General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy was Anwar al-Awlaki executed by drone, without due process?
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=usSeems like there are only two charges against al-Awlaki. The first, exercising his rights as a US citizen to speak his mind. The second, giving his blessing to the Underwear Bomber, is based on the word of one man, a man who obviously been under duress for over a month. Such testimony wouldn't hold up in court, so why is it the basis for executing a man without due process.
Worse, the other two known US citizens that have been killed by drone were simply collateral damage, in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Sad, truly sad.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The Civil War sort of settled that argument.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)He used the power of his voice, the power of speech, that's it. Show me one American that he killed.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)If you're concerned about the use of the US govt's use of drones to launch weapons against the people who want to kill you, al-Awlaki isn't the best choice for an argument to end the program.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Many of them are even US citizens. By your criteria, we should have sent a drone after Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, etc. Is that what you advocating? Speak out against the US and boom, get a drone strike on your doorstep?
randome
(34,845 posts)Not so easy in the mountains of Pakistan.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)What, you think we should take the easy way out?
randome
(34,845 posts)Absent especially grievous activities, I am not going to second-guess those who train and carry out their jobs any more than I would try to micro-manage security guards or law enforcement or the Coast Guard, etc.
I don't have the time to micro-manage everyone else.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Questions get tough, the tough fold up and run away?
Oh, and in this democracy, that military is ultimately our responsibility, and ultimately under our charge. We fund it, we elect leaders who command it, in the end it is ultimately our baby. We have every right to direct what it does. Or do you think that Americans should have just sat down and shut up when it came to protesting the Vietnam War?
randome
(34,845 posts)As I said, 'absent especially grievous activities', I am more than willing to let the military do the military's job.
Now if Obama was marching through Pakistan with troops and dropping bunker busters on entire cities, that would be a different matter. But the occasional shooting with drones does not rise to the level of outrage you want others to have.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Killing innocents abroad doesn't rise to the level of grievous activities? Tell that to these folks, oh yeah, that's right, they're dead, at our hand, and we're all responsible, you and me included.
Hundreds of innocents have been killed with drone strikes. It isn't as flashy as a bunker buster, but given time, it adds up to several My Lai's.
randome
(34,845 posts)With troops on the ground, there would be a hell of a lot MORE civilian casualties. If you want to debate our being in other countries in the first place, I think you'd get more traction and insight.
But complaining about the tools being used just seems unproductive.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)If we didn't have these tools, we wouldn't be executing innocents, we wouldn't be violating the sovereignty of other countries. It doesn't follow that we would be sending troops in to get a single man, if that were the case we would have been doing so long ago, and you know this. Making the ludicrous supposition that we would be sending in the troops if it weren't for drones is illogical and not born out by historical reality.
Furthermore, these drones, these tools as you call them, are indeed enraging lots of people abroad, not just because of the deaths they inflict, but by their very nature of being unmanned. A lot of people in this world see that as a chickenshit way to fight a war, and it enrages them even further. Which means sooner or later, we're going to get one case of blowback from this drone policy.
It doesn't follow that we would be sending troops in to get a single man,
What?
Four letters for your edification.
I
R
A
Q
treestar
(82,383 posts)That we had no right to drop the bomb on Hiroshima. That killed a lot of innocents.
yesterday you were claiming thousands.
the day before you called Obama blood thirsty, and claim Bush only dreamed of being as lethal.
Your poem to the terrorist you wrote above about his power is nauseating.
The absurdity people must plunge into to defend the people trying to kill us is mind blowing.
You are so ludicrous that you're not even worth talking to, just point and laugh.
Rigby5
(7 posts)Law is not up to anyone to pick and choose when they like something and when they don't.
Law is based on consistent precedent, and when you accept drones murdering innocent people, you endanger all people everywhere, including US citizens inside the US.
Don't you realize how cheap drones are?
For a couple hundred bucks, anyone could arm a toy drone with a poison hypodermic that could easily assassinate any individual you might care the most about. And there would be absolutely nothing anyone could do about it.
Everyone is an easy target.
No one is safe.
This let the genie out of the bottle, and now I don't think it can ever be put back in again.
The US is going to get a whole lot more dangerous I fear.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)randome
(34,845 posts)And Vietnam was rife with 'especially grievous activities'.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Even under the Bush Regime AND YOU KNOW IT! So stop lying, for fuck's sake!
Malcolm X and the Black Panthers never planned & carried out terrorist attacks on US soil from a foreign safe haven, and their crimes were routinely handled under our normal existing judicial system. Your pathetic analogy is so over the top it's nearly science fiction.
By your criteria, our only recourse to deal with terrorists out of our reach & acting in a war zone outside any governmental jurisdiction would be to send some unarmed flatfoot in a bad suit to go & try to arrest him. "Pardon me, Mr. al-Awlaki. I'm sorry to bother you, but I'm afraid I've been tasked with apprehending you. Would you mind terribly to come with me? I'll be waiting here in your lobby while you get ready. Sorry, pal. You're living in a fantasy world. That's not how reality works.
Again, al-Awlaki is a poor choice for an anti-drone strike poster boy.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Actions speak louder than words, and our drone actions are killing US citizens for no other reason than exercising their free speech rights, and the testimony of a suspect who had been held and interrogated for a month before saying anything about al-Awlaki.
Name a single American that al-Awlaki killed. Name a single terrorist action that he carried out. Ooops, you can't. So again, why was he executed without due process?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)How many Americans has the US govt planned to kill with armed drones on American soil? Zero. After being badgered by the media & at the insistence of your pal Rand Paul, the WH confirmed that armed drones can't be used on US soil, or anywhere in the world where there's a functional govt that has legal jurisdiction. (http://rt.com/usa/white-house-admits-it-cant-drone-americans-976/) So, armed drones can't be used in Canada or Mexico either - in spite of the lies you're promoting here, which originate from RW teabagger types & anti-govt libertarian nutcases who are afraid of space aliens flying UN black helicopters coming to take away their guns.
How many Americans have been killed by armed drones in total? 2: The known & admitted terrorist al-Awlaki. And his son, who was meeting with known & admitted terrorists in his journey to join his father. I can't find any reference to any others.
How many people have died from drone strikes in total: It is classified, but last month Sen Graham said it was 4700. (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2013/02/201322185240615179.html) Given that he's a Republican, he's probably lying. But even so, the great majority of those have been people bend on killing Americans, and people that they themselves have put in danger by gathering them around.
Now, are you going to start demanding that Obama produce his REAL birth certificate? Or are you going to stop carrying water for the crazies on the far Right?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Samir Khan was the other US citizen killed by drones, more "collateral damage."
As far as al-Awlaki goes, again I have to ask, how many terrorist strikes did he carry out? How many Americans did he kill?
His son was simply a sixteen year old, looking to find his father. Nothing sinister about that. Yet for that "crime" of doing what any concerned son would do, he was killed by a drone at a roadside cafe, a drone that was targeted for somebody else, somebody who wasn't even at the cafe.
As far as drone use on American soil goes, that's kind of still up in the air. Holder's first statement on that is as follows, "It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States." His letter to Rand Paul states, "It has come to my attention that you have now asked an additional question: "Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil?" The answer to that question is no."
Now that leaves some serious wriggle room. What, exactly, is considered combat? You and others on this board are perfectly willing to condemn al-Awlaki as a combatant, even though all he has done for certain is speak out against the US. What if the this or future administrations take a similar position? Throw into the mix the power that Bush gave to the executive branch that allows the president to declare basically anybody he wants to, US citizen or otherwise, an enemy combatant. Things get real dicey then. And remember, this is not just a power that only Obama will have, but future Republican presidents as well. Do you trust them with such power? I certainly don't.
And frankly we don't know whether or not the majority of victims were "people bend on killing Americans." As you say, that information is classified. However our ally in the region, Pakistan, has clearly stated that the vast majority of drone victims were indeed civilians. In fact a study carried out jointly by the New York University and Stanford University law schools found that onlytwo percent of the victims of drone strikes were high level targets. Worse, it has been found that US drones have come back for repeat strikes a half hour later, killing medical personnel who had shown up to help the previous victims. They've targeted weddings, and the funerals of other drone victims.
