Anwar al-Awlaki killed

[Hax]

So Anwar al-Awlaki, who was linked with the attempted hijacking of an American plane in 2007, and whose lectures were attented by Nidal Malik asan as well as three of the 9/11 bombers has been killed in a supposedly American air strike.

Yemen's defence ministry has reported that al-Qaeda-linked cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed along with several other fighters.A statement released to the media on Friday said the dual US-Yemeni citizen was hunted down by Yemeni forces, but did not elaborate on the circumstances of his death.
"The terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed along with some of his companions," said a statement sent by text message to journalists.
Tribal sources told the AFP news agency that Awlaki was killed early on Friday in an air strike that hit two vehicles in Marib province, an al-Qaeda stronghold in eastern Yemen.
The airplane that carried out the strike was likely to be American, according to tribal sources, who added that US aircraft had been patrolling the skies over Marib for the past several days.
A US drone aircraft targeted but missed Alwaki in May, and the Yemeni defence ministry had previously announced Awlaki's death late last year.
On December 24, the Yemeni government said he had been killed in an air strike only to admit later that he was still alive.
"He has been a target of US drones at least 3 times,"Hakim al-Masmari, editor-in-chief of the Yemeni Post, told Al Jazeera.
"The Yemeni Government will face a lot of criticism, especially in the south, for allowing US drones to attack Yemeni civilians. But it will not be a blow to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula from any perspective. We don't feel they will suffer, because [Awlaki] did not have any real role in [AQAP]."

Full story: Yemeni forces 'kill' cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

[al Roumi]

Amusingly it's actually being reported as a Yemeni air-strike... lol

[Major Robert Dump]

Darn, who is gonna pay the pirates?

[drone]

A US citizen killed by his country without judicial process. Lovely.

[Samurai Waki]

What the hell is going on, lately?

[drone]

Correction - Two US citizens killed by their government without due process. Since we are talking rampant executive power, maybe we should just merge this in with the police abuses thread.

[Tuuvi]

A US citizen killed by his country without judicial process. Lovely.

I first heard the news on radio the other morning (or maybe it was this morning? I don't remember) and I thought the same thing. It doesn't seem right to me for the US government to strike one of it's own citizens, even if he/she is a terrorist.

[Papewaio]

So only US citizens should get judicial process?

Seems a case of what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander. Nomone can really call hypocrisy on this one.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't understand the mentality of only caring about the result and not the method.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I don't understand the mentality of only caring about the result and not the method.

What don't you like about the method? Airstrike seems pretty sensible?

The judicial branch never heard the case.

Ah, so people can get convicted of treason without a trial? How convenient.

Indeed, it seems the Obama administration has decided it can kill anyone it wants anywhere in the world if it decides they've been part of a terrorist organization.

They've presented no evidence, claiming it's "state secrets". Heck, why do we need juries any more? Just let the sheriff decide who's guilty and go kill them.

CR

Have they decided that? Who else have they killed? I seem to remember someone else they killed without trial...

[a completely inoffensive name]

What don't you like about the method? Airstrike seems pretty sensible?

You know what I am saying, Sasaki. Don't be silly. :)

Only caring about the result and not the method of how the government did it, is the best way to turn the government into a terrorist organization in itself.

I talked about this in the Osama bin Laden thread. Everyone was soooo excited about how we finally caught the guy and killed him. But as I said in the thread, at what cost? We got warrantless wiretapping, fear mongering, two wars, the rest of the PATRIOT Act etc... But hey, as long as we killed the bad guy, the government did its job and we should be happy right?

I don't mind my local police throwing a mugger in jail for a year without any trial because the he was a bad person and was trying to harm Americans. As long as the bad guy is caught, it doesn't matter how the government operates or what boundaries it breaks, its job is to protect us and since I will never, never break a law I don't have to worry about disappearing for a long time without a moments notice.

[Montmorency]

I don't understand the mentality of only caring about the result and not the method.

