Anwar al-Awlaki killed

[Hax]

I might have to redact my statement and take into account that serious mental illness is more prevalent that I thought it seems.

Spoken like someone that doesn't know Iran at all.

Sure, walking along the border may just be a bit silly, but if you know the language and you steer well-clear off the borders, there ain't that much that can go wrong.

[Greyblades]

Maybe I'm missing something but from the artical this guy was openly pro-al-Qaeda who was at the time running around an al-qaeda camp, seems pretty obvious that he was on the enemy's side, and in the middle of an open war, so what's the problem here?

[drone]

Maybe I'm missing something but from the artical this guy was openly pro-al-Qaeda who was at the time running around an al-qaeda camp, seems pretty obvious that he was on the enemy's side, and in the middle of an open war, so what's the problem here?

But what did he actually do to deserve a death sentence from the executive branch? There is no open war, not in Yemen. To the best of my knowledge, the worst thing he might have done was to talk some poor Nigerian dude into setting his balls on fire while traveling one-way to Detroit.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The real question is clearly not about the assassination of American citizens on the orders of the executive. That has happened, or at least has been ordered to happen before (the soldiers who defected during the Korea war, IIRC). The question is can you live with the damage, the scope creep of the executive, that was implemented during Bush and is still going strong under Obama?

And if not how do you fix it? Who can fix it? The conservatives appointed by Bush to sway the courts towards silent assent with PATRIOT? The myopic crowd focused on birth certificates? Surely not ambitious politicians in Congress?

[econ21]

But what did he actually do to deserve a death sentence from the executive branch? ... To the best of my knowledge, the worst thing he might have done was to talk some poor Nigerian dude into setting his balls on fire while traveling one-way to Detroit.

So he might have been responsible for another civilian plane hurtling its passengers to their deaths? And that's not enough for you? I concede, the "might have" is important. But for the sake of argument, if he had, as the US claim, a "direct operational role" in planning the attack, then imo, he's as fair game for a drone strike as any operational commander of an enemy airforce in a time of war.

There is no open war, not in Yemen.

Well, terrorists are not usually known for waging "open war" but regardless, the situation in Yemen recently has verred close to that. Over a hundred people died in the most recently reported week of fighting. The President was badly wounded (40% burns) in a bombing in June at a time when two armored divisions of his army had turned against him. There have been attempts to broker a ceasefire, but my reading is that parts of Yemen currently make Afghanistan and the tribal areas of Pakistan appear under firm government control. I am not saying the conflict in Yemen is led by Al Qaeda, but they are active there. If I were to criticise the killing, it would be on pragmatic grounds of not forcing his tribe and the insurgents into bed with extreme Islamicists. But I don't have a problem with it on ethical grounds.

[drone]

So he might have been responsible for another civilian plane hurtling its passengers to their deaths? And that's not enough for you? I concede, the "might have" is important. But for the sake of argument, if he had, as the US claim, a "direct operational role" in planning the attack, then imo, he's as fair game for a drone strike as any operational commander of an enemy airforce in a time of war.

If he had a direct operational role in the Christmas Day attempt, all the more reason to keep him alive. Incompetence at high levels of your enemy should be nurtured, not eliminated. From what I've seen, he was a recruiting personality, nothing more.

ACIN sums up my argument. Where does it stop? I don't trust the executive branch to make the right decision, there have been too many examples during this "war" on terror where they have screwed up. We have a "war" on drugs, might come in handy there! The ability to be judge/jury/executioner over US citizens is a power I do not want them to have.

[Hax]

Al-Awlaki was a religious figure first, then a recruiter and then he might have something to do with operational planning, afaik.

[econ21]

From what I've seen, he was a recruiting personality, nothing more.

For my part, I think a man who recruits ten terrorists is more dangeorous than the actual terrorist. Ten times more, in fact. Of course, if is just an imam or scholar, writing vile things in splendid isolation, then dropping a missile on his head may be an over-reaction. Arresting and prosecuting him may be more appropriate, although non-trivial when dealing with a fugitive in a war zone. But from what I've seen, his connection with the terrorist networks was more intimate and hands-on. It's not just the Nigerian he had close personal contact with - there's quite a list of such associations, if wikipedia or your government is anything to go by. The latest report was that the missile that killed al-Awlaki failed to kill an AQ bombmaker also targeted in the same party. It looks to me that he was not merely inciting mass murder, he was conspiring to commit it.

ACIN sums up my argument. Where does it stop? I don't trust the executive branch to make the right decision, there have been too many examples during this "war" on terror where they have screwed up. We have a "war" on drugs, might come in handy there! The ability to be judge/jury/executioner over US citizens is a power I do not want them to have.

