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."

Comments

5th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:5th Amendment

[ArcherB]

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 highlighted the relevant part.

Re:5th Amendment

[redemtionboy]

Came here to say this. It's amazing what our government decides it can get away with. Once we allow it to have the power to do this for someone who was most certainly guilty, we have given it the power to do this with anyone else it decides is guilty enough. It's very dangerous territory that we need to retreat from. End American imperialism. It's time we got rid of Obushma.

Re:5th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

1. We're not at war with Yemen
2. Who decides that someone deserves to die? Who is this 'government' you refer to?

Re:5th Amendment

[dkleinsc]

Anwar al-Awlaki was not and had never been a member of the US military, which is what that clause is plainly referring to. And even the military doesn't have carte blanche to just slaughter people - they're (in theory at least) bound by treaties and rules of engagement. No matter how you slice it, this was a US president ordering (or even worse, the CIA and DoD acting without orders) a US citizen killed far from any battlefield without presenting a shred of evidence to a jury.

There would be also some question about whether this was a time of war, as no declaration of war has ever been passed by Congress against Iraq, Afghanistan, or Al Qaida. Regarding "public danger", your chance of being killed by a terrorist has never been greater than your chance of being killed by a washing machine.

Re:5th Amendment

[alcourt]

During World War I and II, individuals in some cases joined the armies of those nations fighting against the US. That made them legitimate targets for military action. The most significant precedent however, is the US Civil War.

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.

Re:5th Amendment

[OzPeter]

So, Constitutionally when a cop sees a person threatening the life of another the officers is not permitted too use deadly force to stop the act?

They are allowed. But what is not allowed is following the perp home and while they are sitting there watching TV, pointing your gun through the window and assassinating them.

Re:5th Amendment

[portforward]

The president of Yemen is a US ally. The country itself just re-formed after being split and then reunited in a civil war. It's not like say Canada where the US embassy can make a request to extradite a criminal in say Calgary and the Prime Minister or Justice Minister calls the chief of police in Calgary to just go arrest the guy. Hence the statement US forces "occupy" because the president of Yemen isn't in control of the whole country.

Re:5th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

"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"

He's in the land forces. He's just in service in the land forces of an enemy.

That sort of thing happens when you commit treason and declare war against the country you're supposedly a citizen in...

They say he did that BUT if you read his speeches it doesn't quite jibe with the claims so this is fierce propaganda. Also, the declaration of war must be against a soverign nation and not an idealistic and nebulous term such as terrorism. By definition that can mean anyone who doesn't like the US. Al Queda isn't a soverign nation and there is no evidence he was actually a member. Rooting for those who fight arguably illegal US operations abroad isn't treason. If it is then we are in deep caca. If, in fact, he is guilty of the alleged crimes why was there no grand jury indictment or warrant out for his arrest? Now it is moot because he is dead. The "secret" list has 12 names on it of US citizens targeted for assassination and none have been vetted through any legal process

Re:5th Amendment

[jo42]

the guy was calling for the destruction of the US Constitution and the implementation of Sharia law

He was practicing his 1st amendment rights.

Re:5th Amendment

[DragonTHC]

that highlighted section is meant to refer to the UCMJ for active duty military personnel during a time of war or public danger.

It does not, in any way, say that when a war is going on, you can suspend the 5th amendment. It only means that in a time of war, active duty military personnel are not granted due process by the constitution.

Regular citizens are granted full protection of due process in all times.

don't even attempt to think that this wasn't a violation of the constitution.

I'll abridge to the pertinent bits for you: {No person, except in cases in the forces or militia in actual service in time of war, shall be deprived of life without due process of law}

Re:5th Amendment

[Calibax]

You're chance of being killed by a terrorist is low, but the chance of a US citizen being killed is over 300 million times higher. Or are you saying that elected officials should only be concerned about you and not all citizens?

I'm strongly against the death penalty. I think it's barbaric and has at least one overwhelming reason not to do it - you can't reverse mistakes. However, in the case of people who are spending their entire lives working out ways to kill their fellow citizens in wholesale quantities using military grade weapons if available or airplanes if not, I'm willing to make an exception.

I would argue that this cleric would have been more than happy to renounce his citizenship, except he knew full well that visiting an embassy to sign the required paperwork would not end well for him.

Re:5th Amendment

[tmosley]

No it doesn't. It just says it does. You know, sort of like how every action Hitler took was "legal" for the same reason.