The worst part about all of this is that with every single civilian killed by a drone, we are making more and more enemies, enemies who now want to come visit horror and terror on us. Thus, the likelihood of another 911 event goes up with every single drone strike. Is that what you want?
As far as the rest of your post goes, it is weak, weak and lame. You are basically trying to damn people by association, a sure sign that your position is weak and you know it. I and many other Democrats and liberals blasted Bush for his drone policy, and we are simply being consistent. One's opposition to illegal, immoral policy shouldn't change with the letter behind the President's name.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
Not really a whole lot of wiggle room there.
I suggest you stop getting your information from Alex Jones and Rand Paul and find out what the Obama Administration is actually saying on the matter.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Nor am I linking to any site involving Alex Jones or Rand Paul. I'm simply stating the facts as they are, and those facts leave a significant amount of wiggle room for the President to act.
I suggest you take off your partisan blinders and take a look around at the reality of the situation.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)which directly contradicts the President's actual policy. Rand Paul & Alex Jones are trying to do the same thing.
Holder's letter to your pal in short and unequivocal: Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no.
So, now you can stop being a mouthpiece for one of the most extreme RW anti-American people ever to hold office in the United States.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...You say:
Does the President have the authority to use a weaponized drone to kill an American engaged in combat on American soil? The answer to that question is no.
That qualifying phrase is very important. The answer to the question as you phrased it, is "yes", or if we want to be very generous in our interpretation, "maybe". That is why there is an outcry over it.
To recap:
Holder says
"American not engaged in combat" ==> answer to the question is "no"
By simple logic, then,
"American engaged in combat" ==> answer to the question is "yes" or at least "maybe"
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....terrorist acts against US personnel in foreign countries. I don't care if that terrorist activity is planning attacks and/or carrying them out...I make no distinction between the two activities.
Additionally, it has been stated in post after post that al-Awlaki was indeed involved in the planning of several Al Qaeda attacks and was a recruiter for the same organization. You keep denying that activity as if it doesn't exist. Why? Denying it is not going to make it disappear.
One last point, if we didn't have drone technology, we would still have to use some method to eliminate the threat. That means we would have to put US military personnel at great risk if we used the special forces option. Not all special ops activities end as well as did the one against Osama Bin Laden. How many MORE civilian casualties would be caused if we used an air strike, a cruise missile, or an artillery barrage instead?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)What about the hundreds of innocents that have been killed. Do you have any sympathy for them?
As far as having no drone tech goes, you are drawing faulty conclusions. You are making the assumption that we would send in ground troops if we didn't have drones. That assumption simply doesn't follow and is not born out by the historical evidence. In fact, in the past when we didn't have drones what did we do? We waited for an opportune chance to nab such people, without violating the sovereignty of various nations, or we simply let them be, at least until they actually did something.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...you have all of the answers on this, and all of the other Obama hating threads you've started on this board.
I don't know what world you live in, but the real world is not all black-and-white....it's a million shades of gray. In short, it's complicated beyond all hope of rational understanding.
And yes, I have a great deal of sympathy for ALL of the dead and wounded from the two illegitimate wars the Neocons got us into. But unlike you, I haven't lost sight of the fact that we are still fighting a global conflict against a decentralized, highly-motivated enemy who hates our very existence, and for very good historical reasons extending back to the late 1940s.
I have also not lost sight of the fact that when a US citizen plans and/or takes part in terrorist actions against US personnel, he or she loses all rights to due process. Period.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)The suspect can't be in an area under the control of a cooperative govt able to engage law enforcement personnel to apprehend him, there can't be law enforcement personnel in place, duly appointed & authorized to operate in that jurisdiction. The suspect must be in a war zone engaged in military operations against America or its allies, and that the suspect has an army of other terrorists around him to protect him.
Al-Awlaki fit all of these requirements - as did the other terrorists targeted by armed drones, and their hangers-on and the innocent civilians the terrorists endangered by being near them.
Bush does not.
And you're repeating yourself.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)enemies.
it makes me sick to see how many people support this.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)and all the other poppycock churned out to justify crimes against humanity.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Hell, you might try actually reading my replies to you before spouting off.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)tactics, the slogans of today’s war on terrorism merely makes the United States look hypocritical to the rest of the world."
The director of the National Security Agency under Ronald Reagan – Lt. General William Odom
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/08/is-america-the-worlds-largest-sponsor-of-terrorism.html
randome
(34,845 posts)But as I pointed out in another post in this thread, it's similar to how most of us feel about the death penalty.
The majority of Progressives, I would say, are against it but we aren't going to protest too much when some sick child killer gets the chair.
Trying to 'catch' the current Administration in some kind of legal 'gotcha' isn't going to get much traction when the recipient of an attack is someone who already demonstrated his willingness to cause us further mayhem.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...when he put that qualifier in about killing American citizens on American soil, "not engaged in combat". Therefore, if the President deems a person to be "engaged in combat" then he is, or may be, authorized to kill that person on his own individual order without any due process whatsoever.
As others have pointed out before, one problem with this is putting it into a legal framework. We all understand there may be exigent circumstances. But do we really want to codify the President's ability to assassinate U.S. citizens? I say no.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)that's like throwing a man into prison b/c he wanted to have sex with someone he saw on the street
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)By your reckoning they've got drones with their names on them.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Next you'll be demanding that Obama produce his REAL birth certificate.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
truth2power
(8,219 posts)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)there is no free speech write to make death threats against other people. There is no free speech right in America to encourage other people to kill Americans.
I suggest that you go read your history. It is rife with prominent cases of Americans making death threats against other Americans. Several people have made death threats against the president, but instead of being visited with a drone, they are visited by the SS, who generally gives them a stern lecture and moves on.
Oh, and have you heard Malcolm X's famous saying "by any means necessary"? That was encouraging other people to kill Americans, yet no drone, or sniper's bullet for him.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/obama-romney-death-threats-912745
http://www.atf.gov/press/releases/2010/02/020210-no-man-pleads-guilty-to-drugs-firearms-threats.html
People only get the stern lecture if their threats are determined to be just hot air.
LastDemocratInSC
(4,242 posts)Read the passport laws.
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)
baldguy
(36,649 posts)
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Actually, just the one word is key, "potentially." Yet al-Awlaki hadn't had his citizenship rescinded, he was, indeed, still a US citizen.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)who says he joined al qaeda?
oh, that's right, it's secret.
Rigby5
(7 posts)You have it backwards. Individuals are the source of all rights, and if government commits crimes, such as the illegal invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc., then all citizens are obligated to take up arms against that renegade government.
The civil was only settled that slavery was wrong. It did not say government was immune to prosecution for crimes.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And a right to do so doesn't magically appear if your guy loses an election or once the govt does something you don't like. Are you advocating treason?
randome
(34,845 posts)...with dangerous, armed individuals, a SWAT team that went in might have accidentally killed him as well.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But instead he was deliberately targeted by his own government, for charges that probably wouldn't hold up in any court in this country.
NightWatcher
(39,376 posts)Regarding the collateral damage claim, if you're not in Af/Pak hanging out near terrorists or known hotspots, you probably won't be hit by a drone.
In reality, shit happens. It happens more in shitty places so try to avoid them. Now if a drone takes out an American in Disneyland, I'll show outrage.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Oh, and al-Awlaki's sixteen year old son, also a US citizen. He wasn't in Afghanistan or Pakistan hanging out with terrorists. He was in a diner in Yemen when the US made a mistake. Ooops, you're dead.
hack89
(39,181 posts)hanging around senior Al Qaeda operatives being actively hunted by the American and Yemeni governments is not a good idea.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)From the NY Times article I linked to in my OP.
"The intelligence was bad: Mr. Banna was not there, and among about a dozen men killed was the young Abdulrahman al-Awlaki, who had no connection to terrorism and would never have been deliberately targeted."
