Clearing up misconceptions regarding Anwar al-Awlaki

[Maedhros]

The Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed on September 30, 2011 by a missile fired from an unmanned drone. Two weeks later al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son was killed in a similar strike. Both were carried out by the CIA and authorized by secret orders signed by President Obama.

Critics of the al-Awlaki executions assert that they represent a serious Constitutional crisis - namely, that the President of the United States has claimed and used the power to execute U.S. citizens deemed to be enemies of the state based solely upon the President's discretion and without due process of law required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Proponents maintain than Anwar al-Awlaki was an "operational leader" of AQAP who directed terrorist attacks against the United States and that his death represented a war casualty.

Jeremy Scahill is an investigative journalist who has spent the last decade reporting from Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula. One would be hard-pressed to find someone more knowledgeable of the politics and recent history of the region. Scahill published an article on The Intercept discussing the possible links between the Charlie Hebdo attackers and AQAP. In the article, he takes on the widespread misinformation regarding Anwar al-Awlaki that has been promulgated by U.S. intelligence service propaganda and their partners in the media:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/12/the-paris-mystery/

Whatever potential relationship Awlaki had to the Kouachi brothers, the media coverage of Awlaki’s history has been riddled with inaccuracies, exaggerations of his role within AQAP and passing of anonymous US government pronouncements as facts. There is no doubt that Anwar Awlaki very publicly called on Muslims in Western countries to conduct attacks in the U.S. and Europe or to travel to Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to fight jihad. Awlaki very publicly called for the assassination of cartoonists and others who he saw as disgracing the Prophet Mohammed. But Awlaki was never the “leader” of AQAP, and the title bestowed on him by President Obama in announcing Awlaki’s death — head of external operations — was created by the U.S., not AQAP. In fact, when the actual leader of AQAP, Nasir al Wuhayshi, wrote to Osama bin Laden in 2010, asking for his blessing to put Awlaki in charge of the group, Bin Laden shot it down.

. . .

None of this is to say that Awlaki was not involved with direct plotting of acts of terrorism, but that there has been no actual evidence produced to support the claim. Awlaki’s assassination was ordered by President Obama despite the fact that Awlaki was not officially indicted by the U.S. on any charges of terrorism. His case was litigated by anonymous US officials in the media and his death warrant signed in secret by the U.S. president.

It is often asserted as fact that Awlaki directed or encouraged U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan to carry out the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009. But the actual evidence to support this does not exist. Awlaki did indeed email with Hassan, but those emails read like Hassan was a fanboy and Awlaki was politely dismissing him. Awlaki did, after the fact, praise Hasan’s actions, but he denied any claim of direct involvement. It would be uncharacteristic of Awlaki — given his public calls for such actions — to deny a role he would have been proud of playing.

. . .

Terrorism analysts and journalists often mention that Awlaki had contact with three of the 9/11 hijackers and, at times, imply he had foreknowledge of the plot. Awlaki was the imam at two large mosques, one in San Diego and later at one in Falls Church, Virginia. Three of the men, at various points did indeed attend those mosques, but the 9/11 Commission asserted that the future hijackers “respected Awlaki as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him” but added that “the evidence is thin as to specific motivations.” What is seldom mentioned is that soon after 9/11, on February 5, 2002, Awlaki also met with Pentagon employees inside the Department of Defense when he was officially invited to lecture at the DoD. After being vetted for security, Awlaki “was invited to and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army’s Office of Government Counsel.”

. . .

Awlaki is also frequently mentioned as the mastermind of the 2009 underwear bomb plot. But, again, this is far from a proven fact. Awlaki’s role in the “underwear plot” was unclear. After the failed bombing, Awlaki claimed that Abdulmutallab was one of his “students.” Tribal sources in Shabwah province told me that al Qaeda operatives reached out to Awlaki to give religious counseling to Abdulmutallab, but that Awlaki was not involved in the plot. While praising the attack, Awlaki said he had not been involved with its conception or planning. “Yes, there was some contact between me and him, but I did not issue a fatwa allowing him to carry out this operation,” Awlaki told Yemeni journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye in an interview for Al Jazeera a few weeks after the attempted attack: “I support what Umar Farouk has done after I have been seeing my brothers being killed in Palestine for more than sixty years, and others being killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And in my tribe too, U.S. missiles have killed” women and “children, so do not ask me if al-Qaeda has killed or blown up a U.S. civil[ian] jet after all this. The 300 Americans are nothing comparing to the thousands of Muslims who have been killed.”

. . .

The U.S. government continues to maintain that Awlaki personally directed the Christmas Day bomb plot. Its source for that is an alleged confession given to investigators by Abdulmutallab immediately after he was apprehended. But that confession has serious problems. Marcy Wheeler, an independent journalist who has scrutinized this case more extensively than any other journalist, has written several analyses of this case. “Abdulmutallab gave 3 ‘confessions,’” Wheeler told me. “The first on December 25, 2009, after he was captured. In that he attributed all his direction to ‘Abu Tarak,’ which [the] DOJ would later claim was just a pseudonym for Awlaki, which is impossible.” In Yemen, I asked many sources close to Awlaki if they had ever heard this nickname used or given to Awlaki. None had.

The second confession started on January 29, 2010 with the High Value detainee Intelligence Group established by President Obama in late 2009. Abdulmutallab’s lawyer claimed the HIG interrogated his client after he had been held in solitary confinement. “Within days, he implicated Awlaki in everything, including making a martyrdom video with AQ’s greatest English propagandist in Arabic, and final instructions,” Wheeler adds. “The prosecution willingly agreed not to rely on this confession after the defense said it had been made in conjunction with plea discussions.”

The final confession, Wheeler says, was on October 12, 2011. Abdulmutallab publicly plead guilty to conspiracy and other charges. No one else, including U.S. citizen Awlaki was charged in the alleged conspiracy. “In that plea, Abdulmutallab attributed earlier propaganda from Awlaki as an inspiration, but Abdulmutallab did not implicate Awlaki or anyone else as his co-conspirators,” says Wheeler. “In other words, Abdulmutallab confessed three times. In only one of those confessions did he implicate Awlaki, and that confession was the only one not presented at ‘trial.’” Instead it was used in Abdulmutallab’s sentencing.

