Al-Awlaki, a US born Al Qaida recruiter and terrorism promotor, way just killed, probably by a CIA drone attack. I know there will be different opinions about what this guys deserved, etc.
However, the bottom line is the federal government just executed a citizen without a trial.
I am wondering about this in an academic sense, not emotional.
Thoughts.
+1
He dined at the Pentagon!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm5jd-PafcA&feature=player_embedded
Barak Obama is a murderer.
The Stache wrote:
Al-Awlaki is an enemy of the USA. Period. He recruited people to try to attack and kill US citizens.
He's dead. GOOOOOOOOO USA!!!!!
End of discussion.
The Stache wrote:
Jesus christ. Pay attention you ass hole.
If the USA goes to war with China tomorrow, and I go over and sign up to fight with the Chinese army and start shooting at citizens or military personnel of the US, guess what the military gets to do to me? They get to shoot me in the face, blow me up with a tank, drop bombs on me, or whatever the fvck they feel like doing to neutralize me. You know why? Because at that point I would have become an enemy.
Al-Awlaki is an enemy of the USA. Period. He recruited people to try to attack and kill US citizens.
He's dead. GOOOOOOOOO USA!!!!!
Illegal aliens that commit murder here in the United States are afforded a trial and their civil rights.
Where's the consistency?
If you wage jihad against the US, brother, you can expect an AGM-114 Hellfire missle to be shoved up your tailpipe. It may be 10 minutes from now or in 10 years, but it's coming.
Traveler wrote:
I am wondering about this in an academic sense, not emotional.
Thoughts.
I think anyone who goes on LetsRun looking for an academic discussion of international law is either a troll or a freaking idiot.
For those actually interested in exploring the legal ramifications, here's a place to start:
http://www.securitylawbrief.com/main/2011/02/aclu-ccr-drop-suit-over-awlaki-kill-list.htmlI can think of a similar situation; read all about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Civil_War
Guys, see my earlier post. The discussion ended.
Fishing Instructor wrote:
For those actually interested in exploring the legal ramifications, here's a place to start:
http://www.securitylawbrief.com/main/2011/02/aclu-ccr-drop-suit-over-awlaki-kill-list.html
It will be interesting to see whether Awlaki's father will try again to challenge the legality as a representative of Awlaki's estate.
It is an interesting issue. Certainly, if an American citizen was leading the Taliban, no one would think twice about targeting him in a military operation. And no one would ever claim that the US could shoot missles at a US citizen living abroad just because they conspired with someone to murder a US citizen. So, there is a line between just regular old murder and warfare that must be crossed in order for the US to be entitled to carry out a military operation against a US citizen. The question then becomes whether the US government can make that determination unilaterally, only to be subject to a post-mortem judicial review, or whether the US government must go to the courts to make that determination. On the one hand, war is war. There is no time to get the attorneys involved when enemy no. 1 is going to be an active target for an hour or two. On the other hand, it is unprecedented power in the hands of the executive branch to have the ability to declare a US citizen to be an enemy combantant and order a military operation to kill them in a foreign country.
It is not an easy call. Ron Paul says its an assissination:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLERIC_KILLED_RON_PAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-09-30-10-34-45However, does US citizenship bestow a sheild upon any citizen that wishes to engage in terrorist acts against the US that is not available to non-citizens? Or should everyone (citizen or not) who is involved in planning, inciting terrorism against the US be subject to military action?
My answer is that the current legal framework is insufficient, but does not prohibit targeted killing. Our laws assume that the enemy is either an army orgnaized under the rule of a sovereign nation or some sort of revolutionary/guerilla/insurgent fighting force operating in opposition to a sovereign nation--both seeking to engage the US military. The law was not crafted to deal with an international syndicate seeking to carry out terrorist attacks on the US. And the answer to the problem is to craft laws that address these issues and let the courts review them to see whether they are constitutional.
About 30% of executions in the US are carried out without a fair trial.
And he seemed like such a great guy.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkoAjZGo5A0&feature=related
he dined at the Pentagon!!!
another very odd situation going on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dm5jd-PafcA&feature=player_embedded
Two US citizens.
Also, Samir Khan, an alleged "propagandist". So much for free speech, I guess.
Bush wines and dines them, Obama snuffs them out.
Nice job B.O!
The Stache wrote:
Jesus christ. Pay attention you ass hole.
If the USA goes to war with China tomorrow, and I go over and sign up to fight with the Chinese army and start shooting at citizens or military personnel of the US, guess what the military gets to do to me? They get to shoot me in the face, blow me up with a tank, drop bombs on me, or whatever the fvck they feel like doing to neutralize me. You know why? Because at that point I would have become an enemy.
Al-Awlaki is an enemy of the USA. Period. He recruited people to try to attack and kill US citizens.