So, basically a dozen men died because of faulty US intelligence, not whom they were dining with.
I suppose your next lame excuse is that Abdulrahman al-Awlaki should have known that we were targeting that particular establishment due to faulty intelligence
hack89
(39,181 posts)as you point out, he would not have been deliberately targeted.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)It was a major fuck up, one of many major fuck ups this country has made due to our imperial cowboy attitude. It was the fault of a shoot first, find out who we shot afterwards policy that has been too often employed by the US, in conflicts ranging from Afghanistan to Iraq to Vietnam and beyond.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... the good old "if ya ain't doin' nuttin' wrong..." mantra.
Seems kind of familiar. Where, oh where, and from whom have we heard that stinking, steaming pile from before?
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)funny that you think the US can drone anyone anywhere is the world and it's not cause for outrage.
oh, yeah, they're not real people like us. only americans are real.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)Wait. What? Obama did it?
never mind.
IOKIYBHO
RL
Poll_Blind
(23,864 posts)
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)as defined by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. Combatants on a battlefield do not enjoy due process, whether they are American citizens or cockroaches. A "senior operative in Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen" is considered a military commander on a battlefield involved in a war against the U.S., and as defined by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force and under the laws of war can be shot at will.
Congress should revoke the opened ended and broad authority in the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force. The President should then come to Congress and the American people, show a real need to continue pursuing the war on terror, and ask for authorization that allows a President to act in the interests of the American People and to defend and support those with whom we have treaties.
But No matter what such an authorization would say, no one on a battlefield will enjoy due process. Soldiers engaged in war do not enjoy due process. The solution is to limit the scope of the battlefield.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)This kind of broad sweeping authority makes it unconstitutional. Furthermore, al Awlaki was never part of any sort of army. For these, and other reasons, the UN has condemned our use of drones, and pending further UN investigation, the US could be brought up on war crimes charges.
The AUMF and our drone policy is a gross overreach of power.
theaocp
(4,581 posts)I hope we *are* brought up on charges. How nice for us that the whole world is our MIC's plaything. The very idea that we are above the law makes me sick. NONE of the drone-lovers will be honest when we get blown up via drone from somewhere else, claiming the same BS about taking out whatever-we-like-to-claim-as-evil-doers. When the child misbehaves (as the USA *is*) you discipline the child. We need to grow up.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)That would require a decision by the Supreme Court, and they have yet to make such a finiding on the War Power's Act or any of these Authorizations whose authority stems from the War Powers Act.
Unless the UN Security council makes a decison, the UN has all the legal authority of the Shithouse Falls North Dakota debating society. I will not hold my breath waiting for the U.S. to be taken to the International Court for the use of Drones. Drones are no different than bombers or artillary, with artillary being the most accurate comparison. A drone is guided by a human being and its target is seen by a human being, and that targets anhilation is ordered by a human being who works under rules of engagement defined by a human being. Those other technologies are not illegal in war unless they are using biological or chemical weapons that are covered under relevant intertational law.
The war as defined by the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force isn't against a defined military, which is one of the problems of that document. No one need be in a "military unit." Being "
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=us&) a senior operative in Al Qaeda’s branch in Yemen" is sufficient to get one killed, especially since only U.S. territory seems to be exempt from that authorization. Anwar al-Awlaki was not occupying American Soil. Being on a battlefield, and falling under the broad definiton of a combatant, he was a legal target. His citizenship was and is irrelevant.
American citizens on an active battlefield have no right of due process. That is why I have a problem with the scope of the battlefield. I would rather have seen Mr. al-Awlaki arrested and tried in a Court, (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/08/bin-laden-qaeda-court-conspiracy/1972921/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsatodaycomNation-TopStories+%28News+-+Nation+-+Top+Stories%29) as they are trying Bin Laden's son-in-law.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Take a look at what you're saying, that the US can declare the entire world a battlefield and kill anybody within it. Sorry, not only is that unconstitutional, that is ludicrous on the face of it.
Oh, and you don't need the Supreme Court to declare something unconstitutional, the US District Court, Southern District of New York will do just fine. And that's exactly what they did, stating, "AUMF, then, is unconstitutional because it purports to delegate to the President the authority to make both the legal and the prudential decisions to invoke the nation’s war power."
http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/Hedges_Amicus.pdf
Granted, I'm sure that ruling will be appealed up to the Supreme Court, but still and all, the AUMF has been declared unconstitutional. Not to mention launching attacks into sovereign nations without their express consent is a violation of international law.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)You link, being to an Amicus Brief, is not to a court decision, it is to somebodies stated opinion that has been submitted to a court for consideration.
Definition Below.
http://www.ask.com/wiki/Amicus_curiae?o=3966&qsrc=999
An amicus curiae (also amicus curiæ; plural amici curiae, literally "friend of the court"is someone who is not a party to a case who offers information that bears on the case but that has not been solicited by any of the parties to assist a court. This may take the form of legal opinion, testimony or learned treatise (the amicus brief) and is a way to introduce concerns ensuring that the possibly broad legal effects of a court decision will not depend solely on the parties directly involved in the case. The decision on whether to admit the information lies at the discretion of the court. The phrase amicus curiae is legal Latin.
Your link to an Amicus Brief filed by mostly hyper-rightwing conservative and libertarian organizations is rather interesting. You might want to look for lest extremist outfits for information.
Again, an Amucus brief is not a legal decison and does not make something unconstitutional. It is an opinion, and everybody has one.
onenote
(46,142 posts)Your quote is from an amicus brief filed by a group of conservative (very conservative) individuals and groups. The case in which it was filed, Hedges v. Obama, resulted in an order by the District Court finding that the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA was unconstitutional. That decision has been appealed to the Second Circuit, which granted a stay of the District Court Order. The plaintiffs have sought to have that stay lifted on several occasions, including through petitions filed first with Justice Ginsberg and then with Justice Scalia. Each time the request to lift the stay and reinstate the district court decision has been denied.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)thanks.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)The power is absolute, unlimited, as secret as desired, and unbounded. Oh...and legally unchecked and unverified as well.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
limpyhobbler
(8,244 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
librechik
(30,957 posts)in charge of our national security engines. And they get more entrenched every year.
spanone
(141,609 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)If that were the case, then we would still be waiting for something to be done about the My Lai massacre, Iran Contra and so many other secret government policies.
And since this is a democracy, and the drones are flying in our names, with our money, don't you think that a bit of transparency in regards to the drone policy is absolutely required? Or are you comfortable with US citizens being executed by secret orders without due process?
I am sure they didnt.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)99Forever
(14,524 posts)1) Sooner or later, the Unconstitutional power to murder WILL be abused. There will be another George W Bush/Darth Cheney style Republican administration in the future. It is un fortunately unavoidable.
2) Other people, very angry people, WILL get these weapons and use them against the USA and it's people. Unlike nuclear weapons, the technology can be done easily and secretly and there's not fucking thing our brilliant MIC can do to stop it.
These points are above and beyond the simple reality of it just being immoral, inhuman, Unconstitutional, and wrong on every level.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)I would like to address the 2 points you bring up.
1) Actually, you bring up several points in this first "point". You claim that this is an "Unconstitutional power to Murder", which has two points in itself. This is NOT unconstitutional because our Constitution grants the right to declare war to Congress. Congress passed the right to the President to respond in the AUMF. While I agree that the AUMF should be repealed or amended, it was passed. Therefore, this action is Constitutional.
As to whether this is "murder", by definition it is not. However, the Geneva Convention to which the US is a signatory has a passage that outlaws "assassination". Personally, I think this is a stupid provision. Is it better to send - for instance - cruise missiles that kill hundreds of innocents or perhaps blanket bombings that kill thousands of innocents? Or would we prefer targeted killings that reduce the killing of innocents? Remember, the Geneva Convention was meant to dealt with Nation-States at war with each other, and not groups residing within other Nation-States. Personally, I support the solution that limits the killing of innocents or "collateral damage" as much as possible. Which would mean targeted drone attacks or targeted assassinations in the words of The Geneva Convention. Which means we need a global discussion.