Anwar al-Awlaki almost certainly made egregious anti-American statements, going so far as to praise terrorists for attacking U.S. targets. Even if this isn't protected speech as per Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444), the central tenet of American justice - that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - still applies. All of the "evidence" against al-Awlaki comes from anonymous CIA sources, and has been shown to be of dubious veracity. Further, al-Awlaki was not given an opportunity to view the evidence against him and the evidence was not subjected to cross examination in court. The result is that the myth of al-Awlaki's guilt has been allowed to propagate without challenge.

To claim the power to execute citizens without due process of law, based entirely upon a political leader's command, is the defining feature of a dictatorship. If we are going to accept this behavior as the legitimate action of a President, then what exactly are we justified in not accepting?

[Tarheel_Dem]

1. Oh Lord.

[Number23]

122. Nailed it in one!

Hey there! Happy New Year!

[Tarheel_Dem]

123. Hi My Dear, and Happy New Year to you as well.

[Wellstone ruled]

2. Military Industrial Complex alive and well.

With all the meddling by the Neo-Cons and their quest for Empire,we now see the wreckage. Our people created this out of control chaos in the Middle East and again our so called strategist in the State Department blew it much like Vietnam. It's all about the false equivalency,our Nation is trying to plug persons and Countries into the story just to cover their actions. The Media is nothing more than a propaganda machine. Until the Saudi's and other wealthy people in the middle east are called to task,this crap will continue.

[MohRokTah]

3. Ah Jeez

[2banon]

4. Thanks for the link to this OP, I didn't see it earlier..

This is what grabbed my attention in Scahill's interview with Goodman:

What is seldom mentioned is that soon after 9/11, on February 5, 2002, Awlaki also met with Pentagon employees inside the Department of Defense when he was officially invited to lecture at the DoD. After being vetted for security, Awlaki “was invited to and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army’s Office of Government Counsel.”

That point somehow missed my radar previously. I think it's pretty damn significant.

Scahill goes on to say, that he, Awlaki, was the media's go to guy to comment on events wrt to Islam post 9/11. CNN, NPR etc.

But ultimately the underpinning questions asked wrt to this point needs to be honestly answered, imo.

To claim the power to execute citizens without due process of law, based entirely upon a political leader's command, is the defining feature of a dictatorship. If we are going to accept this behavior as the legitimate action of a President, then what exactly are we justified in not accepting?

[Maedhros]

5. I keep asking this question, but I don't get any answers.

Last edited Tue Jan 13, 2015, 07:54 PM - Edit history (1)

The justification given is that Yemen is a lawless place, therefore it was "impossible" to capture al-Awlaki and bring him to a court of law for trial. Extremely weak reasoning, given that we were capable of entering Pakistan and retrieving Bin Laden - a far, far, far more difficult task than extricating al-Awlaki from Yemen. Of course, we then murdered Bin Laden so that any secrets he held would die with him.

Basically, those who agree with the President's actions with regard to al-Awlaki and his son are saying that Constitutional protections are all right as long as its convenient to follow them. If it's too hard, just kill people based on the Government's allegations.

Where is the Inconvenience Clause in the Bill of Rights?

ON EDIT: Removed "once he was in our custody" from the first paragraph, last sentence. It is likely Bin Laden was unarmed when shot, but not "in custody."

[geek tragedy]

6. "we murdered bin laden once he was in our custody"

Were you there or do you just feel compelled to make shit up in order to portray terrorists as victims?

People who support killing sworn enemies support killing sworn enemies. Al awlaki physically and operationally joined AQ. That made him a legit target.

[zappaman]

9. When was Bin Laden "in our custody" when we "murdered" him?

Take your time...this may take some contortions on your part.

[geek tragedy]

11. I wonder if their source is as reliable as the multitude

showing am awlaki was a terrorist.

[GGJohn]

15. When was Bin Laden ever in our custody?

Do you have a link for that?

[NaturalHigh]

19. Where do you get the whole...

"murdered Bin Laden once he was in our custody" thing? That's a grossly irresponsible thing to say.

[Maedhros]

33. You're right - that was phrased incorrectly.

I'll edit the OP to better reflect what likely happened: the objective of the raid was not to capture, but to kill Bin Laden.

There are conflicting reports about what happened during the raid, but it appears Bin Laden was unarmed when he was killed. This, IMO, was a big mistake - he should have been captured and brought to justice, so the American people could have had some closure for 9/11.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/08/osama-bin-laden-killing-media

Other reports deepen the confusion. The consensus became that bin Laden was unarmed when the SEALs shot him, but who else was in the room? An early May broadcast from NBC News matches neither CBS nor The New Yorker on that count. "As the SEALs stormed up the stairs two young girls ran from the room," NBC reported. "One SEAL scooped up the girls and carried them out of harm's way. The two other SEALs rushed the bedroom door." In this version only one of bin Laden's wives was in the third-floor room where he was killed. Meanwhile, the Associated Press reported the prior day that one of bin Laden's sons was also there: "The son was shot dead in that room, too." (NBC and others reported the son was killed on the second floor.) According to the AP report, bin Laden acted aggressively when confronted: He had "appeared to be lunging for a weapon." According to a Fox News report, bin Laden had acted "scared" and "completely confused" and in a "cowardly manner."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/04/osama-bin-laden-killing-us-story-change

Asked on Wednesday: "Is the fact of a firefight solid?", Carney said: "You heard the account that I read yesterday, and that is information that I provided. And I'm not – I'm just simply saying I'm not going further than that."

He had said at a White House briefing on Tuesday that Bin Laden had not been armed. "On the first floor of Bin Laden's building two al-Qaida couriers were killed, along with a woman who was killed in crossfire," he said. "Bin Laden and his family were found on the second and third floor of the building. There was concern that Bin Laden would oppose the capture operation – operation rather, and indeed he did resist. In the room with Bin Laden, a woman – Bin Laden's – a woman, rather, Bin Laden's wife, rushed the US assaulter and was shot in the leg but not killed. Bin Laden was then shot and killed. He was not armed."

The story changed so many times, it's hard to trust the "official" version.

[geek tragedy]

44. You still describe it as 'murder'

You think Bin Laden was a victim of a crime, committed by Barack Obama and the US military.

