Anwar al-Awlaki & Samir Khan
 

So earlier today we set the precedent of bombing American citizens if they're terroristy enough. They weren't in a war zone. There was no trial. It wasn't an accident. WTF?

Awlaki, I dunno, I guess you can make the case that he deserved it (fingers in all the recent not-successful bomb attempts, etc). But Samir Khan?

(CNN editorial)

That sounds like freedom of the press to me.

If we can only win by fighting dirty, I dunno if it's worth it to win.

how do you think we won the Revolution way back when?

Guerilla tactics. The Brits were appalled - we fought "dirty" and we won. That is, historically, how you win a war.

Surprise the enemy.

The war zone is the entire planet.

I've read this Inspire - the edition printed after they used a color laser printer to attempt to blow up a UPS plane flying to Chicago. They bragged that the operation only cost $4200 and caused billions in additional security efforts. They said it could be done again. They took credit for an earlier UPS plane explosion in Dubai.

We must kill them because capturing them is too messy.

He was doing much more than using his freedom of speech and press.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...fer_for_n.html

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...than_a_feeling

To my mind, Obama has made the worst decision of his presidency by approving this "targeted killing".

Historicially, I believe Obama will be known as the first Black President
and the President that publicly approved assassination of an American
citizen without trial.

Such extra-legal killings are totally different than attempts to capture and imprison.
Despite who is the target and what he may/may not have done against the US,
there is such a thing as a slippery slope and Obama has stepped on it with both feet.
There will be more killings to come, and justifications will be less and less,
while pride and respect for the American system of justice will deteriorate more and more.

Imma side up with Lamplighter and Ron Paul on this one.

Bwahahahahahaha. Only by people who read about it in books, not anyone who's had to deal with it.

In the bit above about "fighting dirty", what I meant was that if we have to compromise our system of justice and politics in order to 'win the war on terrorism', then we can't really win it at all. Maybe that's a stock line.

But, to quote Adam Serwer:
Refresh my memory of an instance where we dialed back extreme policies -- something to stand as counterpoint to the TSA, the PATRIOT Act, drone strikes, 'enhanced interrogations.'

It seems to me that this is the root tragedy of American policy on terrorism today: you can never turn it off. Any slight shift towards a more relaxed stance on terrorism is "weakness."

Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe I'm cynical, maybe this is all just an unwarranted vomiting of knee-jerk bleeding heart liberalism. I hope it is. But, to my eyes, our recent history is mostly an ever-lengthening list of terrifying things which American citizens are absolutely okay with having done in their names.

America had become a sworn enemy to these men. Effectively making them traitors aligned with terrorists who wish harm on every American, and in essence informally renouncing their citizenship. I highly doubt they had any intention of coming back into the fold of regular, law abiding citizens. Their citizenship on paper had become irrelevant.

If you want this to be in the Constitution permanently, just say so. There will be no shortage of state legislatures more than happy to define planning terrorism against Americans (or their interests) as constituting treason punishable by death.

He denounced his citizenship. He admitted taking part in and planning acts of terror against the US... He declared was against us and lost. I hear the slippery slope argument, but in this instance - nah.

Martin McGuinness is running for Irish Presidency.
Murderer.

Gerry Adams shook President Clinton's hand.
Murderer.

I wouldn't cry if either of them were taken out. Fair means or foul.

Classic, I'm doubting this bit about denouncing his citizenship because
the US Dept of Justice has just prepared a memo to justify his killing,
and it appears from news articles they consider him to still be a US citizen. (Can you cite a source ?)

Just saying you denounce your citizenship is not enough, to wit:

Nope, no source. He did it verbally. Perhaps he didn't do it formally. If I were him I wouldn't have either.

I agree... further down in that source it speaks to the renounciation of citizenship as being irrevocable. No Oooops allowed.

As part of my surfing this, I read something somewhere (???) that even if the person were to follow the rules, the US could decide that it's in the interest of the US to disallow the person to renounce their own citizenship. This struck me as heads I win, tails I win.

Without due process?

I'm sure the state legislatures would lean that way, and perhaps be guided to put in judicial review, but who knows?

This is something I learned from being a Libertarian. Many Ls interpret the Constitution "strictly", as would Radar or Ron Paul. This in turn means that there is no Constitutional provision for a good 40-80% of what the Federal Government does. If one demands "letter of the law" this is where one will end up.