I wonder how long before they start doing this on American soil? How long before they dispense with use of drones and authorize police in the streets to execute "terrorists" at will?

Re:5th Amendment

[chill]

World War 2 was a real war, with a declaration by Congress. The "war on terror" is not. Thus the other side are not "soldiers" and your comparison is invalid.

Terrorist activity, like it or not, is *criminal* activity and not under the rules of war, regardless of how the press refers to it.

Re:5th Amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Our ancestors had a penchant for being able to hold thoughts longer than soundbites.

Re:5th Amendment

[couchslug]

"A war is between two governments and involves armies."

Do words mean anything to you or do you just "make shit up" ?

Asymmetric unconventional warfare by non-state actors is old news (for example the old worldwide Communist revolutionary movement) and is much more than "crime".

Attacking external combatants who happen to hold an own-side passport is well within the accepted law of war.

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_warfare#Definition_and_differences

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-state_actor

Re:5th Amendment

[tmosley]

Really? If you could time travel, you would have assassinated Hitler? Why wouldn't you go to Versailles while they were negotiating the end of WWI and tell them of the terrible consequences of oppressing the Germans to the point of economic collapse?

If you killed Hitler, all you would have gotten was a martyr to the Nazi cause, and a better commander in chief at the head of their military. Would you have assassinated Hitler if it meant the Nazis won on D-Day? If they never invaded Russia and lost their forces to the general winter or, God forbid, they remained allies through the end of the war? Imagine an axis that stretched uninterrupted from Vichy France all the way to Japan.

Why is it that people always forget that actions have consequences? France and England CREATED Hitler through their brutal oppression of Germany. The US CREATED al-Qaeda via decades of interference in Mideast politics, especially propping up Saudi dictators. Continued interference will do nothing but make it worse and worse, until some figure appears in the Middle East and unites the whole Arab world, and we find that we are facing a nuclear armed Arab superpower with a hundred years of hate staring at us across the Atlantic as our economy falls apart and our military become unsustainable.

Re:5th Amendment

[dan828]

I won't lose sleep over the bastard either-- what makes me lose sleep is the the president/executive branch can unilaterally decide to kill two American citizens, and then without and review or oversight on the part of either of the other branches of the US government, carry out the killing. There needs to be more in place to check presidential power than just "it's ok, trust us, we won't do anything out of line, our own lawyers agree it's ok."

Re:5th Amendment

[localman]

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.

Re:5th Amendment

[Curunir_wolf]

So we now have a perpetual "war on terror" and "war on drugs" and war on American citizens of all kinds, so we have an unending loophole to ignore human rights all over the world.

Keep on saying "it can't happen here." Tyranny can gain control anywhere.

Re:5th Amendment

[nbauman]

You should have known when the Democrats at their convention in Boston herded demonstrators off the street, and restricted them to a "free speech zone" surrounded by barbed wire, that the free speech wouldn't be the Obama Administration's greatest accomplishment.

Re:5th Amendment

[TheLink]

I don't think anybody in their right mind believes that the process (review, oversight etc) guarantees justice.

If you're so confident the courts etc will "sign off" on this then why doesn't the Gov just make a good show of the "due process"?

If you're a US citizen this should trouble you. As for the rest of the world, I daresay most of us already distrust the US Gov. US citizens may also distrust the US Gov, but if the Gov at least pretended to regard that "piece of paper" and etc highly, they'd at least have to work harder to screw you all.

You keep letting them get away with ignoring the "piece of paper" and "due process", you'd be in trouble.

Having your day in kangaroo court is still better than being assassinated/executed at any convenient time.

Re:5th Amendment

[a whoabot]

Except that there is no evidence he was a combatant or a spy! What combat was he involved in? What spying did he do? There is no evidence that he was a member of Al-Qaeda except innuendo. There is no evidence that he was involved in training missions. There is innuendo, the worst possible evidence, that he recruited people and that is all. Or there is this claim from US officials that they have evidence that he had an "operational role" in terrorist activities, but they leave this completely undefined.

He stopped being a citizen because he merely said he renounced his citizenship? That is not how you lose US citizenship.

In my opinion, the US executive branch, be it Obama or his underlings, murdered a US citizen.

But if you want to contradict me, you can send me some citations and I'll reconsider. Don't just send me to the Wikipedia page though where too often their citations do not match up with the claims made.