Go ahead and start your impeachment drive, and your campaign to have the bin Laden team put on trial for murder.

[Oklahoma_Liberal]

28. Tinfoil?

[Boreal]

37. An aside...

What makes you think that dopey Bin Laden story is even true?

[Maedhros]

41. Which dopey story? The official story changed multiple times.

How can we know which one is true?

I do know, with certainty, that the U.S. military and intelligence agencies will fabricate stories out of whole cloth in order to support their agenda.

[Boreal]

42. The killing of Bin Laden story

right down to the "proper Muslim burial at sea" nonsense.

[Maedhros]

49. As I said, the official story changed multiple times.

Bin Laden was unarmed and acting like a mewling coward, then it changed to "lunged for an AK-47."

Bin Laden was alone, then changed to "using his wives as human shields," then it was one of his wives who lunged for the AK-47.

Then it was back to "no AK-47, but the wife lunged at the SEAL."

I think the safest thing is to assume that the official story is at best only partly true, and that any facts that might prove embarrassing to the Administration were scrubbed.

[Boreal]

53. I think the ones who knew the truth

went down in that helicopter. Loose ends (and lips) tied up. The truth was probably that some innocent man was blown away by the SEALs and that Bin Laden was long dead from kidney disease.

[Maedhros]

56. I restrict my analysis to what was reported by military and intelligence officials.

I try to avoid outright speculation.

[zappaman]

63. Lol!

I love Bin Laden truthers!

[Boreal]

65. Lol!

Me, too. That guy making the rounds on Fox Snooze is especially funny.

[TacoD]

80. You forgot to mention Tim Osman! (nt)

[msanthrope]

85. I've written at least two OPs documenting this.....why would you think the Bush

Administration was competent in figuring out who was a terrorist, and who wasn't? Awlaki hosted four 9/11 highjackers in his mosques...and this wasn't picked up by our Intelligence services. The FBI wanted to arrest him in 2002....but he'd fled to the UK by then.

[ND-Dem]

99. wow. interesting. who invited him and to lecture about what? and then after being our

guest we drone him and his son?

bad manners, that.

[JonLP24]

7. It is blind faith the government is making the right calls when

using these kind of powers who Obama trusted John Brennan to make these calls on his own without his approval. That is an information made aware of from an article based on the relationship between Barack Obama & John Brennan during the Senate Torture Report hearings. What is behind the approvals is John Brennan doesn't need them because Obama trusts him so much. (I'll dig for the article, trust me it exists).

Now the blind faith people are going to doubt this information but the information shouldn't matter, it is allowing a President CIA Director with these powers. Even if the blind faith people have it now, what about when new people take up these jobs? You shouldn't have blind faith in something a sociopath could easily ruin other people's life with, they wouldn't want to be the other end of that cold reality check but it seems the thing blind faith people lack is a cold reality check which is something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. By cold reality checks I mean things like being locked away in a mental institution and being "gaslighted" for the rest of your life.

[2banon]

13. Interestingly, all these concerns were held with high regard when dumbya/cheney was in office..

real journalists largely respected, reported all sorts of news that were source of widely and commonly shared outrage, with the exception of the occasional turf wars between competitors who posted here at the time (those were strange, toxic sludge to wade through)..

When the Reich wing returns to power all of these currently swept aside questions will be of utmost importance.. but until then... um, not so much.

[JonLP24]

18. We are three decades away from CIA/Ricky Ross/Contras, murder of Nicholas Deak

now it is OK to give a CIA director & President approval to kill Americans without due process when the worst known corruption that ever took place happened under a President Reagan through the CIA. I never could figure out how the Republican party worships Reagan but not find one bit of that troubling. That is besides the point, now some Democrats don't find giving a CIA Director & President an extra power and trusting it under the assumption that they're doing the right thing with the right information and they wouldn't cover anything up one bit troubling.

[2banon]

20. make that 3 decades.. :)

[Blue_Tires]

8. Really? So now we've descended to whitewashing Anwar al-Awlaki?

The man who lived deep in Al Qaeda territory, had considerable influence in that group (he may not have been the big leader, but it's clear he was *a* leader), called for attacks against the U.S., and although no "I order you to do this"-direct proof has been uncovered, it's just a random coincidence that the perpetrators of numerous attacks all sought his counsel at one time or another...

Did I miss anything?

I realize he was an American citizen, but isn't there some law somewhere which says all bets are off once he joined an entity hostile to the U.S.??

EDIT: Yes, evidently DU is in favor of whitewashing the reputation of a documented terrorist just because he's the cause celebre of a couple of bloggers...

[geek tragedy]

10. Same people who claim that there is no evidence

Al-Awlaki broke the law also claim there's proof we "murdered bin laden while he was in our custody."

Sympathies are obvious.

[JonLP24]

23. Does it matter to you if he was?

Because he easily could have been put into custody based on the evidence provided (unarmed, several seals) not that I'm making an argument myself, but if it matters if he was killed in custody is true or not then what about could have easily been put into custody? To me a shooting slightly before being put into custody doesn't make a difference than right after being put into custody so not sure the point here unless one is significantly worse than the other to you.

[geek tragedy]

39. After custody is murder.

Before custody, in a hostile terrorist location as part of a military action, perfectly legal to put a cap in him. That is what states do to their enemies.

There was nothing easy about that mission. One of the copters was destroyed. This was a dangerous environment and the idea they could have easily arrested him with no risk to their own safety is rubbish.

No obligation to take military enemies prisoner if they aren't surrendering. Law of war is clear on that.

[JonLP24]

47. Where I'm going with this ist a

He easily could have been put into custody (and this is based on the available to the evidence as I understand it)

If you agree with that than why would a murder in custody be so much worse, it is basically the same.

How difficult the mission was is irrelevant to the point until they entered Osama's room (I'm trying to narrow the paramaters)

---

I see from a legal perspective it is different if they put the cuffs on but the only thing I'm certain that could have happened is they could have easily detained him, easily. So I don't find much a difference between the 2 myself. Whether he surrendered or not, I have no idea except for claims he didn't surrender but I don't care if he did or didn't, he easily could have been (I'm actually not concerned about this one since the objective was to kill him and since he easily could be classified an 'enemy combatant' than have a legal right to do just that) the he didn't surrender claims lose credibility with him since whether he did or didn't and I never blindly accept a claim from someone who has that kind of power over a situation.

