Slashdot Mirror
Drone Kills Top Al Qaeda Figure
wiredmikey writes with this excerpt from a Wall Street Journal report:
"The U.S. ushered in a new CIA-led counterterrorism program in Yemen on Friday, sending unmanned aircraft to kill an American-born cleric who occupied a top place on the U.S.'s anti-terrorist list. The death of Anwar al-Awlaki eliminates a leading figure in Yemen's branch of al Qaeda and one of its most charismatic recruiters. A Web-savvy Islamic preacher with sparkling English, Mr. Awlaki was known for his ability to couch extremist views in ways that appealed to Western youth. He had been linked to suspects in the 2009 Fort Hood, Texas, shooting spree and the botched bombing of a Detroit-bound jet that Christmas."
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
I didn't think drones had stingers. Did he choke on it or something?
Drones don't kill people - people kill people
None of the "links" to those actions have been heard in a court of law. He was never charged with a crime, and never indicted. In fact when asked about it the Dept. of Justice says that all such evidence are state secrets and we'll just have to take their word and arbitrary assertions as fact.
It's fascinating how many people are worried that the U.S. government assassinated a U.S. citizen, rather than worrying that the U.S. government is assassinating people.
And yes, I understand that there is a legally declared war and that there is a very strong case that this guy was involved with the enemy in that war.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Inefficient. Drones should assimilate, not kill.
If you value liberty you need to suck it up and admit that Ron Paul is right and quit playing this dems/reps game. They are one and the same.
Dallas Real Estate
First, "Drones" don't kill anyone. Saying so is like saying that "Close Quarters Battle Rifle Kills Osama bin Laden." Special forces personnel, supported by the people who operate the drones and the Air Force pilot(s) who flew the fighter that was also involved, all under the command of the leadership running that show, and all under the direction of the C-in-C are what what killed "Mr." Awlaki. And all of that happened because he made it his full-time job to not only inspire and recruit for terror attacks, but to become directly involved in planning and operations.
Second: all of the handwringing over due process (really, Ron Paul?) is absurd. This clown explicitly removed himself fromthe protections of due process through his actions, his ongoing condemnation of the very system that provides that due process, and his physical removal to and operation within a region he and his movement selected specifically because it is unpoliced/unpoliceable and where any attempt to actually apprehend him would involve combat operations. That putting military people into harm's way would be required to lay hands on him - as he continued in his outspoken and unhidden efforts to kill westerners, including his avowed embrace of WMD to that end - is exactly the reason that this wasn't a "law enforcement" scenario. It's a fight, and the fight was taken to him and some of his buddies in a direct and effective way.
Killing him was self defense, and a reasonable approach to dealing with his ongoing attacks and prep for more of them. Ron Paul's assertion that Bin Laden's killing was "different" (enough so to make that assault OK, but this one not) is just embarassing. Please stop, Ron. This didn't happen in Cleveland, where the FBI could have cordoned off ten city blocks while agents moved in on him at their leisure, with an eye towards placing cuffs on him.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Watch out for those links to suspects, they'll get you and everyone in your immediate vicinity killed without warning by a missile fired from a robotic aircraft controlled by foreigners hundreds of miles away. There is no point in building a case against someone, capturing them, and having a public trial where the evidence is subject to intense scrutiny and the outcome is determined by disinterested peers. That kind of thing is messy and time consuming, and there is no telling what the outcome might be. After all, 20-25% of the victims in this instance were linked to someone who is suspected of carrying out some horrible crime.
There's no war between the US and Yemen. And fighting organized crime is not a "war". Even the worst criminal has a right to a fair trial. It's a fundamental right, it cannot be revoked by anyone. Whoever ordered this murder should now be put on trial for it.
There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
Statistically it was bound to happen.
This is Big Lie propaganda. There is no war. Moreover, the victim in this case was not a combatant.
-I like my women like I like my tea: green-
There's no war between the US and Yemen.
So, it's a good thing we didn't attack Yemen. Yemen would definitely know if we attacked Yemen.
Even the worst criminal has a right to a fair trial.
Not if he's in the middle of ranting about his demands and slowly shooting the people he's holding hostage in the bank he's trying to rob, or on the airplane he's trying to hijack, etc. We definitely don't give criminals in the middle of conducting a crime a trial before shooting them in the head if that's the appropriate way to stop the murder they're in the middle of conducting. And Awlaki has been in the middle of conducting murder for some time now, and promising to conduct more, at every single opportunity. He's the guy in the bank with the gun pointed at his next victim, and the special forces who just took him out are the SWAT team outside the bank window.
Whoever ordered this murder ...
You need to re-think your notion of "murder." Murder was Awlaki's history, and stated purpose. Stopping him is not murder.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
This is the REAL news.
Now please bomb the shit out of that guys country,
I would say we must invade it and liberate it from its oppressors. Well, this probably would mean we will be at war with Greenland in the end.
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Suppose Iran decides that someone in this country is an "enemy of the state", and launches drones from their "warships" off the coast of the US? Or they get "government approval" from someone in Mexico, and do the same? Heck, they won't even have to launch from that close.
North Korea has already been caught using poisoned needles to take out people they consider to be "enemies".
Just to be clear, I have no objection to taking this asshole out once and for all?
But I won't be standing atop the Mountain of Purity, wearing white robes and singing hosannas, either. Dirty pool goes both ways, folks.
[End Of Line]
Your choice to equate asymmetric WARFARE with "organized crime" is amusing.
The US didn't attack "Yemen", it attacked enemy personnel IN Yemen.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
No one seriously argues that Awlaki wasn't an enemy actor, therefore there is zero logical argument against killing him.
Actually, a lot of people do seriously argue that point. The one thing that is not in dispute is that al-Awlaki advocated violence against the US government, but that has been ruled protected speech - if it hadn't been, people like William Piece (author of the Turner Diaries) would be up on charges. What has never been proven in a court of law, and is disputed by many folks who actually know what they're talking about in Yemen, is that Awlaki had anything to do with planning and executing any actual terrorist attacks.
Attacking him was a "necessity" because there was no other way to interdict his activities.
Sure there was:
1. Present evidence to a judge sufficient to demonstrate probable cause for arresting him.
2. Work with the Yemeni authorities, who are allies of the US, to attempt to capture him and bring him to the US for trial. If he attempts to resist arrest, by all means shoot back.
3. Indict and try him, and if he is guilty, lock him up forever or execute him.
Force used was "proportional" because it was sufficient to decisively counter a hostile act or hostile intent, but reasonable in intensity, duration and magnitude.
Awlaki posted hostile videos on Youtube. The US and Yemeni governments fired cruise missiles that killed not only Awlaki but several others nearby. Tell me exactly what 'proportional' means to you.
I am officially gone from
The president ordered it and the Yemon president approved it.
He had dual citizenship.
Gone!
This is just dandy. We kill an idiot (evidence: botched detroit flight bombing -- you better believe if I was in charge, shit wouldn't get botched. Some people are more competent than others. fact.), and in his place we inspire the next generation, which will certainly aspire to greater heights. And we spend ever increasing tax payer dollars on fueling an ever more sophisticated terrorist regime. What's the solution? Give them no reason to be terrorist. Pull out of their countries. Live by our motto, liberty and justice for all. And then the numbers will likely dwindle. Simple.
No there is not a war in Yemen but there is a war against al qaeda. Since the al qaeda do not just occupy one country it is impossible to keep the war confined to just to one country we must take the war wherever they are. For that reason this is a very difficult war to fight.
The drone's controllers were aiming at the guy beside Al-Awlaki. It's just too bad that this US citizen was collateral damage.
invading 2 countries, soldiers and (too) many civilians dead, no WMD, 10 years of shit.
And now RC controlled drones find Osama and kill another important guy in less than 2 months.
Next time it will again 10 years of paying tax money for shit and the mission will be accomplished by cheap RC controlled drones?
The interesting one that we got out of that is Ibrahim al-Asiri. By getting the 3 that we did, we just got a HUGE hit against AQ. This was devastating to AQ than taking out OBL. These 3 were the new top leaders in AQ.
Now, as to the killing of these 3 terrorists, many idiots are all over the net screaming that we killed citizens. Yes. We did. And We have killed terrorists of Saudi, Iraqi, Libyan, Iranian, Pakistani, Indian, Russian, Chinese, Spanish, Indonesian, British, and other citizenship. The fact is, that we are in a war with terrorists and are killing them REGARDLESS of citizenship. That some of you think that we should treat differently those who have declared war on the world, have plotted, and killed some amount of ppl in the name of their war based on citizenship, well, you need to re-think it. I would have preferred that we brought OBL and all of these ppl, but in a war, it is difficult to do so.
