Anwar al-Awlaki

[El Barto]

This thing kind of troubles me.  I'm of the opinion that killing him was probably legally justifiable.  That said,  because you can do something doesn't mean that you should do something.  Killing him set a very, very bad precedent in my opinion.   Douchebag or not,  al-Awlaki was an American citizen.  Somewhere along the way we've determined that to be something that can be disregarded.  Ignoring his status is yet another,  very large step to the other side of US values.  The previous administration fought tooth and nail to justify denying due process to non-citizens by declaring them enemy combatants.  It would appear that we're now expanding that idea to a middle-ground of new citizen non-combatants. 

As for the legality,  it certainly matters whether or not he was operational or inspirational.  Unfortunately,  Bush III will insure that we never actually find out one way or the other whether or not he was. 

Secret Panel can put Americans on kill list

[7StringedBeast]

Don't go to the middle east preaching death to america and helping out terrorist organizations and you should be OK. 

[El Barto]

Don't go to the middle east preaching death to america and helping out terrorist organizations and you should be OK. 

You know damn well that's beside the point.

However,  I'll play along.  What if he'd still been in New Mexico.  Would it have been OK to drop a bomb on his house or would you then think he should have been arrested, tried and then mainlined for his beliefs?

[7StringedBeast]

Well I was joking with you, but lets continue on this route.

I believe that if you leave our country, go across and start working with the enemy, you are then part of their "army" for lack of a better term and I feel like that should instantly lose you citizenship.  Like in WW2 if you defected and put on a German uniform you'd be killed in battle.  That's how I see this.  He was on the field of battle so to speak. 

If the guy was still in the US he should be captured and put on trial for treason. 

[El Barto]

Well I was joking with you, but lets continue on this route.

I believe that if you leave our country, go across and start working with the enemy, you are then part of their "army" for lack of a better term and I feel like that should instantly lose you citizenship.  Like in WW2 if you defected and put on a German uniform you'd be killed in battle.  That's how I see this.  He was on the field of battle so to speak. 

If the guy was still in the US he should be captured and put on trial for treason.

Well, for one thing,  I don't see why leaving the country in and of itself costs you your citizenship.  But,  I'm not necessarily opposed to that.  I had certainly considered forfeiture of citizenship.  However,  don't you think there should be some kind of judicial process to determine that?  Part of the issue here is the executive just deciding that it's OK to whack you now. 

[7StringedBeast]

Did you miss the part about leaving the country and then fighting for the enemy?  That's what loses you your citizenship and all rights.  If you start actually fighting for the other team and you are among their ranks in their country on the front lines of this conflict you are going to get killed just like the people there with you.

The government isn't just going to decide to whack you.  You act as if this shit happens all the time.  This is an extreme case where a citizen goes over seas and becomes a terrorist fighting against his original country.  Seriously, as long as you don't do that, you won't get whacked.

[antigoon]

This assassination stuff really rubs me the wrong way. Barto, I agree completely that this is just a logical progression from the Bush II policy of denying foreigners due process and detention without charge.  Now, our government kills US citizens because it says they're Bad People. And when we ask for the evidence they say, "Oh, sorry, it's secret." Bullshit.

As far as the treason argument -- that he gave up his US citizenship or some crap because he committed treason -- I find that really weak. I'm doing homework right now; the Constitution is right in front of me.

Article III, section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. NO PERSON SHALL BE CONVICTED OF TREASON UNLESS ON THE TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES TO THE SAME OVERT ACT, OR ON CONFESSION IN OPEN COURT.

Look, I'm glad he can't plan any more attacks if what he was doing even amounted to that, but this killing -- and its Bush-era policy-predecessors -- just goes to show that the DOJ can justify just about anything it wants to, while claiming secrecy to avoid showing anyone.

That is scary.


edit: Here, look, even the State Department admits the Treason thing is crap:

"It's interesting," State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said at Friday's daily briefing amid a barrage of questions on the airstrike that killed al-Awlaki in Yemen. Nuland said she asked State Department lawyers whether the government can revoke a person's citizenship based on their affiliation with a foreign terrorist group, and it turned out there's no law on the books authorizing officials to do so. "An American can be stripped of citizenship for committing an act of high treason and being convicted in a court for that. But that was obviously not the case in this case," she said. "Under U.S. law, there are seven criteria under which you can strip somebody of citizenship, and none of those applied in this case."

https://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/2011/10_-_October/Summary_Judgments_for_Oct__3/

[7StringedBeast]

Do you really think they'd waste their time going after this guy if he wasn't actively involved with the people we are fighting against?  What would be the point of hunting him down if he wasn't a threat?  It's not a sport.  The military is constantly getting intel on these types of people.  If they made a move on them, I'm sure they had a good reason to.