I'm actually concerned about the other deaths since they're harder to justify but I have never looked into them.

[geek tragedy]

55. The law does matter. Same reason that shooting soldiers on the battlefield is okay

but if they're captured you have to treat them for their injuries.

Again, I think you use the word "easily" too loosely.

It was an active combat situation. Yes, it's very possible they COULD have detained them, but that would have increased the risk to them. They didn't know who was behind any given door, under any given bed, etc etc.

Detaining him would have increased the risk of one of the team members being injured or killed. Dead men aren't risks. Live struggling ones are an immediate risk as well as having the ability to distract the SEALs from other threats.

[2banon]

21. apparently, you haven't quite understood the point of this story.. better have another listen/read.

yeah, you've missed a fairly significant point.

[JonLP24]

22. How about reliable and accurate information no matter what it says?

It is one thing to say all this, it is another to get a not guilty verdict based on the claims which is why due process is a concern.

[Blue_Tires]

50. Well, even Scahill admits Anwar al-Awlaki

1. Was a part of AQ, and 2. Called for attacks on the U.S....We can debate for days on how big his role truly was, but there is no dispute that his role was more involved than that of a common foot soldier...What else do I need to know beyond that? There's your treason conviction right there with a bow on it...

On the flipside, how many Americans would you have been willing to put in the line of fire in an effort to "arrest" Anwar al-Awlaki, considering that he wasn't even the #1 guy??

And for the record, just because Scahill can find some inconsistencies in past stories, it doesn't exonerate al-Awlaki, nor does it change the overall narrative anymore than the couple hundred inconsistencies I've documented about Eddy Snowden has changed *that* narrative...

[JonLP24]

58. Out of everyone here that took an opposing view

in this thread or the other one, you actually made an attempt to discuss the claims he made.

I think a good way to sort out the fiction and the truth is start on the things that are agreed on and work from there.

These are the things I know for sure are true. His name, he is an American citizen, was killed after a secret approval which didn't require due process. Anything after that I have no idea what is being made up about what and by who.

To me, even if there wasn't one single inconsistency and Obama was 100% correct in the information that was shared to justify the secret approval it doesn't change the narrative that it is a troubling power that the executive branch shouldn't be allowed that much power (too much power leads to bad, very bad things).

As to treason, he wasn't convicted of treason so that doesn't do it for me personally. I wouldn't break the law or give that kind of power no matter what the alternative is. That kind of thinking leads to "unconstitutional policing" where they break the law to arrest & convict people their "6th sense" knows is really guilty. The obvious fascist isn't the biggest threat to our constitution, it is those that come up with things like "Thinthread" "secret approvals" to get after people he otherwise wouldn't get because the law gets in the way.

[sabrina 1]

113. Where were charges filed against Awlaki, which court, what was the evidence presented?

Thank you, last I heard this country is still a country that abides by its Constitution.

Or are you in agreement with Bush that HE alone had the rights of a king?

[Blue_Tires]

114. And the last I checked, when you join forces

with a sworn enemy of the United States, you take your chances along with everyone else...I give less than a fuck about where his passport originated from...

And again I ask: How many Americans are you willing to put in the line of fire to "arrest" him? That's what I thought...

If you have some magical proof that he wasn't in AQ, by all means I'd love to see it...

[sabrina 1]

116. I asked you some questions, I noticed you avoided answering them.

Our system is based on the accused NOT having to prove anything, the burden of proof rests with the Prosecutions.

Do you know why that is? How dangerous it is to force the accused to prove a negative? Are you aware of the centuries of history the Founding Fathers studied where THAT WAS THE case, before deciding that an accused had RIGHTS to defend themselves?

I know Bush and his supporters argued that if the Government accused someone that was all we needed, but who in their right mind believed a word those lying War Criminals had to say?

Wait, maybe you did??

I, otoh, trust our Judicial System, and oppose the denial of ANYONE accused of ANY crime, to access to that system.

WHAT WERE THE CHARGES AGAINST AWLAKI and WHICH COURT WERE THEY PRESENTED IN?

[Blue_Tires]

115. The ironic part of this whole discussion is

Even the most ardent zealots concede Awlaki was AQ...The only "debate" is over what Awlaki specifically did for them, and how much influence he had...

Personally, I'd have thought (in a bizarro sane world) that the left would try to find one of the many victims who were identified and willfully executed by a strike who turned out to be completely innocent instead of throwing their political weight behind a dead end...

[sabrina 1]

118. And on what is tht 'concession' based? Where are the charges? Why is that such a difficult question

to answer? Yes, I know, the Government has made allegations, we know that. But he was given the Death Penalty, along with his TEENAGED SON, also a US citizens.

Now, please show us the EVIDENCE, not 'what everyone knows' that warranted that sentence??

I, eg, KNOW, that Ted Bundy was a serial killer. Still, that wasn't enough for the death penalty, without EVIDENCE being presented in a trial.

Now, explain to us why we are now dispensing with Due Process based on what some anonymous Government sources tell us?

Really, it's not hard. Are we a country that is based on the Rule of Law, or are we a Monarchy, where all we need is the word of 'Government Sources'??

Thanks, I am still hoping you will address the main issue here.

[Dwayne Hicks]

12. Its threads like these

That cause people to call liberals and progressives "terrorist sympathizers".

[geek tragedy]

17. When people claim that bin laden was "murdered"

by the US after he was "in our custody" while proclaiming the innocence of Al awlaki make their sympathies an open question.

[JonLP24]

24. I'm a "truth sympathizer"

on that point the only truth I know is his name, he is an American-citizen, was killed with a secret approval that didn't require due process. That's all I know is true.

[Blue_Tires]

57. Keep seeking it...

Go to Yemen and see for yourself what he was into...Go watch some of the hundreds of lectures he uploaded to video sites...

[JonLP24]

59. and it doesn't appear that is being claimed otherwise in the OP

which goes back to the "terrorist sympathizer" I made my response to. If a journalist investigates & comes back with information that accurately reflects the information as a result from that investigation I have a hard time with calling either that person or the person who posted that information a terrorist sympathizer. That just rubs me the wrong way when only the truth should be reported.