Targeting enemy troops in war has always been legitimate.
This is no different than the SOE sending Czech partisans after Reinhard Heydrich in WWII.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Also notable is that though it is traditionally acceptable to attack military targets (persons who are involved in military operations), it is generally unacceptable to attack political figures. These targets do not appear to have been military targets in any real sense, so it appears that the U.S. has just sent the message that it is OK to target political leadership.
It is really quite brave of them, to step up and say that they are willing to place their lives on the line, the same way that soldiers put their lives on the line. It's not often we see political leadership like that. On the other hand, it will make it impossible to arrive at a negotiated settlement to this "war".
I gave up this battle a LONG time ago my anonymous friend - I have always loved the technical interchange on Slashdot and have gotten a lot out of it in the many years I've been a reader , and I think it would be fair to say that engineers who design drones to kill terrorists are regular subscribers - but Slashdot has become more of a political platform in recent years and it is quite left leaning - I truly wish stuff like this would NOT get posted to Slashdot - it only serves to divide the group and breed hate. The level of technical content for this story so far has been non-existent so in my mind it has thus far no redeeming content including this post.
He could have turned himself in sometime in the last 4 years in between making videos bragging about his connections to the underwear bomber attempting to murder american citizens and advising Major Hassan that it was okay to assassinate his fellow american soldiers. He could have turned himself in to the government of yemen who did have an arrest warrant out for him. He considered himself at war with the United States, he publicly acted as a member of a group at war with the United States, he was killed as an enemy combatant.
The only thing the US could have done that it failed to do was strip him of his citizenship for his service in al-queda(enemy armed forces).
>Mr. Awlaki was known for his ability to couch extremist views in ways that appealed to Western youth.
Belief is the currency of delusion.
Cheers!
"Actually, a lot of people do seriously argue that point" all of who are enemies of the US and de-facto supporters of Jihad or just being contrarian for domestic political reasons.
It was reasonably likely that the target and associates were enemy personnel. An enemy propagandist is no different than a conventional psyops operative. Incitement to warfare against the US clearly made him a combatant.
There is no logical reason to risk US forces in combat to capture such an enemy live. The value of own-side forces is customarily considered greater than that of an enemy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
A lot of people on here are shouting about how we should have arrested this guy and put him on trial, anything else is a violation of his rights. These people have not thought these statements through.
How were they supposed to arrest him? Without using magic, what kind of plan to arrest him does not involve a military operation that would result in more people being killed? Instead of a drone strike killing 4 people, we'd have an assault force killing many more just to get to him and hoping beyond all reason that he miraculously doesn't have a gun and decides to surrender peacefully. Does anyone in their right mind think that was a possibility? Why would you risk your own soldiers lives to cause more damage and deaths?
They took the only course of action that didn't involve him remaining free and cost the least amount of lives. Like it or not, he was a member of al Qaeda, which has attacked the US several times now. They are who the US is at war with, and rightly so. If you are a leader in that organization, you know exactly what that means and exactly what you are getting into, this wasn't some innocent patsy they killed. Even if he had nothing to do with the attacks, he still is an enemy soldier.
i dont remember congress declaring war. did i miss something?
"There is no war."
Organized violence of both symmetric and asymmetric varieties by both sides for geopolitical purposes over time is war.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
we went around to villages executing civilians because they were "aiding the enemy". how did we know? we just knew. stop asking questions hippie.
of course, when a radical leftist president starts executing right wing militia people without due process, rush limbaugh will shit a brick. .
When your religion (Islam) calls for you to kill another human being just because they don't agree with Islam, you deserve to be killed. The ones of us who are civilized don't need you.
I'm not complaining about due process. I'm complaining about arguing the legal semantics rather than directly objecting to the fact that the government thinks it has these powers.
I do not believe that the incremental safety gained by actions like this is worth any of the costs (material, political, personnel). But that's probably because I tend to think that the incremental safety gained is largely notional, not something particularly real.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Your choice to refer to organized crime as asymmetric warfare is amusing.
So what...anything you can imagine some way to apply the word "war" to, magically makes whatever you want to do ok? Are there no standards? Just whoever they want to kill, as long as they can concoct a good story, its ok, as long as that story says "war"?
Where is the oversight in that? Oversight is more important than killing your "enemies", especially when you are so large and poweful that, at their height, they are little more than a mosquito biting at your ass.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Why exactly do you think you have the moral superiority?
Drone warfare does not help the U.S. To use drones, the U.S. needs to align itself with the dictators whom are disliked by the people. civilians are killed by the drones. Civilians look to someone to help them against this foreign terrorist (the U.S.). That someone, likely, is Al Queda.
Basically, this tactic puts the US on the wrong side of the people, and any natural democracy efforts such as the arab spring.
The best way to fight "terrorism", is not to use terrorism.
Instead, it is better to stop supporting dictators/occupiers in the middle east and Israel, and instead support people in times of extreme need. The Libya model works. The focus of anger goes naturally to the oppressor. If we stop supporting the oppressors, then most anger/terrorism against the U.S. ends.
That analogy doesn't work for two reasons. First, the US congress declared war against Germany. They haven't done as much against AQ or AQ affiliates. They have only authorised force against the 9/11 attack perpetrators, planners, and those providing material support to them. I think you have to go pretty far to get Awalaki into that bunch. Second, the guy who joins up with the German military would be killed in mutual battle as a course of military action. The two Americans that were killed were specifically targeted for assassination. In fact, Awalaki's lawyer was representing him in US courts in an effort to get and injunction against his pending assassination. They were on an assassination list.
I'm not arguing if or not his killing was the right thing to do. Just that your analogy doesn't work very well. For an analogy to work well, the two instances being compared have to have a lot of common points - certainly the most relevant points need to be the same. From what we know of Awalaki's actions, a number of Americans could have been likewise targeted for their residence and actions in Vietnam, and their agitation about that war here in the US. Even that would have been easier to justify. There was a typical army and a congress authorised force in Vietnam.
46 & 2
All you PE hippies can shove it already. If they are a threat they should die. I can promise you none of them are sitting around worrying about laws and due process before planning to kill us.
May the force be with you.
//Nothing to see here, please move along.
Why exactly do you think you have the moral superiority?
Because Awlaki's stated world view, and his willingness to kill innocent people to achieve it, is objectively inferior.
His moral framework includes support for those that think it's appropriate to kill a woman for having been raped. To drag a woman out into the town square and shoot her in the back of the head in front of an audience for the crime of working to feed her family since her husband will executed for selling music. His moral framework involves forbidding girls from learning to read, and burning down schools (and burning the resident teachers alive) for daring to make them literate.
The fact that you're even asking the question means that you're likewise in favor of these things. Please go and live in an environment run by people who share your thinking on the subject. You'll either love it, or perhaps you'll grow up and change your mind, if you aren't killed first for having the wrong length of beard.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I'm pretty sure they'll run out of eyes long before then.
Meanwhile, assassination is NOW...? What rock have you been living under for the past 200 years?
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Not sure. I think it's because it's really hard trying to justify flying a fucking airplane into a building.
Twice.
Err, almost 3 times... ...and then claiming to have any morals, at all.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
That's why you vote for Ron Paul.
Realize that just a little while ago, FBI argued that there is significant terrorist threat within USA coming from various militias (remember Oklahoma?)
So it's not a stretch to say that if POTUS gets to keep the power to kill American citizens without a trial, eventually it will be used to kill American citizens in USA without a trial, who have suspected 'ties' to 'terrorism', and when government gets to decide who is a terrorist, who is a suspected terrorist and who has ties to them, the lines become increasingly blurry as to who can be killed next and where.
Realize that pretty much ANYBODY can eventually be tied to something that has to do with terrorism somehow, after all the 6 degrees of separation separate you from Kevin Bacon as much as they separate you from anybody, including various terrorists. (Now, it's not scientific, but there a point there. Something you said somewhere on the Internet at any point can be linked to something else, even if it is only similar, but not exactly the same, but who gives a shit about nuance, right?) In any case, this is completely illegal, immoral and anti-Constitutional.
I am making this comment right now, and it can be turned against me - it can be declared that this is equivalent to terrorist-sympathizing, because I don't want POTUS to kill Americans on a whim. Is that enough to launch a drone strike after me?