The involvement of the executive in this did initially suprise me - what is the President, a career politician with re-election in view, doing deciding the life and death of an individual? In the war analogy, which I still think valid, it would be an operational decision, not a political one. But then thinking about it, I find it oddly reassuring. The US takes the issue so seriously, it's passing it right up the chain of the command. No one below wants to take responsibility. It's when your black ops people starting killing people without any openness or reference to the politicians that you really ought to worry.

Where does it stop? The facetious answer is that it stops when armed groups stop planning to down your civilian airplanes. This is a fairly new thing (as in, post 9/11) for the US and most countries. We've had hijackings before, but the terrorists typically wanted to use the passengers as bargaining chips - that's what the 9/11 instigators were counting on, to keep their victims acquiescent. Past terrorist actions - say the IRA against my country - have been quite limited in scale by comparison. A bomb in a market is probably the grievest blow they struck. The IRA killed maybe 2000 people over 20 years; less than Al Qaeda killed in a day. I think it is quite a proportional response - restrained even - to use a drone to take out what appears to be a key AQ figure.

That's why I don't buy the analogies with the "war on drugs" or the Kremlin using radiation poisoning to kill off an irritating dissident in London. Defending yourself against mass murder is nothing like trying to reduce the use of illicit drugs or criticism of your regime.

For a country like the US, there is a real prospect this terrorist prospect will wilt and diminish, so that we go back to the scale of threat we saw prior to 9/11. For other countries like Israel, the terrorist threat looks more intractable and on ethical grounds I can't condemn them for fighting back against the people firing rockets at them. How to best to get people to stop firing rockets or your own planes against you - the pragmatic side of the argument - is an important one I would not claim to know how to answer with any certainty. Does assassinating terrorist leaders help or hinder your security? I don't know, but it's hard to see a priori that it is always a hindrance.

The less facetious answer is that such actions stop if the intelligence does not support them. You need to be fairly confident you are assassinating the right person. Some civilian oversight of the intelligence services and their operational decisions is probably admirable, although inevitably the details will have to be somewhat opaque to the public - you can't publicly reveal all your intelligence when fighting a covert enemy.

As a Brit - a country with no written constitution - your special concerns for US citizens and your constitution are not my own. If Al-Awlaki were a Brit planning to knock my airplanes out of the sky or a Yemeni, it would make not the slightest difference to me. The imperative is to protect your people against terrorist atrocities; the passport and legal rights of a person who has openly declared jihad on you is not the overriding concern. And what some politicos wrote more than 200 years ago does not exercise me greatly. My ancestors fought yours with a lot more restraint way back then.

[Greyblades]

As a Brit - a country with no written constitution - your special concerns for US citizens and your constitution are not my own. If Al-Awlaki were a Brit planning to knock my airplanes out of the sky or a Yemeni, it would make not the slightest difference to me. The imperative is to protect your people against terrorist atrocities; the passport and legal rights of a person who has openly declared jihad on you is not the overriding concern. And what some politicos wrote more than 200 years ago does not exercise me greatly. My ancestors fought yours with a lot more restraint way back then.

Ok can we scale back here? I cant help but see a brit verses america "who was in the right during the revoloution" fight derailing the thread in the near future, and as amusing as it might become I dont think the thread will last long that way.

[classical_hero]

From what I've seen, he was a recruiting personality, nothing more.

So if you hire someone to kill someone, then you are not guilty?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Maybe I'm missing something but from the artical this guy was openly pro-al-Qaeda who was at the time running around an al-qaeda camp, seems pretty obvious that he was on the enemy's side, and in the middle of an open war, so what's the problem here?

Problem is that if you agree to have the government kill off everyone who is a "bad guy" with no accountability, you start running into some problems.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Problem is that if you agree to have the government kill off everyone who is a "bad guy" with no accountability, you start running into some problems.

But what about if you have the government, with less stringent accountability than usual due to the circumstances, sometimes kill actual bad guys (no "quotation" marks)? What problems do you run into then?

[PanzerJaeger]

What are the differences between al-Awlaki and a Confederate?

[a completely inoffensive name]

But what about if you have the government, with less stringent accountability than usual due to the circumstances, sometimes kill actual bad guys (no "quotation" marks)? What problems do you run into then?

The government could have a 100% success rate in killing only terrorists, but the problem is something higher than logistics. It's about how we think about ourselves, and our relationship with our government. If we choose to demean the soul of the Constitution for the sake of practicality for all situations, then the concepts, ideas and words that make up "Americana" get more distorted and weakened. A culture that is ready to change itself down to its basic principles every time there is an external threat, doesn't make for a strong culture. I think that by catering to every problem by changing ourselves we weaken us and the US as a whole more than if we were to simply implement a procedure that may or may not be long in order for the president to assassinate people.

I guess to make my point clear, I will take your words from before and twist it a bit.