But that's not there case. There are ends and there are means. Here is merely a matter of certain means being acceptable to some and reprehensible to others. You all can go ahead and work out which means should and which means shouldn't be in the policymaker's toolkit based upon your arbitrary standards and morals.

[a completely inoffensive name]

But that's not there case. There are ends and there are means. Here is merely a matter of certain means being acceptable to some and reprehensible to others. You all can go ahead and work out which means should and which means shouldn't be in the policymaker's toolkit based upon your arbitrary standards and morals.

My understanding is that the president ordered for him to be killed, and so he was killed. This isn't really a good precedent to establish even if the man was a genuine terrorist.

Arbitrary standards and morals = If we all said rape was ok, it would now be ok. lol

[PanzerJaeger]

My understanding is that the president ordered for him to be killed, and so he was killed. This isn't really a good precedent to establish even if the man was a genuine terrorist.

It's not a particularly new precedent. In fact, Obama was following a precedent established years ago.

[Montmorency]

If you all believed rape were acceptable, it would be acceptable to you.

Do you dislike the word arbitary? Fair enough. Arbitrariness is, of course, subjective. You believe as you do for many reasons, some of them biological and sociological.

This perspective offers you no solutions. It gives you no pleasure, and so it wearies you to read it. Perhaps you are even angered.

Do you get it?

[a completely inoffensive name]

It's not a particularly new precedent. In fact, Obama was following a precedent established years ago.

Its newish. <10 years old. Point is that it shouldn't be something to be tolerated.

If you all believed rape were acceptable, it would be acceptable to you.

Not what I said. If we all said it was ok to rape, does that make the make the act of rape in and of itself ok? Do you think it is perfectly fine to say that rape is bad in the US because we say it is bad, but it is ok in some tribal land where they think differently?

Do you dislike the word arbitary? Fair enough. Arbitrariness is, of course, subjective. You believe as you do for many reasons, some of them biological and sociological.

I believe what I believe because they are (or at least I try to have them be) logical conclusions stemming from undeniable axioms. Of course, you would probably deny them, but I doubt you would have a solid reason to refute them.

This perspective offers you no solutions. It gives you no pleasure, and so it wearies you to read it. Perhaps you are even angered.

Not angered, not weary. Linear algebra wearies me when I have to do 5x5 matrixes all night long. This perspective intrigues me because it seems self defeating. If we all believed x was acceptable than it would be acceptable to us. So if we all believe that our standards and morals were not arbitrary, then our standards and morals are not arbitrary.

Do you get it?

Kinda, sorta, not really. Not a philosophy major so of course I am completely vulnerable for someone with actual knowledge to wipe the floor with me.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I know, I know there were lots of different weapons, but you all got my point. we know what they meant by arms, so talking about personal nuclear weapons is ridiculous. that is what sasaki is trying to say I think.

[Tellos Athenaios]

The whole point: there is no definition in the 2nd Amendment of what kinds of arms apply. Whether that is ridiculous in this world or not is therefore about as relevant as whether chocolate is the best flavour of ice cream when it comes to flawed analogies with cups.

[Papewaio]

So a ICBM no.
A suitcase nuke yes... Because an individual can carry it... Or an x-ray laser powered by a suitcase nuke (so the explosion is no longer the primary weapon just a collateral effect).
Does bear arms include borne by horse ... I'm thinking the modern day pick up truck with .50 cal tripod on the back as used in Libya

Does it include RPGs? If not then no citizens have arms strong enough to fight a modern armored force. This in turn would require rebels to engage in asymmetric warfare... Making it an even worse situation.

[rvg]

So a ICBM no.
A suitcase nuke yes... Because an individual can carry it... Or an x-ray laser powered by a suitcase nuke (so the explosion is no longer the primary weapon just a collateral effect).
Does bear arms include borne by horse ... I'm thinking the modern day pick up truck with .50 cal tripod on the back as used in Libya

Does it include RPGs? If not then no citizens have arms strong enough to fight a modern armored force. This in turn would require rebels to engage in asymmetric warfare... Making it an even worse situation.