If you don't see me commenting here for over 2 weeks in a row, then that's it (and foes can cheer.)
You can't handle the truth.
So, what IS the exact definition of Jihad, then?
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
I know of no proof that the played a role in AlQueda. I'm talking proof, not propaganda. If there was proof, he could have been charged, but he was never charged...
It's the politically motivated assassination of a USA citizen by the USA government with no justifiable legal reason or attempt at process.
What the hell else could it be? And it troubles me on so many levels. And the basic fact is that the few speeches I've heard on youtube were normal and righteous positions I generally agreed with.
Ops.. did I just make myself a target .. get it.. GET IT! .. Stupid cock-suckers.
Then the attack on 9/11 was perfectly legitimate. You do realize that's what you're saying? They were at war with us, and everyone killed that day was in on being American, after all.
This guy and Bin Laden have been waging their private little war on the USA, putting civilian lives at risk at home and abroad. We may not have declared war on them, but they certainly have done so on us. I have no problem whatsoever with the government picking them off, and this administration is proving to be surprisingly good at doing so.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
For that reason it is not a war.
If the government were to expend missiles on a house in Los Angeles, killing everyone inside, then explain that there were drug dealers in there and that this was part of the War on Drugs and therefore trials were a bother and unneeded, would you be okay with that because it was killing combatants in war?
These arguments are nothing more than rationalization of your lack of empathy for people you irrationally fear.
Granted it's far, far easier to just extirpate the people and ideas that make you feel threatened, but what do we become when we abandon due process, our values, and our belief in the rights and liberties natural to all humans? The price of having a fair world is being unable to feel like you're the top dog and being equals among all other equals. Also, country's code of law is white-listed to its political territories. Defiance of this is sanctioned barbarism, and I question the values of anyone who lends legitimacy to its acceptance on the grounds of a TV show macgufiin (it smells like 24 in here). A Cuban SWAT Team has no more right to infiltrate the US and murder CIA members who plotted to kill Castro than the US does to invade other sovereign nations and kill people that fundamentally disagree with the direction it's headed. Please tell me how you disagree without using the words "hate" and "freedom" in the same sentence.
There are standards. Since this US citizen was outside of the US territories it required the level of attention of the governments of the USA and Yemen. He received the attention that he wanted.
By your logic, the targeting of priests who support US policy and recruit for the military for assassination is also legitimate.
Woe to the priests, I guess.
I will seriously say that I have not seen or heard of any first hand proof or even legal charge against him. I have heard a lot of media propaganda on the matter. I remember his father trying to use the court to stay his son's execution. I remember how that went. I agree with some of his publicly held positions as I have seen him say directly (through YouTube) and I wonder where on that presidential list that puts me. I wonder how many people have been hypnotized into thinking this was a good action in any way. It's sad. I suppose they all had parents that love(d) them at one time.
No formal declaration of war: Check.
"War" defined as murderous intent against non-soldiers for ideological differences: Check.
Rules of law and engagement suspended in service to the "war": Check.
So by your rationale, 9/11 was perfectly okay, then? Al Queda had publicly said they were at war with us, and people inside the Towers had committed hate speech against Al Queda. There were also agents with ties to the US government, their declared enemy, inside the building. Can you explain the difference between this act and 9/11, aside from the fact that the terrorists were more efficient?
The terrorists have won by bringing us to their level. And you are actually willing to defend this behavior. I can only hope you haven't thought this through.
It would be hard to argue that a leader in a group that the US has effectively declared war on (including resolutions of Congress that authorize military force) is not a legitimate military target.
I think it is also relevant that he was a leader in a group that declared war on the U.S.
Would it have been wrong to kill them?
Q: Who is the war against?
A. Guys who declared war on the U.S.
FTFY
I'm sorry. Demanding that you prove your assertions is not a terrorist or traitorous act. You have no idea what you're talking about.
We have this thing called the Constitution. I'm sure you claim to support it at every opportunity. Now you should read it.
Wow, when did advocating decent into fascism become "insightful"?
Yeah, let's all re-think our notion of murder, such that any killing by the state is justified because they say it is. Can't wait for this shit to be applied on US soil, then to every beat cop in the name of "safety".
Note that in 2006, approximately 200 people in the US were killed by police. In the same year, zero people were killed by terrorists.
So if the president ordered your death, and got the approval of some 3rd world crackpot dictator on his way out the door, you would be totally ok with that? Remember, no trial, no accountability. All they have to do is say that you were an enemy of the state.
Sure, it was also reasonably likely that those cars were full of children going to the Madrassa, as he was, in fact, a cleric. Still ok?
Where the fuck were you during the last president?
Let's put this shit in perspective:
1 dead American-born cleric
100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians
I think we have had bigger issues than one asshat's due process rights.
A person killed him and the drone was the instrument used to do the deed, like any rifle, knife, or club.
Undoing my mods to say this- the very first thing Wikipedia says about Brandenburg vs. Ohio is that "government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action." Advocating violence in the abstract is a long long way from being involved in the day-to-day planning of suicide attacks as Awlaki was. Why are you ignoring this? If you were trying to make some kind of objective argument about justice, rather than being a partisan who's simply seizing the opportunity to push your view, you'd certainly have given this thought.
The government has the right to take action against those who are personally involved in perpetrating ongoing violence.
Nobody likes trials in absentia, but efforts to apprehend Awlaki had gone on for years without success, and finally a trial was scheduled in a Yemeni court. Awlaki could not have failed to have received information about the time and place of his trial, which was nationally and internationally in the news. His defense counsel was not just a sham but put up a vigorous defense. He was convicted and the judge called for his capture dead or alive. I think that in this case people went to extreme lengths to provide as much due process as could be given under the circumstances.
In 2001, 2977 people were murdered by terrorists. It'll take the police 15 years to "catch up" to make your little trite attempt at comparison worthwhile...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
There's no war between the US and Yemen. And fighting organized crime is not a "war".
Terrorists are not "organized crime" in any historical sense. They have a command structure, foot soldiers, heavy weapons, and seek to overthrow the legitimate democratic government. They are more closely related to a foreign militia, waging actual war.
Your examples of a criminal actively engaged in killing people are not relevant to this case. Stopping someone in the middle of committing murder by killing them is justifiable. Killing someone with a remote control drone (and not caring if other, "innocent" people are slaughtered as collateral damage), when your target is not then engaged in violent activity is not justified.
Governments should not have this option. The US government in this case clearly violated the constitution, American and world standards of decency, and the President violated his oath.
Just because you like the outcome, beware of endorsing these unethical actions. They may come for you someday.
2. Work with the Yemeni authorities, who are allies of the US, to attempt to capture him and bring him to the US for trial. If he attempts to resist arrest, by all means shoot back.
What if he is beyond the reach of the Yemeni authorities? Should we tolerate that he continues to organize strikes against civilians for years?
No formal declaration of war: Check.
OK, let's get pedantic and say that since Congress didn't state an exact set of words you'd like to see, it hasn't declared war (we'll ignore the authorization and funding of all these operations as being an implicit - and financially explicit - declaration).
Where in the Constitution is the Air Force? Doesn't exist. Hence the Air Force is not part of the military, so using Air Force drones to kill isn't an actual military action. It's not war, it's not military, it's espionage.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
A LOT of posts are about how this is not a war according to the rules of wars and how the rules of war are not being followed. The contradiction never seems to face these posters. If it is not a war, then the rules of war need not be followed.
The simple fact is that the world has no rule book that really applies to these situations. For that matter, the term war applies to any conflict in which a large enough number of people get killed, so yes, Mexico IS in an official UN recognized war JUST by the numbers involved, not because there was a declaration of war or any of that nonsense.
It seems a lot of people, whether they like the UN or not, desperately want their to be rules that can be used as simple guidelines to make the world easy to understand. Sorry, no such rules exist. The real world is extremely complex and we make the rules up as we go along as best as we can. Yes, it is scary so crawl back under the covers and think in terms of rights and wrongs and let the grown ups deal with things.
A group initiated actions against the USA and the USA reacted. Whether you think either side is more or less right doesn't matter, both sides think of themselves as being the right side. But since it is a group vs a state their just ain't any rules. No conventions, just a few "well it is would be nice if you could at least somewhat try to behave".
You might not like it but it is senseless trying to draw rules, conventions and laws dealing with wars between nations into this because they don't apply.