[stevenleser]

29. Yeah? Well just remember how many of us disagreed with the OP and those attempting to support them.

[JonLP24]

36. More worried about what the right wing thinks than making sure the facts are correct

All someone did was lay out some facts, whether they're true or not I have no idea but they're facts nonetheless. All people do react is with face palms and say this is why the right wing calls us "terrorist sympathizers". Why, exactly? Because truth is being told? Or is it because they're lies? Why do people disagree? I don't see a counter argument to the facts he is laying out or counter sources. Why is it bad there those that are attempting to support the OP? Because since he is already discredited as a terrorist, any attempt to report facts (that I have yet to see an argument pointing out anything he said was incorrect except an admission we may not have proof to the claims the US made against him) should not be supported? I think truth is a noble cause, no matter where it leads to.

[stevenleser]

38. No, that is your strawman. nt

[JonLP24]

48. OK, why exactly?

Why do you disagree?

Why is it bad there those that are attempting to support the OP?

I removed a lot of straw mans and things that weren't straw mans. It still seems we can't have a debate between "corruption vs not corruption"

[geek tragedy]

61. People like Scahill and Greenwald intentionally omit stuff like this:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/europe/02/28/uk.terror.verdict/index.html

A key part of the prosecution case was a series of heavily encrypted messages between al-Awlaki and Karim, in which al-Awlaki pressed for information about Karim's job and his knowledge of airport security.

"I pray that Allah may grant us a breakthrough through you ... 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?"

Karim replied: "The kuffar (a derogatory term for non-Muslims) are planning to install full body scanners across UK airports. This allows them to see things under clothes."

But he warned al-Awlaki to be realistic: "You are probably hoping that I work at the airport, but the fact is I don't. I personally know two brothers, one who works in baggage handling at Heathrow and another who works in airport security. Both are good practising brothers and sympathize towards the cause of the mujahedeen."

Replying, al-Awlaki got straight to the point:

"Our highest priority is the U.S. Anything there, even 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 person with a package on board a flight heading to the U.S.?"

This was evidence, admitted in contested proceedings in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Scahill NEVER EVEN MENTIONED IT.

This is why the Scahill/Greenwald crowd gets accused of trying to whitewash terrorists--because they have been busted doing exactly that.

[JonLP24]

62. How do you know it was intentional?

is it an assumption or do you have something more than a hunch to back the statement up?

[geek tragedy]

64. The alternative is that he is an amazingly incompetent researcher

Who just happens to keep himself ignorant of information that contradicts the argument he's trying to make.

Hard to consider him credible either way.

[JonLP24]

66. Well, I wouldn't know if it would reasonably slip past him based on the available information is out

there or didn't come across through the focus of the investigation.

It is also hard to consider the government's claims against the US citizen credible if they misrepresented & everything else he claimed the government did. Is there information out there the government intentionally or amazingly incompetently left out? You see if, if he is discredited because it would be hard to consider the government's claim credible if he is telling the truth about their claims. Still, left something out wouldn't prove or disprove the claims he makes and when it comes to the claims, I'm only interested is it true?

[geek tragedy]

70. I've said in the past the real problem with al awlaki is that there is no limit on what

the executive can do, or must do, etc. The executive has been left to come up with its own standards, comply with its own standards, and judge itself by its own standards.

When it comes to the use of armed force overseas, Congress needs to involve itself.

[JonLP24]

71. I guess we are in agreement

because I oppose secret approvals 100% of the time.

[JI7]

35. they are conspiracy theorists . not liberal or progressive

[JonLP24]

40. Is it a conspiracy theory from factual information

or is it a conspiracy theory like "free masons run the world" when actual evidence shows anyone can become a free mason, they mostly do charity work.

[Cha]

45. Exactly, Dwayne Hicks. Not in my name.

[Renew Deal]

46. Do you have any proof that the person posting this thread is actually liberal?

And while you're at it, do you have any proof you are?

[MrMickeysMom]

68. This must be "opposite day" for your posting...

Given that you read and assemble the words before you for thought, it follows that threads like THIS ONE demonstrate what constitutes liberal thought.

[SidDithers]

14. ...

What a pantload.

Sid

[stevenleser]

27. Yep, pathetic. nt

[GGJohn]

30. My sentiments exactly. eom

[Vattel]

25. When time permits, the police should get a warrant.

When time permits, the executive should not deprive a citizen of his life or liberty without judicial review of the grounds for doing so. These are some of the basic principles that underlie the fourth amendment and the due process clause. Unless al-Awlaki posed an immediate threat when he was killed, Obama violated these principles in approving the assassination of al-Awlaki. That is disturbing.

[Maedhros]

34. Bush redefined "imminent threat" when he justified invading Iraq in 2003.

Lost in the apologetics is the fact that Obama has accepted Bush's interpretation and used it to justify the al-Awlaki execution.

[ND-Dem]

100. +100. like a number of things the democrats have accepted from republicans.

[stevenleser]

26. There is no misconception no matter how many times you try to tell us that there is one.

We have heard all of this before and we are not convinced.

If you hang around with Al Qaeda and at least appear to be on their side, 95%+ of America will not shed a tear for you if you end up on the wrong side of a missile/bomb or bullet.

There is no reason for an American citizen to be hanging around Al Qaeda.

[HERVEPA]

31. Terrible thing to kill him

I'm sure he loved his mother and she loved him. (yes, sarcasm)

[JaneyVee]

32. Damn I feel bad for people who will twist themselves into...

A pretzel to defend a terrorist instead of having humility to admit they may have been wrong.

[Renew Deal]

43. I'm glad someone stood up to defend the admitted terrorist.

Too bad they couldn't drone strike him again.

[Maedhros]

52. al-Awlaki did not admit to being a terrorist.

Please provide proof.

Also, I am not standing up for al-Awlaki - I'm standing up for the rule of law, due process and habeus corpus.

[Blue_Tires]

54. He admitted it by his actions

You know, by joining Al-Qaeda? Calling on attacks against the U.S.? How many more times do I need to keep pointing that out?