No. No rpgs and no suitcase nukes. The framers had in mind what men of their time had in possession: muskets (and their modern equivalent), NOT cannons. So, small arms.

[Ironside]

No. No rpgs and no suitcase nukes. The framers had in mind what men of their time had in possession: muskets (and their modern equivalent), NOT cannons. So, small arms.

But the purpose for the right to bear arms is to be able to have a viable militia, so then you also need to consider what kind of weaponry a militia needs to be useful today.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[Ja'chyra]

No. No rpgs and no suitcase nukes. The framers had in mind what men of their time had in possession: muskets (and their modern equivalent), NOT cannons. So, small arms.

I put it to you, in my best LA Law voice, that this is purely supposition unless you happen to be a time travelling mind reader.

But did they mean it in that sentence? Which did they mean, males or humans? YOU are saying that you don't know. Maybe you should translate into german and apply some semantic subtleties to it.

Exactly our point, you seem to be trying to argue both sides here and applying either side to where it supports you, are you a politician?

Funny thing, that: in practice, it was not applied to women, slaves, Native Americans at the time...

Again, if it had been properly defined this could not have happened, but leaving ambiguous statements mean they are open to interpretation.

I'm assuming that some here are either young or have never worked with law or placing contracts, this type of ambiguity happens all the time and leads to lengths negotiations and extra cost/

Oh, and Rory, you should really give up the fags, you being a doc and all.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

They weren't almost enemies, they were enemies. Saddam hated terrorists.

Oh, I agree. As a dictator, he didn't want any powerbase competing with his own, and the AQ folk didn't really think of him as a staunch muslim either.

My point was that the AQ "connection" to Iraq was no more than a lip-service thing, that the Bush admin knew it, but -- because of the shoddy way the AUMF had been put together -- even that flimsy premise would have been enough to allow the Invasion.

I was happy that Bush43 felt enough of a sense of responsibility to seek confirmation of their decision to invade Iraq, rather than relying on the original AUMF.

(This sets aside the issue of whether our use of evidence at the time of the invasion was appropriate...a separate issue.)

[Tellos Athenaios]

I was happy that Bush43 felt enough of a sense of responsibility to seek confirmation of their decision to invade Iraq, rather than relying on the original AUMF.

(This sets aside the issue of whether our use of evidence at the time of the invasion was appropriate...a separate issue.)

Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that the reason he went to Congress was because he knew the whole thing was based on, to paraphrase, a baseless conjecture? Covering himself, by implicating the whole of Congress making sure that he could never be held singularly responsible for deciding to invaded after the inevitable exposure ?

[drone]

Covering himself, by implicating the whole of Congress making sure that he could never be held singularly responsible for deciding to invaded after the inevitable exposure ?

A very savvy move by the administration. The Democrats could have easily stopped the 2002 resolution, using the same tactics the GOP uses today in Congress. But instead they jumped right into it, fearing they would be viewed as unpatriotic wusses.

[Xiahou]

Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that the reason he went to Congress was because he knew the whole thing was based on, to paraphrase, a baseless conjecture? Covering himself, by implicating the whole of Congress making sure that he could never be held singularly responsible for deciding to invaded after the inevitable exposure ?

So the fact that he got required authorization from our elected legislature is somehow more insidious to you than had he just claimed cart blanche based on the earlier AUMF? You can try to attach whatever motivations to it you want, but once Bush had his mind set on invading Iraq, getting the required authorization first was the right thing to do.

Beg your pardon, but quite a few American conservatives (you included, if I'm not mistaken) insist on a literary interpretation of the constitution. The various amendments speak of persons, not of citizens. The only times the constitution mentions "citizens" is when it speaks about the right to vote, etc.

Case law does make a distinction between citizens and non-citizens, but you generally don't approve when SCOTUS deviates from a word's manifest, undeniable meaning, do you?