It reminds me of conspiracy theorists, many of them seem to be quite happy to believe the world is entirely controlled by group X because at least it means SOMEONE is in control and can be blamed for them not having had a date. (CmdrTaco, DAMN YOU)
No rules, no laws. Just you in the world that ain't a nice place in which their is a bogeyman and he doesn't play by your rules no matter how hard you do.
Just ask one of the retards what the US should have done post 9/11 instead. Do nothing? That is not the human way. Stop trying to force the world to change by pretending humanity is something it is not. Realize the truth and THEN act but don't live in lala-land.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
No-one is arguing that the terrorists should have more freedom to operate outside the law. You have now acknowledged that the police are as bad or worse than terrorists. So why are we giving them more power to oppress us?
the very first thing Wikipedia says about Brandenburg vs. Ohio is that "government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless it is directed to inciting and likely to incite imminent lawless action." Advocating violence in the abstract is a long long way from being involved in the day-to-day planning of suicide attacks as Awlaki was.
So if I understand this correctly, "That crowded theater should really be burnt down," is protected speech, while "Go, my son, and burn down that crowded theater," is not. No?
Interesting... When such actions were taken when President Bush was in office, /. was rife with "Bush is teh debbil!" type screaming. Now that it's President Obama calling the shots, the opposition is now genericized to "USA bad"...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
By your own numbers, the police are 1/15th as bad as the terrorists. Additionally, how many of those killed by the police had outstanding arrest warrants - basically Court ordered actions to capture? Now how many of those murdered on September 11th, 2001 had Court ordered executions or even arrest warrants?
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Wasn't Al Qaeda a construct that was conceived by the CIA in the 80's
Yes, we are all clear that you want more people murdered by police for any reason they like. In your mind it is fine to trade all liberty for the pretense of safety even as the total number of those killed increases, and the killers inevitably escape justice because they are police and not evil, evil terrorists.
No one seriously argues that Awlaki wasn't an enemy actor, therefore there is zero logical argument against killing him. His citizenship couldn't be less relevant because the rules of WAR apply in WAR.
He was an active member of a hostile force.
He demonstrated hostile intent.
Attacking him was a "necessity" because there was no other way to interdict his activities.
Force used was "proportional" because it was sufficient to decisively counter a hostile act or hostile intent, but reasonable in intensity, duration and magnitude.
Will you now start killing people who post "Death to Americans" type of message on random forum too?
As far as al Qeada leaders go, all I gotta say is: Tango Down. What people should really be worried about is the gov't assassinating its own citizens to cover up election fraud, now that is truly the sign of Democracy's demise.
Organized violence of both symmetric and asymmetric varieties by both sides for geopolitical purposes over time is war.
Ok, so start killing mafia bosses then?
A random drug dealing gang probably kills more US citizens in a year, than all terrorists combined.
The only difference seems to be that drug dealers have politicians and police officers on payroll, while this silly 'terrorist' does (did) not.
So think about that for a moment.
America was pitted in battle by Germans fighting Germans. I am still of the conviction that America
is an immigrant country of displaced political subterfuge
where the occupants dream of one day returning to rule their home country as a king despite being ejected or kicked-out
to America.
American Indians and Native Americans however don't have a say in this, but must accept all drafts of the United States.
Because Awlaki's stated world view, and his willingness to kill innocent people to achieve it, is objectively inferior.
US killed more innocent people than any other terrorist organization.
That makes US number 1, I guess.
Fine.
YOU go into a failed country, and YOU kill him, up-close and personal.
Typical little hypocrite: When the crap comes down they're the first ones to scream "DO SOMETHING!" Then they immediately turn-around and start tut-tutting when someone (not THEM, guaranteed) actually does DO something.
Regards;
I guess when I sit on my couch reading "Thou shalt not kill" then I'm the other end of extremism.
I wonder about how 500,000 Americans die every year from complications to surgery,
and why not 1 single investigation was performed outside the
pervue of the surgeons's conclusion to disuade any reporting of his
bad statistics.
Am I talking about home surgeries and home pharmacists? Hell no: 500,000
Americans die every year from "regulated" DOCTORS employed by corporations,
from complications afteir surgeries, and verry few investigations return any evidence of
mal-practice that would prove the genocide on America known as organized Medical support.
Why don't Hospitals get any legislation against them for being a breeding ground of where diseases mix and
the real murderers conceal themselves among the sick and injurred to derive financial gain and asset liquidation
against the people they are supposedly helping?
I'll tell you why right now: population control.
Yes, we are all clear that you want more people murdered by police for any reason they like. In your mind it is fine to trade all liberty for the pretense of safety even as the total number of those killed increases, and the killers inevitably escape justice because they are police and not evil, evil terrorists.
When you had no logical position to put forward, you made up a strawman and attacked that. Thanks for showing you have no point other than "USA = teh debbil!".
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I kind of expected to find this level of stupid in a thread like this. Maybe some of you really do hate America or yourselves this much, or maybe some people are just so dumb that we'll have to see a few thousand more people die to realize that this really is a war.
Yes, let's all say it together - this is a war. It isn't exactly the same as WWII, or really, any other war before. What we are fighting is a culture, an idea. It isn't really based in any particular country, but it is capable of and fully intends to do us warfare-scale levels of harm. This war won't be over before the end of American Idol, but it won't involve truly massive levels of troops and equipment either. Like all wars before, it will involve doing some things that could be considered to violate the Constitution. Since it will be a long war, we will have to be on our guard to see that it doesn't go too far against the Constitution, especially since it will be hard to say when it's really over.
(By the way, we most certainly have declared it properly, or at least Bush did. The Constitution says that Congress must approve all wars, but it doesn't say that they must be against specific countries or include the phrase "declare war".)
There are a lot of misunderstandings about how this all will work, but only some are really troublesome. Like the idea that we must bend all possible effort to capture enemy combatants alive and try and convict them in open courts. In some cases we certainly should, like for American citizens on American soil, but in most cases, it won't be possible, or would be insanely expensive. We are generally going pretty far out of our way to try people in some sort of court when it's at all possible, but in many cases, it just isn't.
There will be mistakes too. Plenty have already been made, and I'm sure we'll make a lot more before it's all over. It's important to keep some perspective - wars can never be perfect or clean, but we are the good guys here and we will win. It's become cliche, but there are only 2 sides in this war, and you better pick one, because there's no room for "neutral observers". It's pretty clear that if you take everything that, say, the Taliban, says as face value and distrust everything the US Government and Military put out, then you've picked a side all right, and it isn't ours.
I don't reply to ACs
When a criminal is holding a gun to the head of an innocent person during a bank robbery, do you consider it "fascism" if, when he's told to put down the gun and instead he kills the hostage and then grabs another, and again points the gun at her head, the police shoot and kill the robber?
How about if, instead of robbing the bank, the person is - for example, a la Beslan - threatening to kill a room full of school kids. Is killing those who are stringing up bombs around the room fascism?
How about a group of guys are who are about to saw the head off of a construction contractor for YouTube in the name of Allah. Given a chance to stop them - with bullets if that's what it would take - fascism?
And what if all of the above were part of a group that does things like that all the time, but hides out in the middle of nowhere, and you'd have to actually mobile troops to go in and get them the brutal, old-fashioned way... or you had a simpler method that would stop them just as thoroughly without any of the rolling-tanks-through-neighborhoods old school stuff? Doing so isn't "fascism" (how old are you, anyway, 12?).
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Likely, these people are killed not by what they did, but by what they know. But that's a guess and I wouldn't want to know the answer.
unfinished: (adj.)
You missed the beginning of the sentence, which is that "no person shall be held to answer for" - that means brought in to a court process. You can't have a court case for capital or infamous crimes simply on the accusation of a prosecutor or police, unlike for petty crimes. Obama's gang didn't have a court case here, they declared him to be guilty and assassinated him.
If we were talking about whether the prisoners in Gitmo had to be indicted by a grand jury before being given a fair trial, your quote would apply here.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
"except in cases arising in... public danger" A terrorist helping recruit crazies in another country certainly is a "public danger".
Calling Anwar al-Awlaki "an American born cleric" is like calling the devil "an angel that likes warm temperatures".
I'm not a fanboy of Obama and think he has done many many things wrong while president, this however isn't one of them.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"couch"
Awlaki was an agent of the US government who doubled as a boogieman. If they wanted to kill him they should have done it when he was having lunch at the pentagon as a guest of honor after 9/11.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fs2r4Jj-ZUU
Any drone that kills a named enemy NPC should be given an official name, a badge, and the opportunity to share a beer with the President.