But you bring up another good point. Although we may trust Obama to "do the right thing" (or at least some of us do) that doesn't mean that the next President will be trustworthy. Therefore, we do need an internal discussion to put limits on the usage of this new technology. Unfortunately, this would mean that Congress would have to actually "do something". Repealing or amending the AUMF would be a good start. Which means that I am glad that the "drone issue" is getting some attention - however I think it's the WRONG attention and that we are focusing on the wrong aspects.
2) This argument actually proves the need for the US to be able to wage war. I, personally, am against war. I think it's stupid, counter-productive, and kills lots of innocent people who don't care about the manipulations of their so-called "leaders" when they simply want to be allowed to live their lives. However, I know that "turning the other cheek" simply doesn't work . I can be as anti-war as I want, but others will see me as "naive" and simply beat me up in order to take my lunch money - or worse. MUCH worse.
Yes, this technology can be easily developed and used by others. Which, again, brings up my point in #1 that we need to have a Global discussion.
I hope I have explained how this is NOT an easy issue, but at least it's better than launching cruise missiles and killing many more innocents, which was better than the previous alternative of bombing. But that the nature of warfare itself has changed.
I won't go so far as the last Administration to justify anything because "9/11 changed everything" - if it was wrong and immoral before 9/11, it is still wrong and immoral. However, we are no longer fighting against Nations but against groups who may or may not be affiliated with Nations. IMHO targeted assassinations are much more appropriate than they have been at any other point in history.
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)I'm not comfortable that the cops need to convince a judge to sign a warrant if they want to search my house or my car, but there is no similar constraint when the President decides to execute a US citizen.
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)What's sad is that you think he could have been captured and brought to trial.
I say if you renounce your citizenship, join an organization at war with the US and make videos calling on people to destroy the US and kill innocents here,
Fuck you, you're dead.
But that's just me.
Your mileage, of course, will vary.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)And many people have made videos that could be considered treasonous. Some folks still rant that what Jane Fonda did in North Vietnam was treasonous. But we haven't killed them for such actions.
Tell me this, what terrorist action did al-Awlaki launch, what American did he kill?
cliffordu
(30,994 posts)and what your little friend did, then this discussion no longer warrants my participation.
Your post both enlightens and educates.
Thanks for your time.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Name one terrorist attack that al-Awlaki carried out, one American he killed? Speaking of enlightening and educating, your silence on these questions is indeed both.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)called on folks to kill 'Murkins.
Fuck him.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)cliffordu
(30,994 posts)roxy1234
(117 posts)Compare the US treatment of 2 accused terrorist enablers. One is Adam Gadan a white man who converted to Islam and right now there is clear evidence published manuals and YT videos of how to attack Americans and then Awlaki an Arab American man who is suspected of supporting terrorism.
One gets a drone strike and the other one get absolutely no attention from our govt. Racism is alive and well in the US of A
MadHound
(34,179 posts)However you're right, one's ancestry is European, the other Middle Eastern.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)Link: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022482835
& Rec !!!
MadHound
(34,179 posts)If you know what I mean
Sorry I didn't see your post yesterday, I would have jumped in on it. But I was busy yesterday.
msongs
(73,754 posts)commandments
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2013, 10:14 AM - Edit history (3)
A policy change that added his name to the kill list. For a long time, there was as much reason to keep Mr. al-Awlaki alive as to kill him, as he was one of the most useful AQ assets the U.S. had. I didn't say that, Michael Scheuer, who headed the CIA Bin Laden Issues Unit, otherwise known as Alec Station, said that al-Awlaki was a US "agent". See below.* But, something happened in late 2009 that tipped the balance against al-Awlaki, sealing his fate. Here's what did it.
What changed? A Presidential policy memo. The term used was a "security review" following the so-called Underwear Bomb Plot. See, http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/testimony/testimony_4635.html
And, that goes back to two proximate terrorist attacks that involved persons who had contact with al-Awlaki, or those who appeared to be immediately around him. The Fort Hood shooting was a mass murder that took place on November 5, 2009, and then there was the highly untidy, nearly botched Underwear Bomber incident at Xmas 2009, which blew the lid off the operation, and seemed to really shake things up. That was followed for emphasis by the attempted car bombing of Times Square on May 1, 2010.
But, it was the Christmas Plot over Detroit that appears to have led to the White House decision to refocus counter-terrorism operations away from the use of agents provocateur and the attendant limitation of damage strategy (dud bombs) toward outright targeted killing of al-Alwaki. An article in today's NYT confirms that the President stepped in to change policy after the operation was blown after other passengers noticed the bomb-wearer, a Nigerian student, was assisted through Airport Security in Amsterdam by a well-dressed man with an American accent. The fact that he was allowed on the plane, even though his name appeared in a terrorist look-out book, and was able to partially detonate the liquid explosives in his seat as the airliner approached Detroit was too much. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?google_editors_picks=true&_r=0
There was even a subsequent limited public acknowledgement that the Underwear Bomber was issued and allowed to maintain his visa even though his name appeared on the terrorist look-out book, because the AQ network in Yemen around al-Awlaki was the real target of US intelligence. Undersecretary of State Patrick Kennedy all but acknowledged that in testimony before the Senate Committee in early January 2010. http://www.state.gov/m/rls/remarks/2010/135865.htm
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1705667530?bctid=63664173001
There was an even more explicit admission of how US Counterterrorism allows intending terrorists into the U.S.. In testimony to a Congressional Committee on January 20, 2010, a ranking US intelligence official acknowledged that practice: http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/terrorism-watch-lists-dont-necessarily-bar-entry-officials-say/
"I will tell you, that when people come to the country and they are on the watch list, it is because we have generally made the choice that we want them here in the country for some reason or another," Leiter said.
On Thursday, a U.S. intelligence official confirmed that people who are on three of four federal terrorist watch lists are sometimes allowed into the country.
"In certain situations it's to our advantage to be able to track individuals who might be on a terrorist watch list because you can learn something from their activities and their contacts," the official said.
The three watch lists include the TIDE database, which has about 550,000 names; the FBI's terrorist watch list, which has about 400,000 names; and another list of about 14,000 people who are flagged for secondary screening at the nation's airports.
"This would not include individuals who are on the no-fly list," the official added.
It was not clear how many people on watch lists have been allowed into the country. But the revelation could prompt a blowback in Congress, where lawmakers have been pressing to expand watch lists.
Quite extraordinarily, that explosion of candor about previous US counterterrorism policies and practices coincided with the decision to kill the US citizen now reclassified as a "senior operational figure" within AQ was even leaked into the major media later that month in reports naming al-Alwaki:
By Greg Miller, Chicago Tribune
Stars and Stripes online edition, Sunday, January 31, 2010
WASHINGTON — The CIA sequence for a Predator strike ends with a missile but begins with a memo. Usually no more than two or three pages long, it bears the name of a suspected terrorist, the latest intelligence on his activities, and a case for why he should be added to a list of people the agency is trying to kill.
The list typically contains about two dozen names, a number that expands each time a new memo is signed by CIA executives on the seventh floor at agency headquarters, and contracts as targets thousands of miles away, in places including Pakistan and Yemen, seem to spontaneously explode.
No U.S. citizen has ever been on the CIA's target list, which mainly names al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, according to current and former U.S. officials. But that is expected to change as CIA analysts compile a case against a Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico but now resides in Yemen.
Anwar al-Awlaki poses a dilemma for U.S. counter-terrorism officials. He is a U.S. citizen and until recently was mainly known as a preacher espousing radical Islamic views. But al-Awlaki's connections to November's shootings at Fort Hood and the failed Christmas Day airline plot have helped convince CIA analysts that his role has changed.
"Over the past several years, Awlaki has gone from propagandist to recruiter to operational player," said a U.S. counter-terrorism official.