Re:5th Amendment

[jbengt]

The Cold War was definitely not a war.
Neither was the war on poverty.
Nor the war on drugs.
Nor the war on terrorism.
Metaphors, all - unless you insist on changing the definition of war.

Re:5th Amendment

[anagama]

The irony here is that all the civil liberties African Americans fought and even died for in their quest to be treated equally under the law, are being thrown out by an African American president.

Re:5th Amendment

[anagama]

It's been argued that he aided and directed the underwear bomber and some of the 9/11 hijackers.

Two points:

Bullshit and Bullshit.

As to the first piece of bullshit, show me where in the Constitution it says, "When accused by police, you are presumed guilty and will be executed."

As to the second, Al-awlaki was a moderate cleric invited to speak all over WA DC after the 9-11 attack. What turned him from moderate to radical, is the unrelenting slaughter of innocent people. Even _I_ think the US is evil for doing that and I'm just an average white guy atheist whose very immune to any arguments relating to crusades or jihad.

Your comment demonstrates exactly why this is so dangerous. Unsupported allegations now are considered proof in your mind. The constitution requires more than that and for good reason, but if this is what is to pass as evidence in America, it's fricken over. We've passed into the dictatorship stage.

Re:5th Amendment

[anagama]

Yeah so? So does every serial killer or drunk driver. That doesn't change the fact that they get a trial.

Besides, now that the president has carte blanche to kill anyone he wants without any proof or evidence, guess who's the real danger to Americans.

One of 'us'

[maxume]

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.

Re:One of 'us'

[Ralph Spoilsport]

He was not a "troop" as he was not an "enemy" nor military.

He was an american citizen, and therefore due all the rights a citizen deserves, which include being arrested, tried, and convicted for treason.

He was not a "troop" - he was a civilian.

You are wrong, and a typical example of how the terrorists WON on 9/11.

Re:One of 'us'

[maxume]

I think you are making an awful big assumption when you say that nobody will want to organize resistance against a nation that claims to have power over the life and death of any person they deem to be a sufficient threat.

Re:One of 'us'

[imuffin]

Right. The 5th amendment doesn't specify that due process is guaranteed only for citizens; it applies to all persons. That's the point of the bill of rights: it outlines inalienable human rights that belong to all humans, citizens or not.

Seven of Nine disapproves

[Dachannien]

Inefficient. Drones should assimilate, not kill.

Re:Seven of Nine disapproves

[seven of five]

But I approve.

Name the only candidate that would stop this..

[mwasham]

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.

Re:Name the only candidate that would stop this..

[mwasham]

"moneyed interests" - already control us. No need to trade anything. Ron Paul is the only candidate standing up to the "moneyed interests". You should educate yourself before you speak such non-sense. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ji_G0MqAqq8 http://www.ronpaul.com/on-the-issues/fiat-money-inflation-federal-reserve-2/

watch out for those links

[burris]

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.

Re:War /= civil process.

[YA_Python_dev]

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.

Re:Let's get a couple things straight, here.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Killing him was self defense.

I don't expect you to show any outrage when the other side are killing Americans using the same "logic" then.

Other Countries Can Do This Too, You Know...

[IonOtter]

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.

Re:War /= civil process.

[dkleinsc]

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.

Bieber, you're next!

[eddy]

>Mr. Awlaki was known for his ability to couch extremist views in ways that appealed to Western youth.

Ron Paul

[roman_mir]

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.)

Re:Stop crying

[cyber-vandal]

We're supposed to be better than them. Otherwise you might as well just have a military dictatorship where the General can kill whoever he wants at any time.

Re:He has been linked?

[Grygus]

This involves no war, and he was not a soldier. If you can define a war as "action against any organization ideologically opposed to the administration" and a soldier as "accused member of said organization" then you can kill pretty much anyone you like.

Re:5th Amendment - indite him?

[MonsterMasher]

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.

Re:War /= civil process.

[tmosley]

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.

Re:War /= civil process.

[tmosley]

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.

Re:Let's get a couple things straight, here.

[Grygus]

Sweet, he made unending proclamations about his involvement? I might get all my concerns laid to rest. Surely this is all online; can you link me the definitive proof that he was in Al Queda? I will accept a video of him making the assertion himself, or even a statement by a credible news agency that isn't simply quoting the government.

Oh wait. You can't. Because it doesn't exist.

What you're asking me to do is take the killer's word for the fact that the victim needed killing. You seriously don't see the conflict there? I also question when exercising free speech (even if criminally excessive) became a crime worthy of the death penalty.