Welcome to level 2.
If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
The terrorists have won. The US has become like them - killing its perceived enemies without evidence, trail or verdict has now become the official modus operandi. Tell me, what difference remains between you and them?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Haven't seen this question answered directly: Is the world a better place now that Anwar al-Awlaki is dead? And this is a personal question, not a political or moral type question.
This is not about Awlaki. In my opinion, Awlaki is a piece of shit who deserved to die and his death makes the world a better place. A better place for us, for Yemen, for the Middle East, for Islam, and perhaps most of all; a better place for the impressionable kids whose minds he has been twisting. This has nothing to do with whether Awlaki getting capped was a good thing.
This is about us. It is about the principles that we choose to live by, even when it means we can't kill some piece of shit who clearly deserves it.
You are not allowed to punch people who talk on their cell phones in the movie theater. That is clearly bullshit, because people who talk on their cell phones in movie theaters totally deserve to get punched in the face. The reason we do not do it has nothing to do with what that asshole deserves. He deserves to get punched in the face. The reason we do not is because we, The United States and its Citizens, live by principles. Our unwavering dedication to our principles is the bedrock of our moral superiority. The bedrock of our principles is what lets us sleep at night when we must send our children to risk their lives and to kill.
We don't whine, wheedle, and try to figure out angles around our principles. We puff out our chests, point at The Constitution, and with a gleam in our eye declare, "We are just, and we do not sacrifice our principles to our passions. We are better than you." When that bedrock turns to sand, we become the enemy. If we give up our principles, all we have left to fight for are our money and power.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
It is not a new item on youtube, but there is a three part lecture/refutation of Anwar Al-Awlaki by one responsible for clarifying the religion of Islam. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TlPi3dsSdU
accurately define good according to a criteria and seek it out.
You need to re-think your notion of "murder." Murder was Awlaki's history, and stated purpose. Stopping him is not murder.
For people who actually know something about his history, torture is what dominate's Awlaki's history, not murder. Before he was tortured for year and a half in the presence of CIA he was just a conservative imam.
After the torture he, quite reasonably, came to the conclusion that the US was a bad influence on Yemen.
"Wow, when did advocating decent into fascism become "insightful"?"
"Fascism" as you use the term is merely name calling.
"Note that in 2006, approximately 200 people in the US were killed by police. In the same year, zero people were killed by terrorists."
Cute. You thereby equate all police use of force with murder and don't distinguish between lawful, reasonable use of violence.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
This isn't the first person that has been killed using a drone. What is so special about this particular case?
Reality is defined by the maddest person in the room
IAAL.,
U.S. Constitution, Article 3, Section 3, says: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
The constitutional definition of treason was deliberately made very narrow, to prevent prosecutions for anything less than significantly aiding actual attacks by a foreign power. So:
-- With no declaration of war on either side, does planning and aiding terrorist acts constitute "levying War"?
-- Given the informal, non-national structure of al Qaeda, can it be designated an "Enemy"?
These are not trivial questions, but I think it's possible to answer both of them "Yes."
A traitor must be an American citizen -- otherwise he's just a foreign enemy.
The final question is, once we determine that Anwar al-Awlaki is a traitor, may we put out the equivalent of a "Wanted, Dead or Alive" poster?
I think that if we could try to capture a traitor, we can also attack and kill him, just as we could a foreign enemy.
Why do I get this feeling that they'll claim they didn't pull the trigger? They just gave the gun to the people who did. "Here, have some drones, there's the US citizen. I think you can do the math. Good luck."
The US did attack somebody in an act of war (justified or not) on Yemen sovereign territory. This could be constituted as an act of war against Yemen if their leaders are so inclined (and don't mind getting into war with the US). Funny you never see people (officially) getting shot in the head in Iran because they damn well know the repercussions would be severe.
If the US wants to play police and shoot everyone in the head that has a problem with them, they are 'free' to do so in their own sovereign territory. SWAT and police forces only shoot when there is clear and imminent danger to themselves or a person. AFAIK Awlaki had nobody at gunpoint, he merely was a recruiter for a criminal organization (or gang) and if anything they should attempt to arrest him for that. If he gets killed during an arrest 'accidentally' (like Bin Laden) that's something else but shooting somebody and his family from afar is at best cowardly and in itself an act of terrorism.
Stopping a murderer by murdering him is still murder. You can (according to most laws) only act in self defense if you're in clear and imminent danger. The US was not in 'clear and imminent' danger by keeping this nutcase alive.
It's a slippery slope when you just shoot people down because they don't agree with you or even try to engage in criminal activities or other activities you don't agree with. Many religious organizations and cults reflect that type of attitude towards those that don't agree with them (Christians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Scientologists, ...), not clear thinking, level headed people.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
The US didn't make war against Yemen.
Yemen has had a warrant for Awlaki "dead or alive" since 2010.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Once upon a time Americans said "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend your right to say it"
Now Americans say "I disagree with what you say and will gleefully kill you for what you do say"
The hijacking of civilian airliners would seem to be a problem with this viewpoint, unless you're going to claim the passengers were enemies of Al Queda as well.
However, suppose in some alternate 9/11, AQ agents stole military planes and flew them into the Pentagon and White House but not the WTC. You could easily take the position that that wouldn't be a terrorist act. However, even so, it would still be an act of war, and it would still justify the use of military force against Al Queda.
Really? So we killed about 3000 civilians to go after a handful of people who had done nothing more than shout 'Down with the USA'?
To this inanimate carbon rod.
Also, don't clerics have the best saving throws? Dont count him out completely.
Sorry but the writers of the US Constitution never envisioned a world spanning organization with military like assets and have the objective of harming the United States. At the time of writing these kinds of organization didn't exist; there were only states. The only reason there is not a legal state of war with Al-Qaeda is there there is no legal method to do that. Al-Qaeda is not a crime family; their objectives are different. Crime families exist to make money. Al-Qaeda exists to harm countries.
Al-Qaeda lives in areas of the world that have little or no control by legitimate governments. Yemen had a arrest warrant out for al-Awlaki but could never catch him as he operated in an area not controlled by the government. Even Pakistan is suspect because their military is riddled with Al-Qaeda sympathizers. How does one serve an arrest warrant on a suspect in another country that is surrounded by armed fighters who are willing to die for the cause? You will lose many people in the attempt and the suspect will probably die anyway. Bin Laden was an interesting exception because he had to hide and could not have the guards as they would be too high profile. I bet he though that his proximity to a Pakistani military facility would protect him from US intervention.
The US Constitution and the Fifth Amendment in particular does not take into account the reality of world terrorism. Should it be changed to allow a declaration of war on an organization? Probably. Until then, we work with what we have.
What a ridiculous assumption!! Based on what? The very piece of paper that this asshole al-awlaki is trying to use to destroy you and those you love? You are ignorant.
You come back and tell that to me after (god forbid!) some vulnerable person or persons kill or maim someone close to you as a result of having been exposed to someone like al Awlaki. Blatantly encouraging young, mostly depressed (according to good recent research), kids to strap a bomb around their bodies and blow up innocent civilians, and getting traction with those requests, is grounds for getting your ass blown up. If there were 1000 more nutcases like al-Awlaki doing thing, I would also advocate for their annihilation.
Sometimes one has to suspend the niceties of the Constitution in order to protect the people that it was intended to help thrive. These Islamist terrorists have been using the best qualities of our culture against us. They took advantage of our openness. What are we supposed to do with American citizens who promote these barbarous acts? Let them continue just because they "have a right to express themselves" as American citizens? Fuck that!
As far as I'm concerned, the drone strikes aimed at terrorists - *no matter where they come from, or where they hide (even *here*) are justifiable.
I'm confident that we will not enter a slippery slope where normal protest is treated this way. Democracy is about vigilance, not stupidly letting your enemy use Constitutionally established freedoms against you! Dropping these terrorist bastards in their tracks with drone strikes is showing them that we can *adapt* to their attempts to use our Constitutional freedoms against us. When someone is holding a gun to your head, all written rules of behavior are off the table. Good riddance al-awlaki, and let this be a warning against assholes who want to foment this kind of violence at a distance.
Al-Awlaki was a MANIAC! A freaking psychopathic killer who spoke with the calmest demeanor. He didn't give a fuck about anything but his ass-backwards, man-and-woman hating extremism. I'm glad he's gone, and I hope we continue to seek out more like him , in Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, or wherever, with DRONES. And, I hope those drones get better and better at recognizing these assholes so we make less and less tragic mistakes in the pursuit of wiping them off the face of this good earth.