But we interpret the C loosely for a reason. And so demanding a strict interpretation ONLY when finding that it doesn't give us range to deal with the very worst overseas terrorists is a type of hypocrisy.

The injustices dealt to people in our very midst, such as Plthijinx, are turned a blind eye to, but let's make sure al-Awlaki gets handled by the letter of the law. That seems wrong in every way. How does it come to that?

Why do we care about process over justice? My guitarist was unceremoniously thrown in jail on the false witness of his insane ex; yes, he got "due process", but the process almost led to the worst possible outcome: children left fatherless and in the care of someone dangerously mentally ill.

Actual justice should be the desired outcome, not procedure.

But UT, trials are not given to defendants who “deserve” them;
they are for everyone in order to sort the guilty from the innocent.
In that sense, your friend and his girlfriend each deserve their day in court,
as does everyone else... that is, no exceptions based on accusations.

Since the Dept of Justice memo is being kept secret, we will not know if Alwaki received justice or not...
only that he is was an American citizen deliberately killed by his own government without trial.

This decision by Obama is a watershed event.
Perhaps it is the inevitable outcome of recent laws
that give more and more power to the President.
If the original intent of the C was to have a "weak Presidency",
this decision goes beyond any such interpretation.

It's not politics... it's a matter of what kind of government rules us.

I agree, but I believe the best chance of achieving justice is through due process.

You're absolutely right. There are countless cases of injustice, even in situations where the due process of the law is being followed. You barely have to have a longer-term memory than the cable news cycle to come up with examples of strongly, legitimately questioned executions.

So why do we trust that, in situations outside the law, the same system and same government will be more correct, or more accurate, in deciding guilt?

Conor Friedersdorf: I don't really care either way about al-Awlaki. What worries me is the next person, or the one five people after. Who the media picks up as a horrible threat to society just after we drone them, whose story is never really told. Who is assassinated ('targeted for killing', 'bombed', 'present at a drone strike', whatever) for being a terrorist, on the grounds that we decided he was a terrorist.

Yeah, as UT noted, our justice system barely works when we use it. It's working less, the less we fund it. But it doesn't work at all when we we skip it.

One of the reasons I voted for Obama was that I felt it was vitally important for the other half of the country to see what would happen when a Democrat was reading the daily security briefing.

Now that both sides have been having their shot at the WoT, we all notice that some things have changed and some things haven't changed.

The things that haven't changed, I for one feel more confident in.

I believe that the War on Terror is still "on", even as it doesn't feel like it to us every day.

I also believe that the reason it doesn't feel like it to us every day is that the War on Terror is still "on".

It's a slippery slope!

Clinton did his share of bombing terrorists too, didn't he?. This effort on Obama's part will be forgotten soon enough as well, come voting time.

yup - The left will never vote for the opposing candidate. The hard right will do likewise. It's all about those in the middle. Some agree and some don't. I don't think this will have a huge effect either way.

I was going off of section (5)
from here

They both got what they deserved.

By now, no Dwellar should doubt that I support Obama,
and disagree most of what Merc posts in his thread "Obamanation".

But despite issues of what Awlaki and/or Khan did or did not deserve,
there is the issue of Obama approving this extra-legal killing an American citizen.
I, personally, am appalled and see this as a potentially "impeachable offense"...
or at least an historical mega-blot on Obama's presidency.

This 2-page article is the most detailed I have come across on the Dept of Justice's "secret memo":

Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen
NY Times
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: October 8, 2011

This NY Times article goes on to discuss (briefly) some of the arguments and rationales,
as put forth by those involved in creating the memo.

If you were POTUS, what would you have done about Mr. Awlaki instead?

Before turning to paste, amongst other things, he:

= Was "spiritual advisor" to two of the 9/11 hijackers and the "20th hijacker"

= Advised the Fort Hood shooter

= Is considered a "perpetrator" of the Christmas Day Detroit "underwear bomber" attempt

= Made death threats to a Seattle cartoonist

= Inspired the woman who stabbed British politician Stephen Creswell Timms

= Is considered plotter of the UPS cargo planes attempt

That's a pretty impressive resume, what do you do?

UT, this truly is not an issue of what Awlaki did or did not do, or whether he deserved what he got.
As I said before, trials are not for those who "deserve" them, but are to determine guilt or innocence.