How could anyone assume that US domestic law could apply to the subjects of other nations outside of US territory? That line of thinking would presume that the US military violated the Second Amendment when it disarmed the German army after WW2. The authors of the Constitution could only ever have intended it to apply to citizens and those within US jurisdiction- to assume otherwise is irrational.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Would it be too cynical of me to suggest that the reason he went to Congress was because he knew the whole thing was based on, to paraphrase, a baseless conjecture? Covering himself, by implicating the whole of Congress making sure that he could never be held singularly responsible for deciding to invaded after the inevitable exposure ?

I think it unlikely.

As I have argued in other threads heretofore, I think it is reasonable to view the Bush43 crowd as having screwed up the assessment.

They used uncorroborated information from defectors who had axes to grind against Saddam and ignored disconfirming messages about the yellow cake uranium and the like. I think they also made the same mistake our intelligence services did against the Soviets in the latter 1980s. We got hold of the information that Saddam's underlings were giving him -- that we can ramp back up the chemicals etc. at the drop of a hat. We didn't factor in that his own people may have been shining him on. We did the same in the 1980s, assuming training levels and efficiency ratings about soviet forces were accurate and that their production figures etc. were accurate, when low level aparatchiks were fudging the numbers so as to not look bad to the bosses.

Another factor in screwing up by the numbers was the mindset of some of the administration members -- that they were looking for an excuse to finish the job that hadn't been finished by Bush41 and to "contain" Iran by having US bases in neighboring allies on both sides of Iran in Iraq and Afghanistan. That kind of attitude makes it really easy to interpret things as you wish them to be....and not as they are. Put that together with a bit of sloppy intelligence work and you have a "convincing" case for WMD's that have to be stopped NOW!

As the old saw suggests, Don't attribute maliciousness to something that is better explained by slipshod work and simple screw ups.

[Tellos Athenaios]

So the fact that he got required authorization from our elected legislature is somehow more insidious to you than had he just claimed cart blanche based on the earlier AUMF? You can try to attach whatever motivations to it you want, but once Bush had his mind set on invading Iraq, getting the required authorization first was the right thing to do.

As the old saw suggests, Don't attribute maliciousness to something that is better explained by slipshod work and simple screw ups.

No I was just pulling your leg there. I probably need to work on my delivery.

The authors of the Constitution could only ever have intended it to apply to citizens and those within US jurisdiction- to assume otherwise is irrational.

Which in no way absolves the USA from taking people to gitmo for aforementioned questioning using dubious methods outright torture. It also does nothing for your argument that they were somehow special.

The crux of the matter is not that there is law which explicitly forbids doing that to USA citizens. It is that there's a distinctly slippery slope between the ends justify the means, and simply flouting the law, selectively applying it at will and breaking it whenever convenient. I contend that Gitmo is quite far down that slope, and once you're there and that kind of stunt is accepted by the US public and the various bodies that ought to check and balance that kind of powergrab, well it's only the easy and natural thing to do to extend that power a bit further. And another bit further.

If you, Xiahou went over to Yemen and sprouted a beard and started preaching Jihad to save America from the infidel Obama you would be fair game by the Gitmo standards.

Al-Awlaki's death is a consequence of the successive administrations having been able to execute all sorts of dubious strikes and renditions for over 10 years now. So they don't even think twice about it, they know there are no repercussions because that horse has left the stable a very long time ago to be turned into processed meat for consumption as beef.

[drone]

Holder needs to go.

Attorney General Eric Holder is not entirely ruling out a scenario under which a drone strike would be ordered against Americans on U.S. soil, but says it has never been done previously and he could only see it being considered in an extraordinary circumstance.
...
In a letter to Paul dated on Monday, Holder said it was possible, "I suppose," to imagine an "extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate" under U.S. law for the president to authorize the military to "use lethal force" within the United States.

However, Holder said the question was "entirely hypothetical" and "unlikely to occur."