Rest of article at: http://www.stripes.com/news/cia-may-target-first-u-s-citizen-1.98535
________________________________________
* al-Awlaki appears to be a classic double-agent or agent provocateur. He's been at the center of too many of these incidents for too long -- al-Alwaki was the chaperone for the Flt. 77 hijackers for many months after the CIA CounterTerrorism Center (CTC) followed them from an AQ planning summit in Malaysia and "lost track" of them after they entered the US in January 2000. He then took care of the pair, and al-Hazmi followed him from San Diego to Northern Virginia along with another principal 9/11 hijackers -- yet the Feds let al-Awlaki go after 9/11 and again, a second time, after he was arrested upon returning to the US a couple years after 9/11. That's called, Catch and Release.
He was also in contact with the Shoe Bomber, the Ft. Hood killer, and the Underwear Bomber, and was also linked to the attempted bombing of Times Square and the toner cartrage plot to bring down FedEx cargo planes.
The only question is how witting his role was as the spider at the center of the CIA (and/or) DIA and FBI CT web(s). Mike Scheuer, the head of the CIA CTC Bin Laden Unit that Tenet replaced in 1999 with his own guys, Cofer Black and Rich Blee (who ordered the FBI liaison officer at CTC to withhold a warning cable that the Flt. 77 hijackers had entered the US), has said so himself. See, below.
We've had too many chances to capture or kill him since, for there to not be a good reason why we seemingly failed to do so for so long.
no conspiracy is required.
Your cut/paste has the answer.
"Over the past several years, Awlaki has gone from propagandist to recruiter to operational player," said a U.S. counter-terrorism official.
And what else happened over those years?
Obama became president.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I would prefer that if people are to quibble with the content of a post, that they address the facts. The "cut/paste" is used to add content to flesh this out. Otherwise, it's my connect-the-dots and conclusions. You are free to draw your own.
It's significant that Obama saw the extreme danger of the previous CIA CounterTerrorism Center policy and practice of allowing intending AQ terrorists onto US-bound commercial aircraft, and in some cases, allowing them entry into the U.S. That's how 9/11 happened. I hardly blame him for not wanting to repeat that sort of thing, particularly after Ft. Hood.
To some degree, I agree with the change in policy, but would rather we capture these significant figures and put them on trial. But, I can see why others don't want that.
BO 08
(53 posts)as if the reason wasn't obvious and therefore illogical.
Usually such scenarios are the result of a conspiracy.
I offered you a simple answer to your question.
You posit in your final sentence that he was always available for termination, you then ask why now.
I copied the line from your post that contained the answer.
Then offered my own addition.
It's heartening you note a policy shift though. So many critics of this administration's foreign policy pretend no such changes occurred.
Makes it very difficult to discuss efficacy.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)When the programs are covert, the reason behind them often is intended not to appear obvious and logical, otherwise they wouldn't be deniable and would have less efficacy.
The operation was blown when credible witnesses saw and described a well-dressed south Asian man who helped the befuddled Underwear Bomber through serious ticketing problems and onto the flight. I think it's significant that none of the bombs built by the guy in al-Awlaki's Yemen cell ever worked, and that even though the builder is described as a top target, he's still on the loose.
It was past time to roll up the network and change operational procedures and policy. Should have been done during the summer of '01.
BO 08
(53 posts)If I'm following you,
You're saying this guy was one of ours, at one point, and lots of stuff should have gone wrong that didn't because/perhaps because he was a double agent messing things up.
Now Obama has him killed.
I'm all for piecing news stories together to thread this needle.
But I can think of only one good reason Obama would take out one of our best double agents, and I'd expect to read that theory on Hotair.
I'd prefer Occam's answer.
Terrorists aren't too bright. This guy turned and was taken out as soon as possible.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)I'm saying the guy appears to have at various times been working both sides. The stuff that went wrong wasn't because of him, he wasn't running the operations. If we thought he was, we wouldn't have released him so many times. The responsibility and blame for 9/11, the Ft. Hood shootings, and the bungled Xmas bombing was on his handlers for keeping him out there, fluttering away, for so long.
I never said he was a good double-agent or a master-mind, I said he was a catch and release who performed a useful function as the moth at the center of the web.
That's why I'm not sure he was a real agent provocateur, who would at least understand his true role, or a double-agent who appeared to serving one side while he actually carried out the designs of the other. Double-agents sometimes serve one side, switch sides, pitch both sides against the other, or often have no real understanding of where they are in the bigger picture. They can be all these things at various times.
They waited a long time to take Mr. al-Awlaki out. It took them more than a decade. So, I conclude the Agency continued to believe he was playing a useful role until that assessment changed or the program was cancelled.
the underwear bomber was helped by our intelligence organization to enter that plane and that is what they are blaming on Alwalaki.
leveymg
(36,418 posts)flight to Detroit at Skocpol Airport in Amsterdam by that helpful stranger, the US launched an attack inside Yemen on the site where al-Awlaki was thought to be located. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html?hpid=topnews
Surely, that was someone else at Amsterdam Airport. Note, as well, the President's strike authorization predates the Underwear Bomber incident. According to Dana Priest's article, al-Awlaki wasn't the intended target of that JSOC-coordinated strike, even if his death was considered acceptable.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"Why was Anwar al-Awlaki executed by drone, without due process?"
...the law allows the President to target terrorists.
President Bill Clinton lifted the ban on CIA assassinations in 1998, but limited their use to specific targets, such as Osama bin Laden, and only if capture was not “feasible.” George W. Bush dropped the “feasible” limitation and eliminated the need for a specified list of targets. The first CIA drone killing took place in Yemen on November 5, 2002, and included the death of an American citizen, Buffalo-born Kamal Derwish.
http://www.allgov.com/Top_Stories/ViewNews/Obamas_Secret_Assassination_Program_111229
Anwar al-Awlaki vs. Kamal Derwish
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x787226
More background: "B.S. - A US Citizen was the first person killed by a Predator."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7611294#7611325
MadHound
(34,179 posts)It is a policy. As such, it has been found to violate international law. In fact the UN is currently investigating this, and could very well bring the US up on war crimes charges because of our drone policy.
BO 08
(53 posts)against us for invading IRAQ?
They are now getting into the war crime biz over our drone use?
I hope you aren't holding your breath.
(part of me expects you to start defending Bush's invasion now, based on our previous encounters)
"Actually it isn't a law, it hasn't been passed by Congress, It is a policy. As such, it has been found to violate international law. In fact the UN is currently investigating this, and could very well bring the US up on war crimes charges because of our drone policy."
...the UN will lead an investigation:
By JOHN F. BURNS
LONDON — A prominent British human rights lawyer said on Thursday that a United Nations panel he leads would investigate what he called the “exponential rise” in drone strikes used in counterterrorist operations, “with a view to determining whether there is a plausible allegation of unlawful killing.”
The lawyer, Ben Emmerson, special investigator for the United Nations Human Rights Council, said at a news conference that the nine-month study would look at “drone strikes and other forms of remotely targeted killing,” including a wide array of so-called standoff weapons used in modern warfare, like ground-launched missiles and similar weapons fired from manned aircraft.
The immediate focus, Mr. Emmerson said in an interview, would be on 25 selected drone strikes that had been conducted in recent years in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia and the Palestinian territories. That put the panel’s spotlight on the United States, Britain and Israel, the nations that have conducted drone attacks in those areas, but Mr. Emmerson said the inquiry would not be singling out the United States or any other countries.
“Absolutely not,” he said in the interview. “The United States may be the market leader in the use of drone technology, but there are more than 50 states with the technology that can be easily converted into an active drone arsenal.”
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/25/world/europe/un-panel-to-investigate-rise-in-drone-strikes.html
It's all policy.
The Church Committee was a special Senate investigation led by Idaho Senator Frank Church. It was formed in 1975. Their work took nine months and 150 staffers. They produced a two-foot-thick report in May 1976 that said, among other things, that we need Congress to oversee intelligence in this country.