[antigoon]

Do you really think they'd waste their time going after this guy if he wasn't actively involved with the people we are fighting against?  What would be the point of hunting him down if he wasn't a threat?  It's not a sport.  The military is constantly getting intel on these types of people.  If they made a move on them, I'm sure they had a good reason to.

Because everything our government and the military does is just, right, and good, and we should trust them no matter what, especially when they refuse to present us evidence.

[7StringedBeast]

Are you implying that our military hunts people down just for fun?  They waste people's time and energy and their budget to just gun random dudes down?  C'mon.  Since when is our government supposed to give us all the information out there.  They never have before.  Shit gets classified all the time. 

[antigoon]

The argument you're presenting in this thread just seems like an offshoot of "if you don't do anything bad, you have nothing to worry about" justification for all the other civil liberties violations we've had to endure since 2001.

And I'm not okay with the ever-increasing shroud of secrecy over what the government does. I thought the Obama Administration was supposed to be MORE transparent.

[El Barto]

For one thing,  I'm not sure this was a military action. 

Another problem is that I'm not sure at all he was operational.  If he was inspirational,  as he initially was, then you've got a whole new set of problems.

As for whether or not they'd go out of their way to off him,  a funny thing about declaring war on something like this is that you create a cottage industry for it.  Nobody wants to actually win the war on drugs because it's such a boon to the people fighting it.  Similarly,  I don't think the US wants to win the war on terror.  It's a spectacular tool for a variety of things.  Prevent devastating attacks?  Sure.  Nobody wants those.  End the fight?  No way.  Yes,  I think they'd go out of their way to kill the guy on specious evidence. 

[7StringedBeast]

Lol it's the god damn military not your sister's diary dude.  You aren't supposed to have access to all the things that they know.  It's never been that way, and it shouldn't be that way.  Maybe it will be declassified when the information isn't as sensitive.

Why are you so paranoid that the government just hunted this guy down for no reason.  The military wouldn't waste its time unless there was a reason to go after the guy.

[antigoon]

Another problem is that I'm not sure at all he was operational.  If he was inspirational,  as he initially was, then you've got a whole new set of problems.

Right. And we'll never know. I wonder why.

Don't worry though. This killing won't impede our endless war on terror.

[Nigerius Rex]

Why are you so paranoid that the government just hunted this guy down for no reason.  The military wouldn't waste its time unless there was a reason to go after the guy.

If the Military and any branches of our government like it were cold and efficient, and adhered to a set of rules, it wouldn't be a problem. But for them to go into grey area where there are no precedents, no rules, where no one can really say what the right course of action was, is a heinous abuse of resources and power in a society supposedly governed by the people who know nothing of what their military is doing abroad. What is more scary is that it seems like there is due process for stripping someone of their rights and citizenship and it was completely ignored without verifiable evidence.

[lordxizor]

This is definitely something that doesn't sit terribly well with me either. But if I was in Obama's position where there was a person who was a known threat to the US, was trying to incite others to attack the US, and had been responsible for previous violent acts (or attempted at least), I'd have a hard time not taking him out. I suppose he could have chosen to send in the special forces to extract him and bring him back to the US for a trial, but then you're putting loyal Americans lives in harms way. It's easy to get worked up about this, but I don't envy Obama's position in the slightest.

[El Barto]

This is definitely something that doesn't sit terribly well with me either. But if I was in Obama's position where there was a person who was a known threat to the US, was trying to incite others to attack the US, and had been responsible for previous violent acts (or attempted at least), I'd have a hard time not taking him out. I suppose he could have chosen to send in the special forces to extract him and bring him back to the US for a trial, but then you're putting loyal Americans lives in harms way. It's easy to get worked up about this, but I don't envy Obama's position in the slightest.