Does he you really not believe there are moral principles above what the law actually says might be pragmatic?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The government could have a 100% success rate in killing only terrorists, but the problem is something higher than logistics. It's about how we think about ourselves, and our relationship with our government. If we choose to demean the soul of the Constitution for the sake of practicality for all situations, then the concepts, ideas and words that make up "Americana" get more distorted and weakened. A culture that is ready to change itself down to its basic principles every time there is an external threat, doesn't make for a strong culture. I think that by catering to every problem by changing ourselves we weaken us and the US as a whole more than if we were to simply implement a procedure that may or may not be long in order for the president to assassinate people.

I guess to make my point clear, I will take your words from before and twist it a bit.

Where's the change? Apart from not being isolationist.

Anyway, principles is what it's about. It's a moral principle that we should get after these people--not pragmatism. Following basic legal principles is what you are advocating here, not moral ones (well, you think the moral lines up with the legal in this case).

[a completely inoffensive name]

Where's the change? Apart from not being isolationist.

It is not at all being isolationist for simply wanting a procedure before an assassination. The change as I have said is in what we expect from government and how we expect it. Do we follow the ideal of checks and balances between government authorities or are we going to toss aside that idea for the sake of having safer lives? A benevolent dictator with the strength and power of the US, can keep us very, very safe. Do we want to push down that road though and leave the Constitution behind? Government and society are symbiotic in my opinion. By accepting a change in how government operates, the culture and people change as well. Even if it is to a small degree.

Anyway, principles is what it's about. It's a moral principle that we should get after these people--not pragmatism. Following basic legal principles is what you are advocating here, not moral ones (well, you think the moral lines up with the legal in this case).

It is a moral principle to uphold the ideals of the Constitution since they are the ideals that Americans subscribe to. If those principles clash with the principles of keeping us safe by going after the terrorists, the latter not the former are overruled. It is not up to the government to change the way it operates under such pretenses. The change should only come from when America as a whole has decided to rid itself of some of those ideals in order for the government to operate as it has done. But America has not done that. The responsibility of safety does not allow government a justification for radically changing itself without the support of the citizens.

[Fragony]

Spoken like someone that doesn't know Iran at all.

Sure, walking along the border may just be a bit silly, but if you know the language and you steer well-clear off the borders, there ain't that much that can go wrong.

This is true, if you don't ruffle any feathers you are perfectly safe there as a foreigner. Friends of mine went last year, and they had no problems whatsoever, nice pics

[Rhyfelwyr]

The law just hasn't caught up with the reality of war these days. It was designed for a time when conflict was primarily between sovereign states and doesn't take account for the nature of modern trans-national terrorist groups.

Killings such as this don't make me uncomfortable. It is sad that he died but I don't fear some sort of tyranny coming from it. The UK government took similar actions against members of Republican and Loyalist paramilitaries back in the day. We have yet to become a police state, in fact the 'liberties' the government took in that conflict never spilled over into areas of the law and country not affected by it, and things went back to normal after the ceasefires.

[Lemur]

A blogger makes some good points:

What should the evidentiary standard be for determining an American citizen poses a threat even warranting discussion of assassination?

I'm not a lawyer. Not. A. Lawyer. So forgive me if there's a legal step that I'm missing.

But this is the question, the one that has to kick in before any of Ben's process — or anyone else's — gets applied. We know that Anwar al-Awlaki (and Samir Khan) are noxious propagandists who are obviously guilty of incitement to murder. We know this because of their public writings and videos. Is that enough to warrant assassination?

I refuse to accept the word of any member of the Obama administration that they are worse than that. When any member of the administration shows me evidence that they are, then I will consider that they are. But the stakes of killing an American citizen on the say-so of the government are, in my non-lawyer opinion, too grave to accept the mere assurance of a government official. To believe otherwise, in my non-lawyer opinion, is to be cavalier about both life and liberty.

Something must guard against President Whomever saying, "Oh, yeah, that guy's a dangerous terrorist. Order me up a double-tap." There must be evidence presented for that proposition. And then there must be a consideration of what the standards are for how great a threat a U.S. citizen represents. Then and only then can someone responsibly enter into a process like Ben's. I see nothing in Ben's process to guard against the whims of President Whomever; and that's the ballgame right there.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

My friend who goes under the Twitter pseudonym @RBStalin asked if a North Waziristan resident (and Pakistani citizen) has the right not to be Predator'd. All I know is that if the Constitution means anything, it means that Anwar Awlaki has more rights than that guy. You can kill Usama bin Laden all day long and I will never, ever have a problem with it. (I might even pay to see it happen, were it possible -- that is how deep my hatred for bin Laden runs.) But an American citizen must possess protections from government killing that a non-citizen lacks.

It seems completely absurd to me to act as if constitutional principles like that only apply to Americans. Why are some people only making a fuss now that it was a US citizen? That's not in the spirit of the constitution at all. Why does he think the constitution means that AA has more rights than someone else whose only difference is that he isn't technically an American citizen?? That's only true in a legal sense.

Does he really not believe there are moral principles above what the law actually says?