[Ykcutnek]

69. Sticklers are gonna stick. nt

[ND-Dem]

101. standing up for the rule of law is a losing battle around here if you're perceived as sticking

up for unpopular entities. you'll get laughed at, called names, reviled, and they'll try to boot you.

when I took constitutional law, we were taught that the beauty of our system was that it stuck up for the reviled and unpopular. the democratic party appeared to stand for that ideal as well. I've always believed it was true.

but the country, and the democratic party, seems to be changing into something unrecognizable.

[Maedhros]

106. Oh, I know - look at some of the posts elsewhere in this thread attacking my character

for "defending terrorists."

I frankly don't care. As I've posted before, if these people will accept due-process-free execution of citizens identified as Enemies of the State by the President, what can they object to with a straight face?

[ND-Dem]

117. i hear ya.

[msanthrope]

51. Imma let you finish......

http://m.

[Blue_Tires]

60. FWIW, at least three Americans fighting for ISIS have been killed...

I don't see Greenwald's cabal and the ACLU taking up their cause...

Let's just cut the bullshit and call this what it is: With the troubles in France, and the subsequent news reports that al-Awlaki met with at least of the perps is a huge embarrassment for Greenwald's cabal and the ACLU, since they've spent so much effort defending him, and making him their cause célèbre...What Scahill is doing is the old-fashioned pre-emptive Media Relations 101 "Get our talking points out first while attacking the other stories, and hope to God that nothing else damaging comes out..."

Nothing more...

That's DU's "media management" lesson for today...You're welcome

[stevenleser]

72. +10^10^100, this should be its own OP. Greenwald's bullshit needs more exposure. nt

[msanthrope]

75. You have it exactly correct....this is an embarrassment to GG. So Awlaki is being

whitewashed, because Greenwald and Scahill don't want to have to defend their hypocrisy.

[Tarheel_Dem]

124. +1. You win this hilarious thread!

[Ykcutnek]

67. One of this President's greatest accomplishments.

[stevenleser]

73. And by the way, you bolded the wrong part

Whatever potential relationship Awlaki had to the Kouachi brothers, the media coverage of Awlaki’s history has been riddled with inaccuracies, exaggerations of his role within AQAP and passing of anonymous US government pronouncements as facts. There is no doubt that Anwar Awlaki very publicly called on Muslims in Western countries to conduct attacks in the U.S. and Europe or to travel to Yemen, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere to fight jihad. Awlaki very publicly called for the assassination of cartoonists and others who he saw as disgracing the Prophet Mohammed. But Awlaki was never the “leader” of AQAP, and the title bestowed on him by President Obama in announcing Awlaki’s death — head of external operations — was created by the U.S., not AQAP. In fact, when the actual leader of AQAP, Nasir al Wuhayshi, wrote to Osama bin Laden in 2010, asking for his blessing to put Awlaki in charge of the group, Bin Laden shot it down.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

There you go, that's the part that should have been bolded.

Game, set match. To hell with al-Awlaki, he got what he deserved.

[Blue_Tires]

74. More info:

If the claim of direct responsibility holds up, it would make the attacks in France the deadliest planned and financed by Al Qaeda on Western soil since the transit bombings in London in 2005 that killed 52 people. And it would serve as a reminder of the continued danger from the group at a time when much of the attention of Europe and the United States has shifted to the Islamic State, the militant organization that controls large swaths of Syria and Iraq and has become notorious for beheading hostages.

The new information about the Kouachi brothers could help explain what Chérif Kouachi told a French television station before his death last week: that he had gone to Yemen in 2011, probably through Oman, and was financed by Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric who oversaw attacks against the West by Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, also known as AQAP. The American authorities now believe Chérif most likely had contact with Mr. Awlaki in Yemen, possibly in person. But it is still unclear what specific guidance the Qaeda branch gave to the Kouachis about carrying out an attack, though it is believed that the satirical magazine was one of the targets discussed, an American counterterrorism official said.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/15/world/europe/al-qaeda-in-the-arabian-peninsula-charlie-hebdo.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/video/world/europe/100000003440575/before-dying-french-suspects-speak-out.html

[Thinkingabout]

76. Conspiracy theories lives in the hearts and minds of those prone to believing them.

Count me out on believing them, they are labeled as terrorist, put themselves out to be terrorist. We have lost American lives who was given due process, frankly I don't feel bad for the reaction, they should expect the results.

[elias49]

77. Isn't it ironic that al-Awlaki was imam at a Falls Church, VA

about 5 miles from CIA headquarters at Langley?

[msanthrope]

78. Nothing ironic about it.....he also hosted 4 9/11 hijackers at his mosques. He was an operative,

and anyone who couldn't figure that out (Bush's intelligence services) really fell down on the job. That Scahill and Greenwald continue to completely ignore the evidence presented against Awlaki in Yemeni, British, and American courts suggests they think some of their readership is too stupid to read.

By the time the FBI got around to him in 2002,he'd taken off for the UK.

[Octafish]

79. Amazing gusto for killing on the part of many!

For oil! For power! For empire!

There is nothing more tyrannical than taking another's life on a whim or diktat.

Thank you for a very important post, Maehdros!

[Maedhros]

81. I'm shocked and appalled at the number of people on this site - ostensibly Liberals -

who shrug at this and say "Meh." Or even worse, cheer for it.

This behavior by a President is the most anti-democratic possible.

[Octafish]

87. Does Uncle Sam Have a God Complex?

Norman Solomon
Posted: 07/15/2014 4

SNIP...

Testifying to a committee of the German parliament in Berlin two weeks ago, Binney -- whose 30 years at the NSA included work as a high-level intelligence official -- said that the NSA has a "totalitarian mentality."

Days later, speaking at a conference in London, Binney explained: "At least 80 percent of fiber-optic cables globally go via the U.S. This is no accident and allows the U.S. to view all communication coming in. At least 80 percent of all audio calls, not just metadata, are recorded and stored in the U.S. The NSA lies about what it stores."

Since last summer, a backup source of strength for the voices of Binney, Thomas Drake, Kirk Wiebe and other NSA whistleblowers -- the fact that Snowden has provided the public with NSA documents -- is exactly what has enraged U.S. officials who want to maintain and escalate their surveillance power. Because of those unveiled documents, clarity about what the NSA is really doing has fueled opposition.