Last, no country - including America - is perfect, but let's not confuse the radical Islamic barbarians with anyone. They are scum; they are killers; they will stop at nothing, even killing themselves for their sickening medieval beliefs. We need more moderate Muslims to speak out against these assholes, and we need to keep the pressure up, worldwide, to find them, and get rid of them by any means possible.
Anyone who doesn't see that is kidding themselves, or just to hard-headed to see that letting someone like al-awlaki off the hook is to ENABLE and ENCOURAGE similar behavior. Get a freaking clue!
It means "to serve God passionately." The word [i]jihadi[i], "one who struggles," can apply to any number of people, such as a doctor offering his services for free to poor people.
The idea that the word jihad is a synonym for "terrorism" is a racist scaremongering myth perpetuated by bootlickers and the severely ignorant... which are you?
RonPaul2012!
involved in the day-to-day planning of suicide attacks as Awlaki was...
How do you know this, and can you prove it in court? Or do you enjoy watching the U.S. behave like a death squad?
He had the option to surrender long ago. He refused.
The President won't order my death because I'm not a Jihadist. One thing is not like the other.
The only good Jihadist is a dead one, no matter whose passport it holds.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
we are actively deployed and fighting battles where our soldiers and enemy combatants kill each other.
If that is the definition of war then the United States has never not been at war.
Indian's. Mexico. Canada. Spain. The Caribbean. Utah. pirates in what is now Libya. Korea 50's to today. Indo-China from the 50's to 75. South America. Caribbean again. Middle East. Somalia.
It would be a rare year in modern history where US forces did not fire a shot in anger.
========
CINC, 4th Penguin Legion
It doesn't follow the Constitution, and Congress doesn't represent their Constituents.
What are the Las Vegas odds on when they use drones to start killing 'terrorists' here in the US? Then 'drug dealers', ...
Then you and me.
"The Constitution, the WHOLE Constitution, and nothing but the CONSTITUTION."
If the process for changing the Constitutional powers underlying the government's actions is not followed, the government action is illegal.
If the government is behaving illegally, it is an illegitimate government.
The US government judges the actions of other governments by, among other things, whether they use extra-judicial killing as a tool. The State Department publishes a report on the state of the world's government every year.
There is always an emergency to justify some new gov power. Problem is, the powers are often used against domestic political opponents. The Patriot Act has been used 100+X more often against ordinary criminals than it has been used against terrorists. Ditto all of the other stupid laws based on a War on XXX.
You have't read much history.
Ah, patriotism, the first refuge of the scoundrel.
You would make a great recruit for the jackboots. Nice, unquestioning, and unable to gauge relative risk.
Is killing a person for speaking out in a politically inconvenient way in a foreign nation fascism in your mind? The fact that you can't tell the difference between someone speaking and someone shooting a weapon speaks volumes to your character. You don't deserve to be an American. You would fit in much better with the slaves of North Korea.
Oh, sorry, I guess I'm being "unAmerican" for not supporting endless, self-sustaining, and self-justifying wars or for being against the arbitrary murder of American citizens for speech, especially given that even with all of the PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE "evidence" against him, prosecutors declined to so much as charge him with anything.
I see, so you are saying that each and every single time that an officer killed someone, it was absolutely justified? Talk about jingoism.
And pardon, you are right, this is not a case of fascism, which is the merger of government and corporate power. Rather, this is an example of absolutism and authoritarianism, both of which are closely associated with fascism, but are separate phenomena.
The problem here is that when the government takes this kind of power, it uses it, and abuses it. They will start using this on narco-terrorists, then "home grown" terrorists, then eco-terrorists, then any kind of terrorist that stands against the state, or even the current political party. This is the DEFINITION of a slippery slope, and this is EXACTLY why we have constitutional protections against this sort of thing. This is exactly the same as disagreeing with what someone says, but defending to the death their right to say it. Now, rather than defending that right, we are FUCKING MURDERING THEM AND ANYONE AROUND THEM WITH HELLFIRE MISSILES.
The fact that you can't tell the difference between someone speaking and someone shooting a weapon speaks volumes to your character.
The fact that you are deliberately pretending that you aren't aware of Awlaki's direct involvement in AQ operations (including the attempted murder of a plane load of people and who knows how many on the ground in Detroit) says a lot about your character, actually. You are lying to defend him. Why is that?
Oh, sorry
No, you're not. You support Awlaki, his agenda, and those who would like more of those deaths to happen. To that end, you're willing to lie. The good news is that it's utterly transparent, so you're not fooling anybody.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
I see, so first they came for the Jihadis, and you did not speak out, because you were not a Jihadi.
I wonder how many more will be exterminated with your implicit approval before they come for you?
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392
Yes, that's right. Anyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist. Nevermind that the underwear bomb was hopelessly ill conceived, or that the Times Square "bomb" was a bunch of fire crackers next to some propane tanks, or that he simply took credit for Hassan's assault to make himself appear to be more than he was.
You, sir, support the murder of Americans overseas without trial or any form of judicial oversight. That man's "crimes" are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT, because of the simple fact that there was never at any point a forum to discuss them, just the assertion of the military/intelligence complex that he was "dangerous". ANYONE could be designated as such, and be murdered at any time by the same procedure.
But that would never happen here. Surely our government is somehow exceptional, and would always think of the rule of law and the good of its citizens first, and would never abuse such things for personal gain, and would never condemn someone to death as a means to CYA.
Here's your link: Iraq Body Count Project
We've killed approximately 100,000 civilians in Iraq since the start of our military actions there. On 9/11 we lost about 3,000. So we've done about 33 times worse than we received.
That's 100,000 people in approximately 9 years. 9 years is 108 months. 33 times the loss in that many months. So that's 108/33=3.27.
That means Iraq has suffered, at our hands, a 9/11 style loss (3000 civilians killed) every three months and a week or so for the last 9 years running.
Sorry man, but those are the facts.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
I came to post a comment I was sure would get buried about how POTUS had just assassinated a US citizen, only to find everyone already up in arms about it. You all just gave me a little bit of hope for the future. Thank you.
I know of no proof that the played a role in AlQueda. I'm talking proof, not propaganda. If there was proof, he could have been charged, but he was never charged...
"There's no Proof! There's no Proof! Lalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalalala..."
You've seen more proof that he played a role in Al Qaeda than proof that he is dead.
Here's a clue. No one I know is omniscient. We still live our lives, doing the best we can. Get over it.
It's still a shooting war, different groups killing each other. Just because Al Qaeda isn't a country doesn't mean a war can't be fought with the group and its allies.
He allied with them, he is a valid target, pure and simple.
Then you might want to know that a declaration of war doesn't start a war. It is a recognition that a state of war already exists.
The US was not in 'clear and imminent' danger by keeping this nutcase alive.
This unconvincing assertion is at the heart of the matter. But since he's been involved in murders, tried to be involved in many more, and was busy getting involved in new ones (and said that killing lots of Americans was his immediate task), be fits the"imminent" bill nicely.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Awlaki did not literally have a gun to anyone's head. You don't seem to be able to see the difference between your hypothetical situation and actual facts. Evidently, you are no longer meaningfully connected to reality.
The part that weirds me out is how some well-known terrorist leader gets taken down and we're all of a sudden concerned about who we're killing over there? What about all the innocent people we're killing all the time? Nobody seems to care much about that.
Many DO care about it. But this particular killing raises additional issues.
The "innocent people we're killing all the time" mainly weren't individually targeted, but were killed in battle either as enemy combatants or as the unavoidable accidental "collateral damage" of dead bystanders in a war zone. Even in war you don't get to just kill anybody you think might be an enemy. There are a host of rules on who you can and can't target, and a number of US soldiers are currently facing criminal charges for shooting bystanders in violation of these rules. (I'm currently receiving unsolicited requests for donations for the defence funds for at least two of them.)
This guy was a (former?) US citizen. The government had, at one point, attempted to bring charges against him and was unable to come up with enough evidence to even get an indictment. So the executive branch targeted him, as an individual, for death, hunted him down, and killed him. Not in a battle under rules of engagement, but as an assassination.
What makes this a big deal is that it's no step at all from doing that to this guy and doing it to anybody else the President's men don't like - here or abroad. The Executive branch has already brought "terrorist" charges against a guy for minting gold coins. And Homeland Security issued an advisory labelling Tea Party tax protesters, people concerned about gun rights or the current economic and political climate, people carrying "political paraphernalia" (copies of the Constitution), as potential domestic terrorists.
