audience that America takes its ideals seriously, and politely expects its fortunate citizens to do the same.

Slate.com

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.