The way we are overseeing it now is not working. And you know why we can tell that oversight is not working? Because the CIA keeps killing people, or trying to kill people in other countries that we are not at war with. The CIA at the time had taken it upon itself, it wasn`t clear if they were acting alone or at various presidents` direction, but they had taken on the job of assassinations in foreign countries, assassinations and attempted assassinations.
And the Senate said that was not cool.
This from the Church report: "The evidence establishes that the United States was implicated in several assassination plots. The committee believes that short of war, assassination is incompatible with American principles, international order, and morality. It should be rejected as a tool of foreign policy."
The Church Committee report came out, said that. Gerald Ford issued an executive order banning assassinations. The select committees on intelligence were formed in the House and the Senate to exert oversight over the CIA. Since the Armed Services Committees who had been supposedly overseeing them had fallen down on the job -- actually, they`d never seen all that interested in that part of the job in the first place.
- more -
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/50771795/ns/msnbc-rachel_maddow_show/
MadHound
(34,179 posts)"The problem with the United States is that it is making an increased use of drones/Predators (which are) particularly prominently used now in relation to Pakistan and Afghanistan," UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions Philip Alston told a press conference.
"My concern is that drones/Predators are being operated in a framework which may well violate international humanitarian law and international human rights law," he said."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iUaMrNjdCeSmf_4__CYrSIe26SBg
Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)Paper doesn't mean a goddamn to me. Actions trump what's written down.
He played with fire and got burned and no one should lose any sleep because of it.
Good riddance.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)He hadn't rescinded his citizenship. Lawfully, he was a US citizen, that's what counts. If actions were the determining factor, lots of US citizens would be "on paper only".
Now, can you tell me one terrorist attack he is responsible for, one American he has killed?
leveymg
(36,418 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2013, 09:03 AM - Edit history (1)
bottom. The NYT article yesterday says until the Underwear Bomber incident, he was categorized as propagandist and recruiter, not an operational guy: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html
In fact, other top officials of the group were the strike’s specific targets, and Mr. Awlaki’s death would have been collateral damage — legally defensible as a death incidental to the military aim. As dangerous as Mr. Awlaki seemed, he was proved to be only an inciter; counterterrorism analysts did not yet have incontrovertible evidence that he was, in their language, “operational.”
That would soon change. The next day, a 23-year-old Nigerian named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried and failed to blow up an airliner as it approached Detroit. The would-be underwear bomber told F.B.I. agents that after he went to Yemen and tracked down Mr. Awlaki, his online hero, the cleric had discussed “martyrdom and jihad” with him, approved him for a suicide mission, helped him prepare a martyrdom video and directed him to detonate his bomb over United States territory, according to court documents.
Nonetheless, even before the Underwear Bomber was helped through serious ticketing problems by a well-dressed English-speaking man at Amsterdam for its Christmas Day Flight to Detroit, the White House had approved a JSOC operation that attacked his location; even though it is claimed he was not the intended target, the death of al-Awlaki had already been authorized. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/26/AR2010012604239.html?hpid=topnews
leveymg
(36,418 posts)was actually doing, and we'll never find out.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)
SomethingFishy
(4,876 posts)I know this because... well, because... because the government told me he was!
And our government is never wrong and never lies!
Cleita
(75,480 posts)Of course once the precedent was set with Osama and others, it's easy to proceed to other executions including American citizens. We have become a nation that doesn't recognize basic human rights any more.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)"The use of poisons of chemical and biological weapons against population centers is allowed and strongly recommended due to the effect on the enemy," al-Awlaki continued. He then quoted several religious scholars to justify such attacks, concluding: "These statements of the scholars show that it is allowed to use poison or other methods of mass killing against the disbelievers who are at war with us."
...that's just one statement. Guys like him are the reason there has been a war, and the reason so many civilians have been killed. He spoke with and probably influenced three of the 9/11 hijackers, he counselled the Fort Hood shooter, and the "underwear bomber". He fled to Yemen, where he advocated the most merciless and inhumane type of general war. He hid out with a private army. Yemen tried to arrest him, but they were apparently out-gunned.
Its very hard to compare him with anyone else, he was pretty uniquely outspoken and influential, and effective. You have to work very hard to get on that list.
If you were president, and actually responsible to protect against people like that, what would you do?
on edit - the link for that quote: http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/05/02/from-the-grave-al-awlaki-calls-for-bio-chem-attacks-on-the-u-s/
MadHound
(34,179 posts)At the time, that quote was considered just as much of a violent threat as al-Awlaki's writings, yet the US government didn't kill him. Why, because of the First Amendment. You are indeed allowed to make such statements in this country. Will it get you a visit from the Secret Service or other law enforcement, possibly. But it can't put you in prison, and it surely shouldn't get you a drone strike.
Hell, we've got RW whackos, preachers even, who are stating that we should do equally horrible things to Muslim nations. Would you approve of a Muslim drone to fly over here and kill them?
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)Something about how being in a position of powerlessness and having no responsibilities makes it much easier to take up radical stands and impractical theories. Nutjobs and malcontents are just that, until they talk people into actual mass murder, and run away to Yemen with a private army.
Malcom X started out on a risky path, but the reason he wasn't assassinated wasn't because he was a US citizen, its because he talked about violence as a valid protest against inequality, but didn't commit violence, and neither did anyone who followed him. Al-Awlaki was implicated strongly in two mass murders/terrorist attacks, and one attempt to blow up a passenger airline.
Malcom X also turned away violence on his return from Mecca - he evolved. The media likes to make him the "angry black man" capable of anything, but he doesn't fit any simple stereotype, and he wasn't in any way an equivalent to al-Awlaki.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)You are viewing history through the lens of now, instead of the proper lens of then. Then, the authorities didn't know what we now know about Malcolm X. What they knew of him was exactly what he said and did. Then, he was considered a very scary man capable of doing anything. He was considered to be dangerous,, and a threat to the United States.
And again, Malcolm X isn't the only one. People write and make comments just as inflamatory and daming as al-Awlaki's all the time, yet they aren't killed. So why was al-Awlaki executed without even the benefit of a trial?
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)and hid out in Yemen with a private army. He was responsible, directly or indirectly, for terrorist attacks that killed civilians. He continued to advocate for terrorist attacks and the killing of civilians.
I don't see how that can be hard for anyone to understand. CItizenship is irrelevant, and arrest was not an option; he'd already escaped to a foreign country and repelled the army of that country when they tried to arrest him. The idea that Malcom X was about the same is ridiculous.
A better equivalent is the civil war, where we were actually at war with US citizens, and executed hundreds of thousands who had taken up arms against us. That is, hundreds of thousands of US citizens executed without charge, without trial or due process.
There is civil law and there is military law, one applies in most circumstances, the other applies when war has been authorized. Congress authorized war against Al Qaeda on September 14th, 2001, and al-Awlaki was fighting as an active member of Al Qaeda.
randome
(34,845 posts)I'd say most Progressives are, in principle, against it. But we don't protest too strongly when some evil child-killer gets the chair.
As has been pointed out elsewhere on this thread, al-Awlaki is a poor example to use for outrage.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Show me one single American that he killed. Show me, I'm from Missouri.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Using references from teabaggers, libertarians & other assorted RW weirdos. Next they'll be promoting Alex Jones as the Light Of Wisdom And Truth.
Response to OldDem2012 (Reply #65)
demosincebirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Got back, way back, into the archives. Every post I made about drones during the Bush years damned the policy then, in fact making a lot of the same comments and criticisms I do now. It is about the issues, not who is in office. I don't change my stance on the issues just because the letter behind president's name changed.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)MadHound
(34,179 posts)He has never done anything against me personally. Do I disagree with his some of his policies, certainly. But such disagreement is not a vendetta.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)if you don't care about this issue, that's fine, it really is.
But you are completely wrong about what you say you are so certain about. Your certainty is based in ignorance, which again you are free to remain in.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...save your personally insulting comments for someone else.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)you answered a very substantial article with flippant namecalling. You didn't address a single thing in that article, you instead went ad hominem. You say it's about Obama, I say that's ignorant. That's not an insult, that's just what it is.