Now that the executive branch claims the right to just assassinate "terrorists", even citizens, with no due process of law, what's to keep them from just killing people SUSPECTED OF using bitcoin, or bittorrent, or hacking a website, or contributing to WikiLeaks, or being members of Anonymous, or contributing to Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul, ...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Imagine that someone comes up with a 0day exploit in this "unmanned aircraft" platform. Or rather, imagine an implication when such exploit is sold into "good hands".
It's fascinating how many people are worried that the U.S. government assassinated a U.S. citizen, rather than worrying that the U.S. government is assassinating people.
There are claims (and some legal doctrines) that certain of the enumerated rights only apply to citizens.
Many of the people against such assassinations believe those rights ARE rights of all, not just citizens. But the fact that this guy was a US citizen also brings in those who believe the rights are for a limited class.
It also hits close to home for US citizens (and thus US voters): Even being a citizen won't protect you from the runaway government's assassination teams.
So I have no problem with phrasing the argument to attract support from the larger containing set of voters. This makes it more likely that something will be done to fix the problem.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
A declaration of war is a real thing. There are defined parameters to pass said declaration. This isn't 'Nam. There are rules.
"Great or ferocious struggle." It does not have to be in any militaristic sense, that's only one interpretation.
Those "enemy" personnel I'm sure were all tried and convicted by the Yemeni government, right? So far as I know, police can't kill everyone in the room because a single bad guy is inside. Especially if none of them are armed.
Ron Paul talks a good game, but at the end of the day, when his "No" votes in Congress are overidden, he goes home and gets to walk away from those votes. Gary Johnson vetoed over 750 bills during his two terms as governor of New Mexico, and successfully defended all but two or those vetoes.
Members of the house don't get to exercise vetoes. The president does. This is Ron's third try to get into the Oval Office, where he COULD exercise vetoes. (And this time he's all-in on the Presidential run. He dropped his House reelection bid.)
After seeing his unblemished 30 year record of voting against anything he deems unconstitutional (and the large group of things he includes in that class, which happens to match very well with my own choices), I'm more prepared to trust Ron than Gary this time around.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
There was no american trial in absentia though. So far as I know, there was a trial by the Yemeni government. Even so, that would only authorize action against Al-Awlaki - it would NOT authorize us to murder everyone else in the vehicle. If a cop was told to kill someone in a vehicle, and he took out that person and 4 others, he'd be brought up on murder charges.
A lot of people on here are shouting about how we should have arrested this guy and put him on trial, anything else is a violation of his rights. ... How were they supposed to arrest him? Without using magic, what kind of plan to arrest him does not involve a military operation that would result in more people being killed?
Don't need to arrest him. It's called "trial in absentia". If he won't show up he can be tried anyhow. Once he's convicted, the sentence could be executed by any effective means - including predator drones if applicable - without raising any due process issues.
The government TRIED to get an indictment. But they didn't have enough evidence to get one. Rather than trying again, succeeding, and getting a conviction, they just marked him for assassination and killed him. Oops!
How would you like them to do that if, say, some prankster phoned in a tip to the DHS that YOU were a terrorist?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Let's put this shit in perspective:
1 dead American-born cleric
100,000+ dead Iraqi civilians
Most of the 100,000+ dead Iraqui civilians were killed either as enemy combatants or "collateral damage" under rules of war. (A few were not. And in some of those cases soldiers are under criminal indictment at this moment.)
This one raises an additional issue: The guy in question was a US citizen and (after the government tried and failed to get an indictment due to insufficient evidence) was targeted personally for assassination, and killed, in violation of the 5th and 6th amendments.
This brings up the due process issue - even among those who think that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens. And if it stands it sets the precedent that the US President can assassinate anybody he likes, citizenship is no defence, and due process is dead.
Given that this administration has already labelled people as terrorists for minting gold coins, carrying copies of the constitution, or being concerned about gun rights or the current economic situation, that's a personal threat to a lot of voters.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Supremacy Clause: the idea that the 14th Amendment applies the Bill of Rights to the States as well as the Federal Government. Ron Paul doesn't believe in it, which is why he sponsored the "We the People Act", which:
This means that if your state passes a law forcing you to tithe to a church - we'll say Roman Catholic if you're in Massachusetts or the Southern Baptists if you're in Georgia - there's jack shit you can do about it.
And hey, gun nuts - if the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to the states, neither does the 2nd. So state bans on guns would be A-Okay.
Nor would states be chained by due process or prohibitions on "cruel and unusual treatment". Virginia wants to take a hard line on pot smokers? Shot on sight. Family members of alleged potheads don't want to give up their locations so they can be shot? Waterboard em, the 8th Amendment only applies to the Feds.
This isn't the first person that has been killed using a drone. What is so special about this particular case?
The government tried to indict this US citizen. If failed to get an indictment, for lack of evidence. Rather than gathering more evidence and trying again, the administration just ordered the military to hunt him down and kill him. If allowed to stand this sets the precedent that due process is dead, the president can kill anybody he wants, and citizenship is no defence.
Unless I've missed something in turn, the other people killed by US drones - even if they were targeted - were non-citizen enemy combatants or "collateral damage" bystanders, in actions taken under the rules of war and US rules of engagement. This particular hit opened an extra can of worms and created a personal threat for US voters at home and abroad.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The issue is that he was hunted down and executed when he had NOT BEEN CONVICTED of being a traitor.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Sorry but the writers of the US Constitution never envisioned a world spanning organization with military like assets and have the objective of harming the United States.
Actually, they did. They were called things like "pirates".
The Constitution has a mechanism for going after them - whether they are state-sponsored or not. It is not a war on them or their state sponsors.
Part of this mechanism is called "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". These authorize private organizations to act as military auxiliaries, possibly enter foreign jurisdictions, seize designated people and assets, and haul them back for ajudication (or destroy them in the attempt, should it be unavoidable). Once ajudication is complete - if the decision goes the right way - the private organizations get to keep the assets, while the bad guys get to be punished for their crimes.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
He could have turned himself in, assuming he wasn't shot in the attempt, where he could be sent off to Gitmo or Bagram where he could be held without charges for a decade. Then he could face a military commission, where evidence obtained through torture was admitted, and exculpatory evidence was called a "state secret" and locked up by the same government putting him on trial. Finally, Obama, like Bush, has claimed "post acquittal power", and would continue to hold Al-Awlaki, even if found innocent in a court of law.
There, did you the favor of adding in all the stuff you left out. Now, who wouldn't want to surrender to that?
Word salad.
Given the fact that there are over 700 comments on this story, I'd say there's plenty of nerds who find this news (and relevant to their interests).
Ok so here I read a lot of stuff about the fact that he was a US citizen. The thing is, I don't think that's what's relevant here.
The question is, how, when and if any state can execute someone (in it's soil, an ally's soil, or even enemy soil, as long as they're not in a current war, and even then...), without producing any proof, having any contradictory legal procedure, or having to justify anything to anyone other than "We're the FUSA (fucking united states of America), we decided to pown him, you better not interfere."
You see, it's not a matter of constitution, it's a matter of human rights.
So he was suspected of terrorism. It all comes down to this : he was an enemy of the interests of the FUSA, so this justifies anything, right ?
Once we cross the "fucking with my conutry !" line, most of you will not look for proof, justification, context, or due process anymore.
So, one must not cross that line, to have any rights, in practice. Am I wrong ? Sure it's not legal, but that's how it is. Let's pretend it's even remotely "civilized".
Who crosses this line, and why ? Who decides who's an enemy of FUSA's interests ?
Probably Al-Quaeda is, after all they kill innocent civilians, so anyone suspected to help them loses his right to live and defend himself in a court of law.
Of course Wikileaks is, after all it's a terrorist organization who puts our FUSA in danger by releaving war crimes, and systematic Nazi methods. So anyone related to them should die too, like FUSA's philosophical leaders like Bill O'Reilly suggested : just kill Assange illegally, after all, we can afford it.
White house said they were terrorists, so they must be.
A few years back, by having the sole political opinion that comunism was a better alternative to capitalism, you were considered an enemy of FUSA's interests.
How long until my post, criticizing FUSA's methods and violations of human rights around the world, is considered as proof that I'm nothing more than a head in a crosshair anymore, and fuck my rights ?
