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.

[Hax]

Well, if he was killed by Yemeni forces, he was sentenced to death in absentia a while ago.

[drone]

The reports are that they were killed by a CIA drone.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...O9K_story.html

Anwar al-Aulaqi, a radical U.S.-born Muslim cleric and one of the most influential al-Qaeda leaders wanted by the United States, was killed Friday in a CIA drone strike in northern Yemen, U.S. and Yemeni authorities said, eliminating a prominent terrorist recruiter who inspired attacks on U.S. soil.

The strike also killed a second U.S. citizen — Samir Khan, the co-editor of an al-Qaeda magazine — and two other unidentified al-Qaeda operatives, the Yemeni government said. But tribal leaders in the area said at least seven people were killed. They identified one of the others as al-Qaeda militant named Salem bin Arfaaj.

[PanzerJaeger]

The strike also killed a second U.S. citizen — Samir Khan, the co-editor of an al-Qaeda magazine — and two other unidentified al-Qaeda operatives, the Yemeni government said. But tribal leaders in the area said at least seven people were killed. They identified one of the others as al-Qaeda militant named Salem bin Arfaaj.

Does this mean Lemur won't be able to share any more issues of Inspire with us?

[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.

[drone]

Double standards aside, we are talking about the assassination of US citizens by executive order. They have not been declared guilty in a court of law, they are not in a war zone, they are not a direct threat to US military personnel, and they are being targeted by the CIA. This is more than the killing of some terrorists in some made up "war". This is the dismantling of the 5th amendment. Well, continued dismantling, I keep forgetting about Kelo...

[a completely inoffensive name]

Constitution doesn't just apply to US citizens.

[classical_hero]

So what if a US citizen died in a hostage situation being the hostage taker? Clearly he did not have his due process. The fact that he was killed while committing a crime means that he violated his standing as a citizen and then the option is to minimise risk to innocent civilians. If you can end a situation where you take out a criminal and leave less innocent people dead, then you take that opportunity. Clearly these people committed crimes against America and as such they are legitimate targets for action, since they are in a foreign country and planning attacks on America, so that means they need to be taken out with the least chance of losing innocent lives. That is the prerogative of any nation.

[Papewaio]

Innocent until proven guilty?
Due process?
What is the USAs legal standing now if a foreign power assassinates one of the USAs citizens who has been accused of being a terrorist?

[Fragony]

What does it matter if he was a US citizen he was just born there, bye

[Ronin]

the US government should have just gone full troll mode and claimed he was killed by a falling piece of that satellite the other day.
plausible deniability my friend!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So what if a US citizen died in a hostage situation being the hostage taker? Clearly he did not have his due process. The fact that he was killed while committing a crime means that he violated his standing as a citizen and then the option is to minimise risk to innocent civilians. If you can end a situation where you take out a criminal and leave less innocent people dead, then you take that opportunity. Clearly these people committed crimes against America and as such they are legitimate targets for action, since they are in a foreign country and planning attacks on America, so that means they need to be taken out with the least chance of losing innocent lives. That is the prerogative of any nation.

Lol, thank you. The other people in the thread were making me go

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? He was proven guilty!

[drone]

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? He was proven guilty!

How so? What were his crimes? The judicial branch never heard the case. He has been on a kill list created by the executive branch for over a year, meaning he could be targeted even if no US interest was in immediate danger. He was killed because it was easy, not because it was necessary.

What does it matter if he was a US citizen he was just born there, bye

As was I.

[classical_hero]

Lol, thank you. The other people in the thread were making me go

What happened to innocent until proven guilty? He was proven guilty!

By attacking his own country. That is considered treason and under the rule of that is liable for the death penalty.

I do wonder how you are going to capture the guy and get him to trial. Are you going to send in troops to try and arrest him? How certain are you going to be that will succeed in his arrest? What happens if in the attempted arrest he dies and so do plenty of others, now that means more people have died as a result. What happens if he is tipped off about a potential arrest and by escaping he is allowed to plan more attacks, thus more people are killed? That means you are allowing for the possibility of more deaths under the scenarios of trying to capture the guy. Since he is trying to commit crimes against the Nation, that makes him a target and the one that lead to the least amount of lives lost is the most purdent one. Since no one can show a better option, the one taken is the right option.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Ice]

the US government should have just gone full troll mode and claimed he was killed by a falling piece of that satellite the other day.
plausible deniability my friend!

That would have actually been quite funny. You should sell the idea to Colbert or Stewart.

As to everyone else (I'm sure I'm going to get flamed): cry me a river. Glad hes dead.

[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.