He's dead. GOOOOOOOOO USA!!!!!
You might as well move to China right now. The USA I grew up in -- or at least what I had been led to believe about the USA -- did not execute citizens without trial.
Maybe some day soon it will be someone other than Muslims/arabs the USA will call terrorists and begin killing without trial. By then it will be too late.
Welcome to Weimar baby
A CIA-JSOC coordinated attack against a vehicle convoy in Yemen today left two American citizens dead along with “some companions.” The slain were high profile Sunni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and magazine editor Samir Khan.
This was the latest in a long series of attempted assassinations of Awlaki, who the National Intelligence Director confirmed in April 2010 was the first American citizen ever added to President Obama’s official list of assassination targets for the CIA.
The confirmation sparked immediate concern because despite repeatedly railing at Awlaki for his anti-US sermons and implying he had some sort of tie with al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) was not charged with any crimes at all, let alone a capital offense.
It also spawned an attempted lawsuit by Awlaki’s father and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who argued that it was inappropriate for the president to order the execution of American citizens without formal charges and a trial. The Justice Department demanded the case be thrown out on the grounds that the courts have no oversight over who the president can assassinate on the grounds of national security. Eventually the court dismissed the lawsuit, saying it was up to “elected branches of government” to decide if people were to be assassinated.
The Obama Administration had been working with Yemen’s Saleh regime to track down Awlaki, but the New Mexico-born cleric’s tribe is vast and powerful in Yemen’s interior, and the government had long been unsuccessful in moving against him.
His killing was immediately praised by President Obama, saying it was “further proof” of America’s global reach and that there was “no safe haven anywhere in the world” from potential assassination once marked by a president. Most of the domestic coverage in the US centered around praise for the killings and reiterating the half-formed allegations against Awlaki, while glossing over the fact that the administration’s primary objection to Awlaki, and the one which actually put him in US sights in the first place, was his collection of religious sermons critical of America’s imperial ambitions.
This of course explains why there was no trial, because religious sermons critical of a president’s foreign policy are not against the law. Interestingly the closest thing to an allegation of direct AQAP ties was his putative influence on the December 2009 Christmas underbomber. This of course came just days after another failed assassination attempt by US cruise missiles killed a large number of Yemeni civilians.
The other American victim of the assassination was the much lower profile Samir Khan, a North Carolina-born would-be jihadist whose primary claim to fame was his role in the publication of Inspire Magazine, the embarrassingly over-the-top English language webzine.
Inspire Magazine was known for its wacky and ridiculously implausible ideas for terrorist attacks, which almost always spawned media scare pieces treating them as a legitimate threat. Among those was the infamous “Fords With Swords” piece, in which they proposed strapping a bunch of scimitars to a Ford truck and driving it into a crowd of conveniently located infidels. Needless to say, the “plot” was never attempted.
Though Khan was at the very least a self-professed member of AQAP, he too was not actually charged with any crimes, and most of his press centered either around the magazine itself, or his faux-gangsta Internet releases, including “Jihad 4 Eva” graffiti and his “Cold Diss of Hosni Mubarak.”
The sheer goofiness of Khan’s AQAP role and the entirely speculative nature of Anwar Awlaki’s must inevitably raise further questions about the legality of the US government simply assassinating them, and what it might mean for others who run afoul of the administration for one reason or another. It seems trials are simply not a part of the president’s strategy when he is criticized, and assassinating a critical cleric appears to rank among his proudest moments since taking office.
The assassination was mostly cheered by Obama’s potential opponents in 2012 as well, with both Rick Perry cheering it as “an important victory” and Mitt Romney terming the extralegal assassination “proper justice.” Rep. Ron Paul (R – TX) was predictably the lone critic, saying that he was concerned with “assassinating American citizens without charges.”
smoke em if you got em wrote:
The Stache wrote:Al-Awlaki is an enemy of the USA. Period. He recruited people to try to attack and kill US citizens.
He's dead. GOOOOOOOOO USA!!!!!
End of discussion.
You do realize Al-Awlaki was never charged with a crime in the US justice system? What US citizens were killed as a result of his efforts? Do facts matter to you naive, propagandized fools? Maybe you will someday be called a terrorist without trial -- would you support that as well?
troll starter wrote:
Two US citizens.
Also, Samir Khan, an alleged "propagandist". So much for free speech, I guess.
.
Very good point. Employ your right to free speech and criticize the US govt and get murdered without trial.
The arab/mulims are the only group that this can currently be done to out in the open. And many Americans, thanks to racism and decades of anti-arab and anti-Muslim propaganda foisted onto us by the "mainstream media" (actually, the in house propaganda organ of the ruling class) actually cheer this on.
Who is next? Surely "illegal" aliens who drive drunk are fair game. And that all time boogeyman for white Americans, black males.