NSA surveillance proliferates in a context that goes well beyond spying. The same mentality that claims the right to cross all borders for surveillance -- using the latest technologies to snoop on the most intimate communications and private actions of people across the globe -- is also insisting on the prerogative to cross borders with the latest technologies to kill.

When a drone or cruise missile implements an assumed right to snuff out a life, without a semblance of due process, the presidential emulation of divine intervention is implicit.

CONTINUED...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/norman-solomon/does-uncle-sam-have-a-god_b_5586881.html

Guy may be under a lot of pressure, but it's amazing to see the Buy Partisan support for war in DC among those in his -- OUR -- own Party.

People forget Vietnam. And the Cold War. And who armed Iraq. And why no Bankster or Warmonger or Traitor who LIED AMERICAN INTO WAR ON IRAQ has been brought to justice. Just sayin'.

[BainsBane]

90. I'm amazed how much energy some of you devote to defending guys like this

with not a single word to say in support of ordinary Muslims who are broadbrushed with Islamophobia. What is it you really care about? Human rights or power in Washington?

[Maedhros]

93. I'm not defending al-Awlaki, I'm defending the rule of law, due process and habeus corpus.

Why aren't you?

[BainsBane]

94. Yeah, I've been busy trying to dislodge Islamophobia

People who think it acceptable to condemn all Muslims for the actions of guys like Al-Awlaki and the Paris shooters. I've seen you no where in those discussions.

I don't know the law on killing Americans at war with the US. I can't claim to defend the rule of law when I don't know it. I don't know if habeus corpus even extends outside the borders of the US. I do defend equality and human rights and speak out regularly against bigotry toward all kinds of groups, including Muslims. I don't recall seeing you guys in those discussions. Of course, I'm talking about ordinary people, like those who live in my community and in the ghettos of Paris, not the wielding of the levers of power.

[ND-Dem]

103. How do you propose to protect people from various 'phobias' without a functioning rule of law?

[BainsBane]

96. Speaking of the rule of law

I remember not too long ago being told by someone who takes your view on this issue that enforcing the rule of law against rape in regard to an accused, famous individual was tantamount to throwing democracy under the bus. Somehow "democracy" meant ignoring the law for the benefit of the famous, and to hell with his alleged victims. I don't recall your position on that issue, but the other poster stands out in my mind because I never got an explanation for how holding that person accountable for a rape investigation did any damage to his cause or the information that had already been made public. It seemed to boil down to great men being above reproach. So I'm not entirely convinced of this rule of law explanation.

Edit: I just Googled your name with Assange. I hope what I found was by someone else who happens to use the same name online because it was probably the worst comment on the subject I have ever seen.

[Maedhros]

97. Wow. [n/t]

[ND-Dem]

102. LINO?

[EX500rider]

82. "For oil! For power! For empire!"

How about to protect American citizens who haven't gone to Yemen to join Al Qaeda and plot the killing of US citizens?
That a OK reason?

[msanthrope]

83. Let's not bring facts into this. nt

[Octafish]

84. No. Not if you say so. And not if the president says so.

The point to remember, though, is a government that kills its citizens without trial is tyrannical. When the POTUS, whether Bush or Obama, and the AG, whether Alberto Gonzalez or Eric Holder, orders the murder of an American citizen with drones or anything else, it is un-Constitutional and illegal. That makes it un-American.

How about arresting the guy and putting him on trial? Maybe he can tell us who else is involved. Furthermore, instead of creating more enemies, we'd be rounding up the traitors, etc. And we wouldn't be killing God only knows how many innocent men, women and children who have never attacked America on September 11 or any other day. So, there's that going for justice.

Then again, a lot of assholes depend on their living for war. Carlyle Group knows who they are.

[msanthrope]

86. I wonder at your American exceptionalism. Why does it make a difference if it is a citizen? nt

[Octafish]

88. Thanks for chipping in. Not that I don't feel that way.

It's just that in the context of the Constitution and what it says, you know, "Due Process" or whatnot lawyer stuff. Really, you know the drill.



Personally, the ones responsible for the torture? I want them also to face justice. For if the situation were reversed, the "Money trumps peace" crowd would call in their colleagues expert at torture and see what happens when they applied the screws to find out everything and everyone. But, that's them and not me.

[msanthrope]

89. Why do you think Awlaki wasn't given due process? It's a common mistake of law and fact that

I see often made on this board....but under the law, a non-custodial member of Al Qaeda involved in operations is subject to kill or capture, regardless of their citizenship.

[Octafish]

107. The fact he was vaporized before he could give his side of the story.

The fact his son was vaporized before he could give his side of the story.

The fact that dead men don't tell tales.

Oh. And just because John Yoo and David Addington said it's due process, doesn't make it so. Don't take my word for it, ask the ACLU:

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/five-takeaways-newly-released-drone-memo

[msanthrope]

119. Mr. Awlaki not only posted hundreds of videos to YouTube telling his side of the story, he

refused to particpate in his father's and the ACLU's lawsuit challenging his designation as a terrorist. He did not challenge his UN 1267 designation. He ran away from his Yemeni murder conviction.

Mr. Awlaki managed to make death threats against innocent cartoonists, and yet even with a magazine at his disposal...his side of the story could not come out? What rot.

[Octafish]

120. Like I couldn't post a bunch of YouTube stuff and put ''msanthrope'' up as its author.

Yours is an odd disregard for the Constitution.

[msanthrope]

121. He was in the videos, preaching hate. He had a magazine at his disposal. The ACLU

apparently tried to get him to join his father's next friend lawsuit. He had the option of surrendering to Yemen, which is where his criminal conviction for murder was, or he could have surrendered to the UN, the World Court, or any number of options.

Here's a constitutional tip.....you cannot flee justice and try to invoke it.

He chose to spend his time threatening cartoonists and trying to send PETN bombs to synagogues. Good riddance.

[BainsBane]

91. I guess I don't know why it makes so much difference that he was American

Does that make his life more valuable? Or are you disputing the president's right to wage war? Also I can't help but see your name and think of JFK, one of the biggest Cold Warriors around. Your contempt for Obama and hero worship for Kennedy seem incongruous to me.

[EX500rider]

92. "Not if you say so. And not if the president says so."

