if your opposed to the killing of al-awlaki what would you have done?

[rdking647]

if you were president and you knew where he was and had a chance to take him out what would you have done???

[uppityperson]

1. damned if you do, damned if you don't. eom

[MineralMan]

2. Send him a memo on White House letterhead asking him to

stop doing that? That sort of what I expect some are thinking, beyond all reason.

You ask an excellent question.

[msanthrope]

6. Maybe we could have sent him a letter saying he'd won something, like when the cops lure criminals

with promises of free tickets?


http://blog.al.com/montgomery/2011/08/gotcha_auburn_police_lure_dead.html


Though what would we have offered as a prize?? Beard grooming tools? A satellite phone?

[MineralMan]

39. Nah. Al-Qaeda already offered him virgins in large numbers.

He's already accepted that offer. Perhaps he's now discovered that it was all a lie. But, then, I don't believe in any sort of afterlife, so...:shrug:

[uppityperson]

45. Which, if you take one definition of "virgin" is rather ironic

Virgin meaning not belonging to any man.

http://northernway.org/twm/mary/virgin.html

Not belonging to mother,
not to father,
not to lover,
The Virgin belongs to Herself alone!

[msanthrope]

47. well, maybe.....they were not the virgins they were expecting....

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_-Dqntok-aHM/TAS90Zn0OvI/AAAAAAAAEws/yrcG5sfdr18/s1600/Nuns+with+guns.jpg

[RZM]

I tried this the other day

Didn't really work all that well.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2030334

[bananas]

21. Thanks for that link, glad to see people standing up for due process. nt

[RZM]

26. The point was to get those standing up for due process to describe how to go about it

I saw a lot of standing up for due process in that thread too. I saw a lot less about how to achieve due process.

[Warpy]

37. My list was a little different from yours

I threw it into my journal so I can find it the next time this comes up: http://journals.democraticunderground.com/Warpy

I had no one coming up with viable alternatives, either.

[msanthrope]

3. I want to meet the brave soul here who would have arrested him along with Al-Q's bomber.

Seriously.

[sabrina 1]

4. What Clinton did when a violent terrorst attacked this country.

I certainly would not violate the constitution by using Bush's policies to go after him. Especially since he was not even a leader of any organization despite what the media says. He was barely known in the ME. I would have asked Saleh to arrest him and hand him over.

[msanthrope]

7. Sent cruise missles? nt

[RZM]

11. I'm sure Saleh would have gotten right on that . . .

I imagine that the state department did pressure the Yemenis to deal with al-Awlaki. Thing is, the Yemeni government doesn't have that kind of authority. Certainly not the kind that the FBI and state/local police have in the US, where picking up a McVeigh wasn't very difficult. It wasn't that long ago that there were two Yemens, after all. Besides, Saleh has his hands full with his own problems right now.

And don't forget those missile strikes in Sudan and Afghanistan in 1998. Those were also parts of Clinton's anti-terror policy.

[jpgray]

15. Al-Awlaki was in a Yemeni jail in 2006.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? Signs point to no.

[msanthrope]

22. Then I'm just glad Obama cleaned up Bush's 2006 fuckup. nt

[RZM]

24. That's nice. Was he in one in September 2011? n/t

[The Magistrate]

25. And Was Released As A 'Peace Offering' To His Tribe, Sir: What Is Your Point?

Yemeni jails have been distinctly porous where militant Islamicists are concerned....

[jpgray]

30. My point was that Al-Awlaki had been detained by Yemeni authorities

The poster I replied to treated this as some sort of impossibility or wild fantasy. What is your point?

[The Magistrate]

32. He was Involved In A Kidnap Ring Operating Within Government Controlled Territory, Sir

Once released, he moved where the government's writ does not run. Thus the circumstances changed considerably. Because a man was in reach once does not he is always so.

[jpgray]

36. That we got him in this way does not mean it was the only way to get him.

Here I am not referring to the Hellfire so much as what led up to it and justified it. Everywhere I'm confronted by the idea that laying down the increased powers of the executive since 2001 amounts to abandoning responsible prosecution of the war on terror. I'm surprised to see it so thoroughly entrenched here more than I am dismayed by Al Awlaki's death.

[RZM]

33. I implied no such thing

Yes, he was in jail in 2006. By the end of 2007, he was not in jail. Almost 4 years passed between his release and his death. Why was he not detained again in the interim? Could it be that the Yemeni government calculated that it was not worth the effort, as their priorities are not the same as those of the US government?