If I were POTUS I hope I would think first about the implications of extra-legal killings on the future of the US government.

Second I'd worry less about embarrassing the Yemini government, and very last would be about a political strategy to get re-elected.
Obviously, satisfying a public wish for "revenge" is not in the US's long term best interest.

To posit there was "no other way" is foolish and unbelievable.
The DOJ was giving "advice" to the President, Obama did not have to follow it.
He could have pulled a "Steve Jobs" and told the CIA to go back
to their caves and find, not a better way, but the best legal way.
Apparently they were able to do this with Osama.

FYI he was on the Yemeni top-ten most wanted list and the Yemeni govt had attempted and failed to kill him via bombing.

So your next best answer is to have the Navy Seals go in under cover of night and kill him, instead of having drones do it. Just to be clear.

What the Yemeni's could / could not do is irrelevent

No... the methods make little, if any difference to the issue.
If it's to be the Navy Seals, their mission is to capture, not kill,
with as little collateral (American or Yemeni) damage as possible.

This doesn't sound like it was an impossible task.

Really? Who is to say? You know what their mission is?


Really? Again, how would you know?

I think they really just went to capture Bin Laden.... :rolleyes:

Not.

:lol: What the fuck does that have to do with this discussion?

It must be noted that the briefing has been produced by the same bureaucracy, which bases its existence on certain assumptions about how America is to behave in the world.

For clarity, am I right in assuming that by "both sides" you mean the Democrats and Republicans not pro-war/anti-war or interventionist/non- interventionist.

I would attribute those same things to the momentum of massive bureaucracies.

The war is on and will stay on until we have a President willing to turn it off by admitting that we have lost Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Nobody will be willing to do that unless he can shift blame to a predecessor, since both parties are lashed to the same mast of this sinking ship, we get no policy change.

So now, under the Lamplighter administration, the Navy Seals have al-Awlaki, on a boat in the Arabian Sea, after one of his henchmen and one Navy Seal has been shot.

But you haven't said enough; it's far from over. What does the Lamplighter administration do with him now?

Find the nearest carrier at sea and bring al-Awlaki back to the US
so he can face trial as an American citizen;
and if convicted, and whatever penalty is ascribed by US laws.

Impossible ? no
Inconvenient ? maybe
High crime or misdemeanor ? no

Totally just kidding. I couldn't resist. :p::blush:;):eyebrow::neutral::eek::cool:

Still you have no freaking clue.

"Find the nearest carrier"; Why? Do you know how much that costs for one dude? A Hellfire missle is so much cheaper. I thought you Liberals wanted to save money?

"Impossible, No."; And you would know this how?

"High crime or misdemeanor?"; That is not a level of assessment required.

He gave up his Rights when he joined the other side.

Here I am defending Obama, who'd-a-thunk-it?:p:

Merc solution: Turn him into chum. Go fishing.

Posted by Lampster:
Never said anything about boats, only the cost. Still not a good plan.

"Paratroops" are not Navy Seals. I was a paratrooper, although I was not a Navy Seal.... That is another story.

That has nothing to do with killing an enemy combatant.

Most certainly they can. They day they rob a bank and point a gun at a cop and that cop kills them, they gave up their right.

President Zero Obama should be stopped via all legal means and we should ensure he is a one term president. :D

wait what? I thought we covered this somewhere.... no?

I have read them. The arguments have failed to convince me that you are correct. Apparently President Zero and his panel of legal experts agree with me.

Well classic, at least I learned a new word/phrase from your link:
"uncritical hagiography"... now I have to find a way to use it.

To parody one of the final commandments on the barn:
"All secrets are equal, but some secrets are more equal than others."
Both parties are playing the Ace of Spades.

I have the feeling certain unspoken agreements were reached after the Nixon and Clinton legal battles...
that impeachments will end and whatever happened in the previous administrations will be passed over.
But each administration following will use those same illegalities with impunity.

This is my fear for the future from this al-Alwaki decision.
"No animal shall kill any other animal without cause."

So far:

- You've violated the sovereignty of Yemen. Pakistan was more annoyed by the bin Laden infiltration than drone strikes. This in turn endangers the Yemeni government's interest in cooperating, which in turn makes it more difficult to track AQAP, one of the more serious al Queda organizations.