I say, when will we see wall street targeted by drones, senate, or even the white house ? When will we realize that they're enemies of FUSA's interests too, and are effectively destroying this country, killing innocent Americans in war and removing our freedoms more efficiently that any terrorist organization in the world ?Oh wait, right, THEY get to decide who's a bad guy. How handy.
My point is that the debate here is wheter a person who is seen as enough of a bad guy in the media, and his public reputation, deserves to die. Has rights.
The question is wheter it's OK to execute an innocent (until proven, PROVEN, not said or suspected otherwise) as long as enough people don't care because of his reputation.
If your answer is yes, congratulations, you have successfully become a terrorist by the rest of the world's standards.
TL;DR : get someone's reputation dirty enough so nobody will care about his rights anymore and you'll be free to do whatever pleases you with him. Just hope that you'll never be targeted by the medias yourself, as it's pretty much a sentence of death these days. You better be nice with Murdoch.
Segmentation Fault in "Life, Universe and Everything" at line 42. Don't Panic.
Yes, that's right. Anyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist
No, people who incite, recruit for, help to finance, and (as in Awlawi's case) actively participate in terrorism are terrorists. By definition.
Nevermind that the underwear bomb was hopelessly ill conceived
Ah, so you judge people's morality on their technical expertise, not their intentions? People who attempt murder are OK with you, if the victims survive the attempt? What the hell is wrong with you?
Regardless, the only reason the underwear bomb didn't kill hundreds of people was because the idiot who decided to give his life while murdering for Allah was so nervous that he sweated enough to dampen the device and make it inoperable. An exact recreation of the device, used un-damped, showed that it was perfectly capable of blowing out the side of the aircraft while it was on approach over a large city (it was Awlawi's personal recommendation, by the way, to have the bomber wait until that part of the flight, to cause more deaths). Of course, you know these facts, and you are again lying to in order to defend the man's idealogy.
there was never at any point a forum to discuss them
What opportunity would you give a person killing hostages in a bank to discuss his ongoing crime? If a boatload of Somalis are busy shooting AK-47's and RPGs at the sailors working on a freighter, what venue and process would you propose should be used to "discuss" their ongoing activity before stopping them from killing anyone? When fine fellows like those in AQ strap explosives onto a mentally retarted young woman, whom they have drugged into a near stupor, and send her walking into vegetable market in order to kill and maim dozens of innocent people, what sort of discussion did you have in mind before stopping them, if you have the change right that moment to stop them? They claim credit for such attacks, and Awlawi boasted of his association with, support for, and assistance given to them. You honor and respect him, but don't believe him about that, and about his assertions of continued direct involvement in those acts?
I see. You think he was delusional, and wasn't really running around with armed insurgents in Yemen, but was just sitting in his parent's basement living out a fantasy while communicating with and assisting actual murderers, and then the Eeeeeevil Gummint shipped him to the desert, put him in a convoy of armed AQ militants, and then killed him there as part of an elaborate plot to make you feel bad.
Or is it possible that things are exactly as they seem? AQ is involved in sustained attacks on civilians and government targets in many places around the world, and Awlaki was just what he himself said he was, an ardent supporter, recruiter, and operational assistant in their past, current, and upcoming murders. He left a trail a mile long, but placed himself in a situation where normal law enforcement (such as that used to arrest and try the murderer in Texas to whom gave counsel and support) was out of the question. But you know all of that, too, and are just cranky because your hero, here, got exactly what he deserved through his course of action and the circumstances in which he deliberately placed himself.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
its almost as good as Mississippi due process in the 60s.
There is nothing wrong in that. Communism should be crushed and ridiculed at every opportunity possible.
When your religion (Islam) calls for you to kill another human being just because they don't agree with Islam, you deserve to be killed.
Well, since Islam doesn't do that, your comment is just noise. It's also a stupid non-sequitur, of course.
Stephan
The difference between "them" (e.g. Al-Quaeda, and apparently you) and "us" is that we believe in due process even if it is inconvenient, and even if the other person is not believing in it. Nobody ever said freedom and justice are easy. It's just sad that too many seem to have given up the effort.
Stephan
Some are support personnel, like him. Did Goebbels ever engage in active battle? No. Was he a legitimate enemy target? Yes.
Our former soldiers working in the SS were also legitimate targets. One specific case was an American deserter in an SS propaganda -- not combat -- unit. Legitimate target with the rest of his unit.
I'll type very slowly for the logically impaired:
- In military conflict the enemy is a legitimate target (kind of the point)
- Al Qaeda is the enemy in this military conflict
- This guy was a member of Al Qaeda
- Thus, this guy was a legitimate target
Very simple. These are the rules of war.
Member of Al Qaeda.
Fair game.
Period.
Authorization for the use of military force was passed by Congress, worldwide, Pub.L. 107-40, 2001.
"That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons"
Al Qaeda as an organization planned, authorized and committed the attacks. Thus any member of Al Qaeda is legally fair game, WORLDWIDE. It is, quite literally, open season, with no bag limit.
You're funny.
Huh? That's the definition of legal. Congress passed, president signed, Supreme Court has not ruled unconstitutional, nor is there a suit in the pipeline to try to have it declared unconstitutional.
Sorry, you keep failing on the facts and are grasping for straw. Use of military force is authorized against Al Qaeda, he was Al Qaeda, thus use of military force was authorized against him.
Admit it, you simply don't like it. Sounds like a personal problem, but it has nothing to do with the legality of killing an enemy.
Congress approves the use of military force, the use of force is legal. That is how it has always been. Even the use of force to some extent without congressional approval has been found legal for centuries. You are seriously grasping at straws here.
Give me one thing in the legal arena that casts doubt on the ability of Congress to authorize the use of military force, and the President to use it. Do you have a court case maybe? Or just the wishes of Al Qaeda sympathizers?
Or Yemen for that matter. Al Qaeda operative = fair game. Whether he is a US citizen is irrelevant, has never been in history.
The President won't order my death because I'm not a Jihadist. One thing is not like the other.
Yeah, says YOU. What if the President says "Nuh uh, you are too a Jihadist!"? Then what? Who's going to listen to your side of the story?
With the first link, the chain is forged.
You do realize that nothing was ever taken to court, so nothing is proven in the eyes of the law, right? Killing this man outside of the law, as evil as he may be in reality, has also in reality opened the door to killing ANYONE at ANYTIME for ANY REASON, or no reason at all.
I hope you are proud of yourself, American slave.
You do realize that nothing was ever taken to court
Once he decided to ramp up his involvement (to personal hands-on in operations) in AQ's murder program, he wisely moved himself out of the US, so that he would be nearly impossible to arrest and subject to law enforcement. That was a deliberate strategy on his part. He was directly involved in ongoing acts of terror, traveling with armed terrorists, and his movement was pointed out to the US by the government of Yemen, who had no interest in or ability to handle him like an arrestable criminal. Likewise it was out of the question to send the FBI into the desert the way they would have been sent into his Northern Virginia home, had he been as involved in AQ operations while still in the US as he became once he moved out.
Things are proven in court during a tial. He arranged things to make such a trial extremely difficult or impossible to arrange, even has he became moreactive in ongoing mass murder attempts. He was stopped. Just like a person who is holding hostages and occasionally lashing out and killing during a bank robbery stand-off is sometimes stopped with violence. People like that don't get a trial, either. Should we no longer have the option use force to stop people in the middle of violent, murderous crime sprees?
has also in reality opened the door to killing ANYONE at ANYTIME for ANY REASON, or no reason at all
What the hell are you talking about? This wasn't the first time this has been done, and won't be the last. And actual human judgement is employed each and every time. What's your point? That people who can wield force might do so for no reason? The exact same thing could be said of reason-less criminal prosecution under more normal circumstances, or of an act of congress authorizing force for (from your point of view) "no reason."
I hope you are proud of yourself, American slave.
What are you, twelve years old?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Wrong. Period.
Since you skipped it the first time:
War. Was. Never. Declared. Nor. Authorized. For. Yemen.
As for the AUMF, was Al-Awlkai involved in the 911 attacks? No one has bothered to make that claim, much less provide evidence that he was involved. The Obama Administration claimed he was promoted to "regional commander", but they could just as easily make the same claim of fascist apologist Quila.
Where. Is. The. Evidence.
Required.... I am familiar with that word, but I do not believe it means what you think it means.
I don't see where any such "requirement" to deliver extra-judicial killing came from. What made this required? Why was anything "required"?
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"