I see in your profile you are a member since just before the 2012 election. You wouldn't know (i.e. you are ignorant of the fact) that civil liberties were at one time, before anyone heard of Barack Obama, a matter of great concern at DU. The RW said it was just anti-Bush, but that was false. And of course it certainly was not anti-Obama then, and it is not now.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...and please be advised that I've already checked and there isn't one. Also, please be advised the OP has built a well-known reputation of being totally unhappy with everything the President says or does. Oh, and you might want to check my additional responses in this thread...you might find I've addressed the points discussed in the OP.
Just so you know, I was a DU member under a different boardname a long time ago...prior to the 2000 election...and it is high-and-mighty posters like yourself that caused me to take a long vacation from the board. I thought DU might be different when I returned, but no, folks like you are still here.
One more point...the concept of civil liberties has been a major personal concern of mine since the 1960s, long before this board or the Internet existed, so skip the condescending lecture.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Square bomb plot, Fort Hood, the fatwa against Molly Norris, and the stabbing of Stephen Timms.
You also seem to forget that Mr. Awlaki was a convicted, and fugitive murderer at the time of his death.
I've provided you links many times, including links to the emails he sent to Rajib Karim, who is currently in prison, plotting the death of Americans.
All this handwringing for a dead terrorist. Why?
MadHound
(34,179 posts)The only real plot he maybe, might have been convicted of was the Underwear Bomber, and that was only because the UB came up with a confession after being jailed and interrogated for a month straight. Fort Hood killer, Stephen Timms' stabber, those folks were inspired inspired by al-Alwaki's speeches. People are inspired to do horrible things, Manson was inspired by the Beatles, Son of Sam by the neighbor's dog. Do we kill the person who was the inspiration? No. As far as the fatwa goes, yes, he did. Other fatwas have been declared by other clerics as well. Is that a reason to kill them, no, nor is it a reason to launch a drone strike on al-Awlaki.
I'm not handwringing for a terrorist, I'm concerned about the US drone policy, and where it is going. It is quickly becoming secretive, expanding, becoming all encompassing, and will be abused, guaranteed. While you might trust US drone policy under Obama, will you trust it under the next Republican president? Did you support it under Bush?
It is about the policy, not the people.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Here is Awlaki writing about killing Americans and these emails were presented and read the UK courts and newspapers--
I was pleased when your brother conveyed from you salaams to myself and was excited by hearing your profession. I pray that Allah may grant us a breakthrough through you. As a starter, can you please answer these questions in as much elaboration as possible: can you please specify your role in the airline industry, how much access do you have to airports, what information do you have on the limitations and cracks in present airport security systems, what procedures would travellers [sic] from the newly listed countries have to go through, what procedures would a person on a watch list have to go through?
SNIP--
On Feb. 13, 2010, Awlaki emailed Karim again. This time Awlaki probed Karim's ability to get a bomb or suicide bomber on board a plane headed for the US, and he also encouraged Karim to take a job on a flight crew. Awlaki wrote [emphasis added]:
Our highest priority is the US. Anything there, even if on a smaller scale compared to what we may do in the UK, would be our choice. So the question is: with the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US? If that is not possible, then what ideas do you have that could be set up for the uk?
...You should definitely take the [cabin crew] opportunity, the information you could get would be very useful.
Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/03/anwar_al_awlakis_ema.php#ixzz2NCMJJqsu
Here is direct contact with the Fort Hood shooter--
By MARK SCHONE and REHAB EL-BURI
Dec. 23, 2009
In an interview published on Al Jazeera's Web site, radical Muslim cleric Anwar al Awlaki says that Maj. Nidal Hasan, charged with killing 13 in last month's Fort Hood massacre, asked for guidance about killing American military personnel in his very first e-mail.
Awlaki claims that Hasan initiated the e-mail correspondence with a message on Dec. 17, 2008. "He was asking about killing U.S. soldiers and officers," says Awlaki. "His question was is it legitimate [under Islamic law]."
The Al Jazeera questioner asks for confirmation that Hasan forwarded this query nearly a year before the shooting.
"Yes," responds Awlaki. "I am astonished. Where was American intelligence that claimed once that it can read any car plate number anywhere in the world
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/FtHoodInvestigation/fort-hood-hasan-asked-awlaki-kill-american-soldiers/story?id=9410718
How easily you blow off a fatwa against a member of the press.
All this handwringing over a terrorist who would kill fellow Americans, gladly.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)It isn't handwringing over a terrorist, it is concern over our illegal, immoral drone policy. Do you get that? Do you understand?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)under the authority of the President, as directed by the Congress. There is nothing illegal about our drone policy--heck, I'm still waiting for someone on this board to write a coherent post that describes what due process Mr. Awlaki was denied.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts).... then who's next? A US citizen/jaywalker in a US city???
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)This is not a new or unprecedented power. The only question is under what circumstances someone is not arrestable, but being at an Al Quaeda training camp fairly clearly counts, I think. Conversely, it's hard to envisage any situation under which it is not possible to arrest someone on American soil who is not actively resisting arrest (hostage-takes, conceivably, I suppose).
MadHound
(34,179 posts)It was under the authority that the President gave himself. Yes, our drone policy is illegal, because it violates the sovereignty of nations when we conduct a strike in their territory when they don't give their permission. That is a violation of international law. Al-Awlaki wasn't given due process because there was no warrant issued, no court involved.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the President. It is under that authority that the drone policy has continued since Mr. Bush's time in office.
Yemen gave us permission. We still have it.
Awlaki's death--the death of a non-custodial combatant--required neither warrant, nor court. Had he been custodial, things woud have been different.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)Case of Hedges v Obama, April 16, 2012. There is a link I posted somewhere in this thread.
Yes, Yemen has given us permission to fly drones over their territory, but Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan and other nations haven't, yet we've flown them anyway, a violation of sovereignty, a violation of international law. Oh, and right now the UN is investigating our drone program to decide whether or not to bring us up on war crimes charges.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)have known that any and all communications in his name were being intercepted, if indeed they didn't originate with US intelligence. These emails appear to be nothing more than an effort to ascertain what the party on the other end actually knew about airport procedures. He was bait, and likely had been for many years.
Rex
(65,616 posts)The powers that be were not kidding about that, it gave them wholesale excuses to violate the US Constitution and spy on us like never before. The fact that the administration changed hands means nothing. Power given, is impossible to take back and I know dam well we don't matter one iota. So it won't be us that makes the change back to democracy. We will have to wait for adults to come along in office and do that.
The Powers that Be are not concerned with your rights. Bank on that.
Response to MadHound (Original post)
moondust This message was self-deleted by its author.
moondust
(21,286 posts)
JCMach1
(29,202 posts)We probably would have.
Given his ties to several bomb attempts in addition why are people shocked?
Anyone think jailtime torture and execution by Yemeni govt. Would have somehow been better?
BlueStater
(7,596 posts)Say what you will about the drones but I'm not about to lose any sleep that we snuffed that asshole. He got what was coming to him.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)Enrique
(27,461 posts)the list of people that have been declared traitors here is quite long. Should we kill them all?
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)baldguy
(36,649 posts)Guess what? It isn't.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)The Youtube video speaks for itself.
No one other than you said
"Obama is Nixon now?"
No one other than you said
"Killing terrorists is the same as spying on political opponents?"
If you don't understand the video, listen to the words. If you are part of the-President-can-do-no-wrong crowd, Nixon's words support your position.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And the OP and this entire thread is based on a strawman argument & the whole "slippery slope" fallacy. You're carrying water for the same conspiracy nut crazies who insist that Obama is a Kenyan Muslim socialist and who are worried about space aliens in UN black helicopters. It's "Obama can do no right."
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)You are intentionally using a strawman. You are disregarding the words in the video, and you are the only one comparing Obama to Nixon.
I fail to believe that you can be that obtuse.