I've certainly tried to consider his position as well.  It seems to me that if you have actionable intel,  then you're already ahead of the curve.  The need to act as fast as possible is somewhat diminished.  There's time to take a deliberate approach.  The facts just don't point to exigent circumstances.  As for putting American lives in harms way,  they're already there in a big way.  This would actually be an instance where they really were defending American values and [formerly] our way of life. 

Something that puzzles me is why they felt the need to launch the operation they did to kill Bin Laden,  and here they're content just to blow his house up. 

[lordxizor]

Something that puzzles me is why they felt the need to launch the operation they did to kill Bin Laden,  and here they're content just to blow his house up. 

I suppose with Bin Laden they wanted to make 100% certain it was him who was killed.

I think it would have been a bigger statement for what America will do to traitors if they captured him alive, put him on trial, and then likely executed him or at least locked him away for life. He would have become a very visible figure for why you shouldn't turn your back on America instead of being yet another terrorist killed by a drone.

[Orion1967]

Do you really think they'd waste their time going after this guy if he wasn't actively involved with the people we are fighting against?  What would be the point of hunting him down if he wasn't a threat?  It's not a sport.  The military is constantly getting intel on these types of people.  If they made a move on them, I'm sure they had a good reason to.

Because everything our government and the military does is just, right, and good, and we should trust them no matter what, especially when they refuse to present us evidence.

Are you under the mistaken impression that the U.S. Government needs to consult the general population for it's "feelings" on who to shoot and not shoot in a war zone?

[Orion1967]

Something that puzzles me is why they felt the need to launch the operation they did to kill Bin Laden,  and here they're content just to blow his house up. 

I suppose with Bin Laden they wanted to make 100% certain it was him who was killed.

I think it would have been a bigger statement for what America will do to traitors if they captured him alive, put him on trial, and then likely executed him or at least locked him away for life. He would have become a very visible figure for why you shouldn't turn your back on America instead of being yet another terrorist killed by a drone.

I think your assessment is probably pretty accurate, I mean if he were captured, brought to trial and executed then the islamic extremists would have a sure fire icon to rally around and brainwash more gullible young muslims into becoming car bombs and the like.   Also if given a trial he now has a public venue with which to spew out his anti-American, great satan rhetoric and call others to the cause.  This way, like you point out, he is just another casualty of a pre-existing conflict.  Personally I would love to have seen him swing from a rope on pay-per-view but hey, a big ass bomb works too.

[El Barto]

Because fearing speech to the point of disregarding due process is exactly what this country is all about.

[Orion1967]

Because fearing speech to the point of disregarding due process is exactly what this country is all about.

I wouldnt agree with that

[El Barto]

Didn't you just defend the extrajudicial killing of the guy so-as to avoid giving him a platform to speak?

[Orion1967]

Didn't you just defend the extrajudicial killing of the guy so-as to avoid giving him a platform to speak?

Not per se, I simply made the observation that blowing him up was probably a better move instead of giving a platform for jihadists to rally around.  Doesnt necessarily mean that I think it was a govenrmental conspiracy to prevent that from happening.   Maybe it was, maybe it wasnt?  I'm not one of the ones that the DoD consults with before shooting a big-ass-missle at (as cool as that would be imho).  Seriously though, I am kind of on the fence on this one, Osama? yeah he deserved what he got in spades.  This Al-Awlki cat? I dunno, since I am not privvy to the CIA/NSA/DoD intel dossiers I kind of have to believe that they did the right thing in this case.

[antigoon]

Our rampant drone bombings create more anti-US sentiment than some Al-Qaeda sympathizer on trial ever could.

[Omega]

Our rampant drone bombings create more anti-US sentiment than some Al-Qaeda sympathizer on trial ever could.

[El Barto]

Didn't you just defend the extrajudicial killing of the guy so-as to avoid giving him a platform to speak?

Not per se, I simply made the observation that blowing him up was probably a better move instead of giving a platform for jihadists to rally around.  Doesnt necessarily mean that I think it was a govenrmental conspiracy to prevent that from happening.   Maybe it was, maybe it wasnt?  I'm not one of the ones that the DoD consults with before shooting a big-ass-missle at (as cool as that would be imho).  Seriously though, I am kind of on the fence on this one, Osama? yeah he deserved what he got in spades.  This Al-Awlki cat? I dunno, since I am not privvy to the CIA/NSA/DoD intel dossiers I kind of have to believe that they did the right thing in this case.