Are you saying he didn't join AlQueda and go to Yemen?
He was just a innocent tourist who wandered away from the group at a stop in the tourist hotspot Yemen?

You don't get a trial when you join the other side in a war. You get shot or blown up.

[Octafish]

105. Good point. But we don't know that, do we?

We never got a chance to ask him. Or his teen-age son, who also was a citizen before he got turned into bug splat before questioning or trial. Here's a nice overview:

The Year in Drones

2014 Was a Good Year For Drones, 2015 Might be Even Better

by Charles Pierson
CounterPunch, Jan. 7, 2014

2014 was a good year for US killer drones. In October, the US celebrated (if that is the word) its 400th drone strike on Pakistan. Unable to attend the festivities were the 2,379 Pakistanis killed by US drones since 2004. Of these, only 12% of the victims who have been identified have been linked to militant organizations, this according to an October report from the independent British-based Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Drone victims have been largely invisible to Americans. An exception is the family of Rafiq ur Rehman, a Pakistani schoolteacher. On October 24, 2012, a US drone killed Rafiq’s 67-year old mother while she was gathering okra behind the Rehmans’ home in Waziristan in Pakistan’s tribal areas. A year later, on October 29, 2013, Rafiq and his two young children testified before Congress. The Rehmans were brought to Capitol Hill by Representative Alan Grayson (D-FL) and Robert Greenwald, director of Unmanned: America’s Drone Wars. This was the first—and, so far, the only—time drone victims had testified before Congress. The Rehmans might just as well have saved themselves the trip. Only five members of Congress showed up to listen to the Rehmans’ testimony.

SNIP...

No Judge, No Jury, No Trial—No Problem!

US drones are lethal, but they aren’t toxic. Not politically toxic, not yet. Like the neutron bomb which kills people without damaging buildings, drones kill people without harming political careers. Case in point: on May 22 of 2014, the Senate confirmed David Barron’s nomination to a federal judgeship. Barron had worked in the DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel. While there, Barron had co-authored a memo providing Obama with legal cover for the targeted assassination of an American citizen: Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-born al-Qaeda member. Al-Awlaki was killed by a drone on September 30, 2011 in Yemen. Al-Awlaki’s 16-year old son was killed in a separate drone attack.

Barron’s memo remained classified until a federal appeals court forced the White House to release a redacted version on June 22, 2014…after Barron had been confirmed.

Al-Awlaki is one of four US citizens killed by drones. Shall we try for five? Last February, the Associated Press reported that the Obama Administration was contemplating a drone strike on a fifth US citizen: an al-Qaeda member living in Pakistan and known by the nom de guerre Abdullah al-Shami (Abdullah the Syrian). So far, there have been no reports of al-Shami’s demise. But the lesson to take away is that the Obama Administration still believes it can kill Americans without due process of law.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/01/07/the-year-in-drones/

I, too, hate traitors. That's why I want to see Bush and Cheney and the rest of them who lied America into war without end in prison for the rest of their natural days. Rather than giving them a last request and a bullet, theirs would make a great example to deter future generations from following in their crooked footsteps.

[EX500rider]

108. "But we don't know that, do we?"

Yes we do know that.

He did go to Yemen and join al Qaeda....he was even the founder of Inspire, the english language online magazine that contained articles exhorting the faithful to try and kill the enemies of Islam anyway they can along with tips on how to do that as well as guidance on how to avoid being detected and killed before you carry out this sacred mission.

[Octafish]

109. What about his 16-year-old son?

We don't know what he was doing in Yemen, other than being there. For some still Top Secret reason, he was vaporized without telling his side of the story, like his father.

The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, representing the parents and grandparents of Anwar Al-Aulaqi, Samir Khan, and 16-year-old Abdulrahman Al-Aulaqi, filed the lawsuit in 2012, charging that the killings violated the Constitution's fundamental guarantee against the deprivation of life without due process.

https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/relative-americans-killed-drone-strikes-no-justice-us-courts

So, while we have the government's side of the story, we also know the US government lies repeatedly when it comes to the "money trumps peace" department. Especially the secret parts.

[EX500rider]

110. He wasn't the target.

According to US officials, the killing of Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was a mistake; the intended target was an Egyptian, Ibrahim al-Banna, who was not at the targeted location at the time of the attack.

[Octafish]

111. He's still dead.

Collateral damage is what some call him.

I wouldn't have voted for killing him, if that counts for anything.

[bhikkhu]

95. The killing of Al-awlaki was an act of war

we can say its not been much of a war, as its against a scattering of extremists rather than a nation-state, but the act itself was done by the military under the war powers act and the AUMF, according to the normal standards of how that sort of thing has been carried out for ages by every other president.

...and like most wars, whether we approve of them or not, whether we asked for them or not, or whether we think they're bogus or not, citizenship is much less relevant than the side you're fighting for. Nobody questions which side Al-Awlaki chose, and calling it a "murder" because he never got to argue his side in court is more than a bit ridiculous.

[Maedhros]

98. There is some question as to whether the AUMF covers Yemen.

AQAP is a regional organization that was not involved in the 9/11 attacks, thus the AUMF would not apply.

I understand your argument, but reject it on the grounds that it requires the Neocon idea that the entire world is a battlefield in a never-ending war against an asymmetrical tactic. It requires Double Think: we are not at war, so we don't have to abide by the Geneva Conventions, but we're at war, so we can kill whom we please.

[ND-Dem]

104. the geneva conventions? down the memory hole with them, along with everything that doesn't

fit the shape of the new world order

[sabrina 1]

112. No matter how egregious the crime, assuming he was involved, to throw away the Constitutional right

of a US Citizen to an open trial, to know what the specific charges against an individual are, is far more of a threat to this democracy than any terrorist could pose.

Those who fail to understand this, and most Democrats did during the Bush era where this un-Constitutional claim that the President has the Powers of a King, began, are also a bigger threat to this democracy which at one time we on the Left all appeared to agree with, than any outside threat could possibly pose.

Good for Scahill and all those who still value our 'freedoms' one of which is the right to a trial, habeaus corpus etc. because they do understand and were not just pretending when Bush was in the WH.

[Blue_Tires]

125. Any more "misconceptions" to clear up?