Of course, I could be wrong.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Your post #106 is saying "Here's what Nixon said. It's just the same as what Obama is saying now!" Of course it's not even close to being them same, and there's no way you can come close to supporting your claim. The whole campaign against Obama is based on lies, logical fallacies, and the denial of any form of reasoning.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)you falsely made up your statement:
Your statement is not true. Your action is called lying.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)And you certainly can't seem to support your position without looking like an idiot.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)Please don't tell me, "I'm thinking ..."
After your repeated efforts to misrepresent that the words in the video are irrelevant ("When the President does it, that means it is not illegal." , it is clear that you have an agenda other than thinking.
Anyone can look at the video and the string of posts to verify that. Your word "idiot" certainly applied to a non-thinking person or a person who has trouble thinking along factual lines. I don't think that you are an idiot. I think that you are just pretending to be one.
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)
Taverner
(55,476 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)Well, you see due process requires the use of these extremely difficult-to-find things called FACTS. And worse, a bunch of ''outsiders'' like judges get to decided if your FACTS are really FACTS of just BULLSHIT which is often used in the Washington DC area in place of FACTS since BULLSHIT is everywhere and FACTS are almost never anywhere within shouting distance.
- So this procedure is designed to give swifter justice for all the Americans we're going to kill, and its a damn-sight cheaper too. So Congress will love the deficit-reducing implications of this fine, fine policy.
K&R
baldguy
(36,649 posts)That it also requires the suspect is in an area under the control of a cooperative govt to engage law enforcement personnel to apprehend him, that said law enforcement personnel are in place and are duly appointed and authorized to operate in that jurisdiction, meaning that the suspect is not in a war zone engaged in military operations against America or its allies, and that the suspect does not have an army of other terrorists around him to protect him.
Al-Awlaki fit none of these requirements - and neither did any of the other terrorists targeted by armed drones, and neither did their hangers-on or the innocent civilians the terrorists endangered by being near them. These people are not average hoodlums standing on a street corner, and Joe Friday will NEVER be able to slap the cuffs on them & drag them into a court of law to answer for their crimes. To believe that it's an option open to Obama is naive & dangerous.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)from the article..
As dangerous as Mr. Awlaki seemed, he was proved to be only an inciter; counterterrorism analysts did not yet have incontrovertible evidence that he was, in their language, “operational.”
That would soon change. The next day, a 23-year-old Nigerian named Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab tried and failed to blow up an airliner as it approached Detroit. The would-be underwear bomber told F.B.I. agents that after he went to Yemen and tracked down Mr. Awlaki, his online hero, the cleric had discussed “martyrdom and jihad” with him, approved him for a suicide mission, helped him prepare a martyrdom video and directed him to detonate his bomb over United States territory, according to court documents.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)... your convenient tale has been subjected to the scrutiny of court proceedings to prove its honesty, veracity, and credibility, right?
Link to those proceedings please.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Tried and/ or can be captured. Would it be ok if innocents were killed in the dangerous attempt to capture him.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)also I dont see how on earth you could try someone like this in a court.
treestar
(82,383 posts)He was not willing to be tried.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)And impossible to try them. How many innocents is it allowable to kill in the attempt to capture him in order to arrest him for formal accusation?
If he had said he would cease and desist and appear to turn himself in for trial, I might have another opinion. But he had no intention of doing that, as we all know.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)If I remember correctly, al-Awlaki wasn't formally accused of a crime. (If he was, I stand corrected.)
treestar
(82,383 posts)You have to capture that person eventually.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)It's going to be awkward, but OK. Where do we draw the line? I'm against most wars we've been in since WWII, but what were we to do if in a legitimate war? Or one I did not agree with, I could still see some point in it being difficult to indict say, each member of the Viet Cong.
Or Osama bin Laden. What of him? Had we indicted him?
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)I should not have to defend my statement from an interpretation so ridiculous, and in such bad faith.
If I were going to argue similarly I could as logically say: So you think someone like Al Awlaki should be able to kill as many Americans as possible (and then most likely himself) and get away with it? You must really hate Americans. In fact, you must be siding with Al Qaeda. That's really serious. If you're not joking, maybe I should get in touch with the FBI.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)That makes absolutely zero sense.
People refuse to turn themselves in all the time. The charges pend or there is a trial in absentia. And when that is completed, arrest warrants are placed.
You cannot kill someone because they refuse to cooperate with their own arrest.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Do we have to wait until they've finished killing as many people as they choose? Everything has its limit. But if everyone is demanding due process on his behalf, then yes, why not? He's allowed to range out there until we can prove he's going to kill someone? And not even on our soil.
Not reasonable. People who want due process should turn themselves in and not be threatening to in fact do other crimes. It's not a game that they get to win if they are clever enough not to get caught, and we just accept that, and the deaths they cause in the meantime.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)If someone is guilty of a crime, make a demonstrable claim, charge them, obtain a warrant for their arrest and arrest them.
The key part of that is arresting them. Not blowing them up with a missile.
TheKentuckian
(26,314 posts)What are these supposed difficulties and obstacles with charging some one of a crime that requires their participation?
Turn himself in for what? He wasn't under any US indictment.
Just a pile of excuses to do the wrong thing, the wrong way.
It is too easy to get an indictment, not too hard. It has often and long been stated that an average prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.
Simple fact, if you don't have enough evidence to get an indictment then you absolutely have no case. Where he is has jack apple shit to do with charges being filed.
Then we should at some point admit there was no clear and present danger being posed to American lives by this target which would make this whole deal criminal save the dancing around the absurdity of a global battlefield in a war against a tactic.
All the defensive response to this is straight up parroting dumb ass Dubya's defenders of plunder, destruction, murder, lies, and torture down to the tired ass sympathy for terrorist and hate for OUR President cards.
If mimicry is really a sign of admiration then values come pretty clear. Lite version or not, still the same swill.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Because they did not want to start a precedent of having to do a criminal indictment for every war enemy abroad.
And to say accused people never cooperate is ridiculous. They may not turn themselves in often (thought that does happen) but they at least can be arrested without the threat of their killing anyone. Criminals out on bail cooperate. They don't all jump bail as soon as they get it. They then appear in court for their trial every day.
We all know none of this applies in the case we are talking about, as those are not individuals who expect to be arrested by US police in any case. Al Qaeda terrorists use the unbeatable weapon of suicide. When someone is willing to kill themselves in order to harm you, they 100% get away with it.
BlueCheese
(2,522 posts)As long as you're not an Enemy of the State™, you have nothing to worry about.
Enrique
(27,461 posts)I could VERY easily hear someone saying that seriously. In fact the only thing that gave it away to me was the tm.
arely staircase
(12,482 posts)he knew the risks.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)The ticking time-bomb fallacy and assumption of guilt.
If you will notice many of the posts in here, the assumption is that a man whom none of us have ever met and who never faced any trial ,or at the very least was shown evidence of his supposed crimes, is guilty.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)...torture is not legal and never has been. We used it under the Bush Administration until somebody blew the whistle and that whole house of cards came tumbling down. The people who authorized the use of torture by US personnel should be tried for war crimes.
The use of weapons of war in a war zone, weapons like drones, are entirely legal. And yes, they are also legal to use in a war zone against US citizens actively plotting to, and/or carrying out, attacks on US personnel. Once a US citizen engages in acts against the US, they can kiss their "due process" good-bye.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)You're only proving my point. Ticking time bomb fallacy.
War and fighting have taken on a new meaning recently. They no longer mean the literal act of resistance or attack. You can be at war just by being in a certain country or associating with certain people. And you can be an "imminent threat" by expressing certain opinions.
I have news for you. That's a necessarily thin definition. And it only exists to justify government sanctioned torture and execution.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)....As far as being in danger for associating with certain people and expressing certain opinions, maybe you should take a closer look at US History going back to the Colonies.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)You were trying to argue that there is legal precedent for drone strikes. I'm saying I don't care. And you shouldn't care either. Legality has very little to do with what is right and wrong in the modern political arena.
sagat
(241 posts)Fuck him and his polyp son.
Gravitycollapse
(8,155 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)fuck him and his entire family down through history.