Where we have a problem is trusting any asshole that gets himself appointed president to determine who gets a trial and who get's tomahawked based on his own confidential insight.  This notion that we just trust the government to make the right call there is one of the most batshit-insane things I can fathom.  It seems to me that either you release all of the intel that explains why you want to blow him to bits,  or you go in, nab him, and convict him in front of a jury if you want to keep your intel secret.  Extrajudicial killing with zero oversight whatsoever is bullshit.  If any non-NATO world leader pulled something like that,  we'd be screaming condemning him as a despot.

[Chino]

If you are a citizen living in the US and you decide to pull out a gun then point it at a police officer, you are going to be shot on site in the cops defense. This guy did the same thing, just on a larger scale. He pointed a gun at America and we defended ourself. Up until 1997 the punishment for treason was death. I don't know why it was changed.

[Orion1967]

...This notion that we just trust the government to make the right call there is one of the most batshit-insane things I can fathom.  It seems to me that either you release all of the intel that explains why you want to blow him to bits,  or you go in, nab him, and convict him in front of a jury if you want to keep your intel secret....

Well at some point you have to trust the government, I recognize that it is contradictory towards other "trust the government" arguments I make and I certainly do not think our military ALWAYS gets it right, but tbh there are things that you just can't publicize to get a "political read" on it.  Also think about it, I know you are not a huge fan of our judical system as it sits now (basing it off our debates in the Davis/Death penalty thread) but in if, in order to convict you have to disclose national defense secrets (sources, methods, etc...) do you really want to be forced to do that? Do you say "well, lets use all the OTHER intel to convict"? What if the only intel is irrefutable and is ALL secret intel?  Do you hold the trail in a media blackout with jurors and participants sworn on non-disclosure? Someone will eventually talk then boom secret intel is now public.  Also wouldn't you throw the bullshit flag on a trial that you (the public) cant see all of the proof to?  I know I might.   Is it right to do what we did? Since I am not privvy to the intel I can't make a call either way, nor can anyone else who isn't read into the case file, really.

[Orion1967]

If you are a citizen living in the US and you decide to pull out a gun then point it at a police officer, you are going to be shot on site in the cops defense. This guy did the same thing, just on a larger scale. He pointed a gun at America and we defended ourself. Up until 1997 the punishment for treason was death. I don't know why it was changed.

<sarcasm>Probably that bastard Bush</sarcasm>

[El Barto]

You know,  sometimes you just can't have everything you want.  If you can't deal with somebody justly,  then maybe you have to wait until you can. 

And I don't buy this pointing a gun nonsense.  As I mentioned earlier, this wasn't an exigent situation.  As far as we're allowed to know, what he was doing was more akin to shouting that you hope somebody else kills the cop for you; big difference.

[jsem]

rampant drone bombings create more anti-US sentiment than some Al-Qaeda sympathizer on trial ever could.

This.

What if the Saudis saw a threat in the United States because some of its citizens plotted terrorist acts against the Saudi house, and as a result the Saudis strike American cities with drones in attempts to kill those citizens...

Hundreds of civilians would die and Americans would HATE Saudi Arabia.

[7StringedBeast]

The only difference is that the US would actually help the Saudi's find and capture those people so they wouldn't have to come make an attack here to get the job done. 

Pakistan isn't doing shit to help us.  In fact they've done more to hinder us.  If the middle east were actually helping us out in ridding terrorist camps and bases, maybe we wouldn't have to drone strike them.

[El Barto]

The only difference is that the US would actually help the Saudi's find and capture those people so they wouldn't have to come make an attack here to get the job done. 

Pakistan isn't doing shit to help us.  In fact they've done more to hinder us.  If the middle east were actually helping us out in ridding terrorist camps and bases, maybe we wouldn't have to drone strike them.

That's a fascinating scenario to ponder.  The US, as in the government of the US,  would certainly try to help nab the people responsible; much like the governments of Pakistan, Yemen (where this guy was actually blown up), and Saudi Arabia would.  As for the people,  some would and others wouldn't; again, much like the people in Pakistan, Yemen, and Saudi Arabia. 

[7StringedBeast]

The gov of pakistan has not exactly been helpful.  We have caught them over and over being deceitful and flat out lying to us.  There is a reason we didn't tell them about the Bin Laden raid.