- You've killed a valuable Navy Seal highly trained service member, as well as a Yemeni resident of unknown origin. I know you didn't intend to do that, but this was a particularly difficult mission and armed resistance was expected. (The decision to use paratroopers was criticized by all media, as Alwaki was in the hills, and extraction could not happen via Saudi Arabia.)

Now the legal problems mount:

- Most of the evidence will be the responsibility of military and intelligence personnel and systems. Most of it will be unavailable to the court. Much of it will be inadmissible in a standard court of law.

- Security surrounding the housing and trial is $200 million to start. This may not even be possible, as NYC felt was the case in the attempt to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. The city simply could not afford to have the trial there.

- There is a possibility that the legal system that prosecuted O.J. Simpson will let an extremely dangerous Islamist terrorist free inside the borders of the USA.

It's easy to say he "deserved it" or "it was the cost-effective solution." But -- and this is what I find deeply unsettling -- the laws which permitted killing him make no distinction between al-Awlaki in Yemen and, say, Joe Blow in York, PA.

This isn't a "slippery slope" argument; we're already at the bottom of the hill. The only way in which al-Awlaki was actually unique, in a legal sense, is that the President explicitly authorized killing him.

Damm! Is that in our Constitution?!??! I must have missed it..... :rolleyes:

UT, I'm confused by your position on this. Usually, I interpret your posts as having a definite "don't trust The Establishment" tone. But in this case, you're willing to make an irrevocable decision based on allegations, to circumvent due process. I don't get it.

UT is strong on law and order, especially security.

I was a hard-core libertarian.

A lot of computer people and engineers are hard-core libertarians. Everyone always wonders why. I have a pet theory about this. Computer people and engineers always work within a closed and utterly logical SYSTEM, and all of the components in the system must be present and logical to work.

They then apply that thinking to GOVERNMENT, and notice that the SYSTEM is terribly broken. They notice that we have a Constitution that forms the basis of our entire government, and yet many of the things government does seem to be very obviously against the Constitution.

As engineer types, we understand that if the rules are not followed, the system will ALWAYS FAIL. And so, faced with the problem of government, we set out to build a perfect functioning system.

Remember Radar; he demanded ironclad adherence to the Constitution, and moreover, believed that he could offer a perfect interpretation every time. This is the start to any working closed system: you define it with specifications that cannot be broken.

I believed this at one time, too, but I came to find the problems with it. The most obvious problem is that humans are highly illogical and chaotic. This means it's impossible to create a logically sound set of rules for every situation. You just do the best that you can do and then leave enforcement and a judicial system to fill in the blanks.

Another problem is that humans will find the holes in the system and exploit them to our destruction. This was a 9/12 concept: we have a major problem if our rules are going to be used against us. We have to apply the Constitution, but the Constitution did not anticipate the world we are now in. We now have to wage non-war in countries we would never go to war with, by the 1789 definition of "war".

We must stop calling people "citizens" if they are going to use that moniker as an umbrella of protection in order to kill as many citizens as possible.

As far as not trusting the establishment, well, that is what allows the establishment a loose interpretation of the law. I believe that in a free country there cannot be a libertarian crisis in the corner where we are watching. People think the Patriot Act is a libertarian crisis, or that waterboarding is proof of our degeneracy. I believe that the fact that we argue endlessly about these points is our protection against them being a widespread problem. In the meantime, we have huge problems we're ignoring.

Think about this: waterboarding of three subjects resulted in street protest. Hundreds of thousands of dry anal rapes in prisons is a subject for hack stand-up comedy. Which is worse, which is more likely torture, and which is more harmful to rule of law and a civil society?

UT, thank you... that is a very informative, well-written and understandable post.

That post changes NOTHING.

smh

FTFY.

I'm pleased to report the NY Times Editorial Board has been
following this thread on the Cellar, and agrees with me on this issue.

Editorial
Justifying the Killing of an American
Published: October 11, 2011
.
Sec. Panetta needs to pay attention too.

Anwar al-Awlaki was not a citizen. He had publicly stated his intention to relinquish his citizenship, and entered "foreign armed forces engaged in hostilities against the United States".
His movements leave no doubt in my mind he knew full well we would take him out at the first opportunity. Probably because he lived in the real world, unsullied with high faulting delusions.