Signs point to yes.

[jpgray]

34. In that case I'm sorry. I completely misunderstood your post.

:hi:

[RZM]

38. No problem

This kind of thing happens all the time in international relations. One country has a certain set of priorities while another has a very different set. Al-Awlaki and his ilk are the main concern for the US in Yemen right now. For the Yemenis themselves, they are but one part of a much larger set of concerns.

[sabrina 1]

Saleh was involved in this and helped with it.

Why we are allies with this man who is currently slaughtering his own people is another question. But he probably cooperated hoping the US will help him remain in power despite the fact that his people have been engaged in a bloody uprising against him for nearly a year. He has just returned to Yemen after being in Saudi Arabia and his people were hoping he would not return.

I think since his forces are capable of arresting thousands of people every day, in return for help with his own problems, he would have gladly arrested Awlaqi.

[msanthrope]

19. They did try---

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/11/6/124536/723

[The Magistrate]

13. Actually, Ma'am, President Clinton Made Several Cruise Missile Strikes In Response To Such Attacks

These were intended to kill specific leaders, and failed of this largely because the intelligence capabilities available were much poorer then.

He also sent a strike against properties owned by, or believed to be owned by, the al'Queda organization in Sudan.

President Saleh is in no position to have arrested the man in question, as he resided in an area of Yemen which is in armed revolt against the Yemeni government, and which yemeni forces loyal to President Saleh are unable to enter.

The course of 'arresting' the man would have required a significant military incursion, during which any nmber of people would have certainly been killed, and most of the people complaining about the killing of this fellow would complain just as strenuously about such an 'illegal invasion of Yemen' and the 'dictatorial arrest of a U.S. citizen for speaking his mind', had that been the course chosen.

[sabrina 1]

28. Clinton ordered strikes against people who had actually been involved

in attacks on Americans an American interests. Who did Awlaqi kill, or order killed? He was barely known in the ME and Al Queda itself is no longer an organization of much interest to the people there who are currently engaged in uprisings against their own governments and their own futures.

Awlaqi was here in the US when 9/11 happened. He was known by the FBI to have had contact with two of the hijackers. Despite that he was invited to the Pentagon to help with Bush's outreach program to Muslims. He left and spent time in England before moving to Yemen. The current volatile situation in Yemen did not exist until last year. There has been ample opportunity to arrest him over the past ten years, IF he was such a threat to this country.

All I have seen is that he preached hatred towards the US. Lots of people do that, we preach a lot of hatred towards other countries and actually HAVE caused them harm. But I have no evidence that he had any influence in the ME, and in fact most people there had no idea who he was until after the Fort Hood shootings when his name appeared in the news. And even now, according to reports, he is of little interest to most people there.

So let me ask you this, was Bush right after all to give the POTUS such powers? Were WE wrong to oppose him? And we will we support a President Perry eg, when he also uses those powers?

Does getting one guy whose crimes are unclear, trump protecting the Constitution after all, and Bush was just doing what he had to do also?

One more question. Does Cuba have the right to send a drone here to kill the terrorist now living here, who murdered their citizens?

[The Magistrate]

31. Cuba Can Do Whatever It is Capable Of, Ma'am, Just Like Anyone Else

The rest of this does not alter the case in the slightest: President Clinton did exactly what subsequent administrations have done.

This is what states do in response to attacks against them by private persons.

[sabrina 1]

40. But you have not answered my question. When did Awlaqi attack

this country?

Was Bush right to grant such powers to the POTUS?

Did Clinton do what he did without the consensus of Congress? I know he was refused cooperation to go after Bin Laden when Musharaff took over Pakistan.

Saleh clearly is not wanted by his people so is not in a position to speak for them. He is killing them on the streets for protesting.

But before this happened, he could have arrested Awlaqi, we could have had a trial, and we as people would have known exactly what he is supposed to have done. I don't know what he did, do you? Other than rant on the internet.

As for Cuba, why would the US prevent them from doing what we claim a country has the right to do? How can the US oppose policies it claims to support? Not that it can't of course, Bush did it all the time, but what kind of credibility do we have anymore?

Do you trust the government to tell you that someone is bad and has done bad things and we don't need a trial, just fast forward to the death penalty?

[Bonobo]

50. The argument that Might Equals Right may be true in reality, but in the abstract

it is no way to discuss moral or political philosophy.

[AngkorWot]

41. "people who had actually in involved in attacks on Americans."

Did you know, Sabrina, that Osama bin Laden had never actually committed any suicide attack against Americans?

Trufax.

[Swede]

55. Blow up a tent?

That's what he did.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

5. Arrested him before he left for Yemen, or barring that,

asked the Yemeni authorities to arrest and hold him and then extradite him to be tried for treason.

In the long term, pull the U.S. military out of the Middle East so that the hotheads turn their energies against their own corrupt leaders instead of against the U.S.

Oh, and in the short term, stop being such a scaredy-cat that a mere POSSIBLE threat makes you ready to throw the Constitution in the toilet.

[msanthrope]

9. Um, you do realize that Yemen tried, that right? Yemen had already convicted him

of helping to murder a French citizen...they couldn't arrest him.


"Update: Yemen has deployed hundreds more troops to capture al-Alwaki.

Wanted, dead or alive: A Judge in Yemen has ordered Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and a relative arrested "by any means" to face terrorism charges in connection with the killing of French engineer Jacques Spagnolo last month. The order was issued as hearings got underway in the trial of a third man accused of the murder.

Judge Mohsen Alwan called on prosecutors to "forcibly arrest" Anwar al-Awlaqi and a relative, Othman al-Awlaqi, whom a Sanaa court has charged with "incitement to kill foreigners and members of security services."

Public prosecutor Ali al-Samet told the court the pair had failed to appear for a second time on Saturday before the court that specialises in terrorism cases.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Othman al-Awlaqi, along with Yemeni Hisham Mohammed Assem, are charged with "forming an armed gang to carry out criminal acts and to target foreigners and security forces on behalf of Al-Qaeda.""

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/11/6/124536/723

[Lydia Leftcoast]

46. Yemen "couldn't" arrest him?

Riiiight.

My advice about not being such a scaredy-cat and getting the U.S. troops and military contractors the hell out of the Middle East still stands.

[Cid_B]

10. And when they tell you to fuck yourself?

Or, in the more likely scenario, they show up about 12 hours after a local sympathizer (who is in a position of authority) called and said "Hey, we are on our way. Pack up"

Fuck that al-Awlaki and everyone associated with him...

[RZM]

17. That's the 64K question, isn't it?

It's like that South Park episode with the underpants gnomes.

Step 1 - Identify the terrorists who are US citizens
Step 2 - ?
Step 3 - Try them in the US court system.

[saras]

8. The Middle East ignored him - we could have done the same

We could also have arrested him, taken him prisoner in a military action, or propagandized him further into irrelevance.

But that would imply, incorrectly, the existence of a sane, functional military, CIA, and government.

[msanthrope]

12. Yemen already tried to arrest himhe had been convicted of helping to murder a French citizen there.

Update: Yemen has deployed hundreds more troops to capture al-Alwaki.

Wanted, dead or alive: A Judge in Yemen has ordered Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and a relative arrested "by any means" to face terrorism charges in connection with the killing of French engineer Jacques Spagnolo last month. The order was issued as hearings got underway in the trial of a third man accused of the murder.

Judge Mohsen Alwan called on prosecutors to "forcibly arrest" Anwar al-Awlaqi and a relative, Othman al-Awlaqi, whom a Sanaa court has charged with "incitement to kill foreigners and members of security services."

Public prosecutor Ali al-Samet told the court the pair had failed to appear for a second time on Saturday before the court that specialises in terrorism cases.

Anwar al-Awlaki and Othman al-Awlaqi, along with Yemeni Hisham Mohammed Assem, are charged with "forming an armed gang to carry out criminal acts and to target foreigners and security forces on behalf of Al-Qaeda."



http://www.talkleft.com/story/2010/11/6/124536/723

Kind of difficult to ignore someone who is sending PETN bombs via cargo to the US.

[The Magistrate]

20. His Relevance, Ma'am, Was Not To the Middle East, But To This Country

His position in the organization was as an inspirer and instructor for attacks on the United States. His value was that he knew the country, spoke the language idiomatically, could 'connect' with people who were already largely assimilated, and provide advice and counsel that would enable people to better operate here, outside the strict confines of immigrant communities.

[moondust]

53. Precisely.

Thank you, Sir! Very well stated!

[AngkorWot]

43. "the Middle East ignored him"

The Middle East tried him in absentia and convicted him of his crimes.

"We could have taken him prisoner"

That would have been quite a significant military operation, essentially an invasion, that would have resulted in a lot more dead people.

And you call the military, CIA, and government insane?

[loyalsister]

14. In some alternate twilight zone reality

I think it would be a great lesson for anyone who claims to have all the answers to wake up as an elected official so that they could spend a few days learning just how complicated it really is.

[Puregonzo1188]

16. Well stop propping up the US-puppet regime in Yemen and bombing their people.

Discontinue other polices that foster terrorism as well. We're not exactly the good guys in the Middle East and having a democrat in charge doesn't change that fact.

[timtom]

18. I believe I'd check facts first

before cock-a-doodle-dooing about killing someone who was killed two year past...

http://www.brasschecktv.com/videos/the-war-on-terror-is-a-fraud/anwar-al-awlaki-has-been-killed-before.html

SOMEone's confused...

[TheKentuckian]

23. I'd first state that categorizing my opposition to the system that gives any President

the unchecked power, unquestioned and unquestionable authority, in complete secrecy as being against killing al-Awlaki, per se or distrusting Obama, per se is a complete distortion or at best an utter misunderstanding.

Secondly, I'd bring charges to the courts to start. I'd push for legislation to give judicial and congressional oversight to who could be targeted, at the very least and would seek out any existing avenues to allow for similar oversight in the interim.
If circumstantially forced to take the exact same action I'd go with a completely clandestine operation with our puppet government in Yemen that would allow them to take full credit and avoid my administration supporting the absurd AUMF.

[spanone]

27. this was ordered by the cia. david petreaus.

[Hippo_Tron]

62. If so, it was under rules of engagement signed off on by the President

Obama may not have pulled the trigger but he gave the trigger to the CIA for sure.

[JVS]

29. Spent some time in the last ten years figuring out how to conduct the "war on terror" in a manner...

that violates neither the US constitution nor international law.

It's not like this is a recent conflict and by now we should have been able to either figure out a way to fight it within the boundaries of the constitution or passed the amendments necessary to do it.

[COLGATE4]

35. Nah, the Constitution is so last year. Damned piece of paper, anyway.

Better leave it up to the Unitary Executive who knows best, anyhow. Why should we trouble our pretty little heads about grown-up stuff like this.

[Duer 157099]

42. I thought that we declare war on countries that harbor terrorists

Isn't that what we did in Iraq and Afghanistan?

[demosincebirth]

44. I would send U.S. Marshalls to Yemen to arrest him.

[hack89]

56. What army would escort them? nt

[demosincebirth]

58. R.I. N.G. If they have one.

[hack89]

63. Actually we do - good idea. nt

[rustydog]

48. Since I have PROOF of his crime, I arresthim and put him on trial

like our Constitution demands.

[Bonobo]

49. You cannot reduce this to an individual case.

You cannot change the constitution on a case by case basis.

[Nye Bevan]

51. Good point. Everyone currently in Guantanomo should simply have been killed, instead of taken alive.

Imagine how much aggravation that would have saved. Guantanamo itself would be unnecessary. No agonizing over whether we should have full trials as opposed to military tribunals. No allegations of mistreatment of the inmates. No debates over what kind of legal representation the prisoners were entitled to. No endless lawsuits over the habeus corpus question.

Due process is so damned *messy*. Summary execution is so much quicker and cleaner.

[whatchamacallit]

52. You're right, you won me over. Summarily executing anyone the government claims is a terrorist

is the right thing to do. Hurray us! :patriot: :nuke:

[hack89]

57. Since you refuse to provide an alternative

perhaps there really was no realistic alternative.

[DCBob]

54. send Dog the bounty hunter.

case closed.

[McCamy Taylor]

59. Tell him he was a marked man and then give him two years to stop doing it....

...oh wait! That's what Obama did.

Never mind.

[Codeine]

60. Used a drone to remotely insert an apostrophe and an "e" into your sentence. nt

[Hippo_Tron]

61. I'd find a way to actually define "war on terror" so that it has a finite end date and battlefield

I don't have a problem with using the military to kill people who fight for the enemy, even if they are US citizens. The fact that we may target them for assassination if they are in a war zone, doesn't really bother me that much either.

What I do have a problem with is that we're fighting a war that has no time-line, no boundaries to the battlefield, and no clear enemy. That gives the government the power to justify almost anything for any amount of time.