Another One Bites the Dust

Remember that annoying turd of an American-born Al-Qaida cleric who influenced both the Underwear Bomber and the Ft. Hood shooter? Yeah, he's dead.

As for who did it?

Unconfirmed, but if that is right, the U.S. has been doing quite a bit of top-bad-dude removal this year.

Now if we only had a president who wasn't a librul commie socialist.

Who is also a sekrit Muslin terror-baby.

Kilt by Amerikkka

Great. I'm not really sure I can get on board with shooting missiles at guys for talking.

Gee, maybe this time Obama will convince all the bullies that he's actually tough and one of them!

I am not to sure how i feel about this one either.

He was a spiritual adviser. Adviser could also technically be replaced with "manipulator".

On one side i want to think that the terrorist missions wouldn't have gone through without his assistance, on the other hand i think, he was still just talking to people. I am sure there are other people way up higher on the list of "bad guys" that are doing much worse things than talking to people.

Ooooooh....how edgy. You spelled America with three Ks.

Ass. I was being silly.

My sarcasm meter needs new batteries. My embarrassment meter, however, is off the charts.

Does this mean that the US can kill other people for spreading hate and fear through words (and sometimes through "spirituality") who are/were their own citizens? Cause I can think of some non-Muslims that could be on that list.


Ya....that was kind of mean of me.

Only if they're Americans on foreign soil, and pretty sure only if they're Muslims. Otherwise silly concepts like due process and Constitutional rights might get in the way.

#1

#2

While I'm not too keen on the idea of assassinating people without trials, I think it is a bit ingenuous to characterize the killing of al-Awlaki as an act of murder against someone who only preached hate. Al-Awlaki was involved both in propaganda campaigns calling for violent jihad and also actively participated in acting as a consultant on the specifics of how to carry out terrorist acts. The Northwest Airlines 253 incident, for instance, was a direct result of him coaching someone on how specifically to carry out a successful terrorist act. He even helped the attempted terrorist get into the training camp in Yemen which taught him about bombs. Once there, al-Awlaki alleged met with the recruit in person.

Like Manson, al-Awlaki didn't perform the act himself, but his role wasn't limited to just talking. He was added to the US's list of global terrorists because he was linked to 19 terrorist acts, in varying levels of involvement. I find the case of al-Awlaki to be clear-cut in terms of the limits of what speech ought to be free of consequences. Had he simply called for the destruction of the West, then I don't think he should have been targeted. However, when he directly got involved with meeting with recruits, overseeing their training procedures, advising al-Qaeda recruitment sessions, and helping plan specific attacks, he crossed the line into being culpable for any violence that the recruits tried to inflict on civilians.

Note: I'm not sure how many people are aware that al-Awlaki wasn't just a propaganda expert for al-Qaeda. Those who aren't familiar with his role in the training of al-Qaeda members and planning attacks should take that less publicized function into account when evaluating how justified the assassination of him was.

I'm not particularly persuaded by Greenwald's position. His argument hinges on two points: (1) as an American, al-Awlaki was entitled to protections extended to Americans, and (2) al-Awlaki's death was unjustified because of the lack of due process.

First, in terms of legal history, individuals carrying out acts of belligerence against the United States aren't awarded constitutional protections. Look up "Ex parte Quirin." Even as an American citizen, he would not have enjoyed constitutional protections once he participated in planning terrorist acts on American citizens. At best, he could have hoped for a military tribunal. Second, Greenwald seems to be approaching the issue as if it is a police matter in which the United States could have arrested him and put him on trial. Given that Yemen isn't exactly a friendly nation to the USA at present (we cut off diplomatic relations with them in 2008 and closed our embassy there in 2010), we could not have legally entered to perform that task.

I think that last point really gets at the heart of why I don't agree with Greenwald: he is arguing that combating al-Qaeda agents within the borders of hostile states is a matter of police procedure (receiving all of the legal protections therein), rather than a military act. In essence, his argument is that we really shouldn't do anything against anyone organizing terrorist attacks on American citizens abroad unless they are in a country which will cooperate with law enforcement efforts to arrest the person. I can't agree with that position.

Yeah, since I don't want my country assassinating people, it doesn't really matter to what extent the guy was involved. I guess I should just shut up and be glad that I'm in the country that has the smartest missiles? :/

Greenwald's greater point-- and he's been discussing this for some time-- is to question the mechanism by which al-Awlaki or any other American citizen goes from being an American citizen with the full rights of due process to being an unlawful combatant. Who decides when al-Awlaki crossed the line and what evidence do they way in crossing that? These are pretty fundamental questions when the justification for denying him due process rights and treating him as a hostile combatant hinge on his actions, which haven't resulted in any charges (that I, or apparently Greenwald are aware of), or lead to even convening a tribunal (again, insofar as I can tell).

I think there are two points here, one is that absent an understanding of those mechanisms President Obama is asking US citizens to just trust him when he says "this American citizen's actions have forfeited their rights as a citizen, and made them an enemy". Even if you trust Obama with that power, would you trust President Bush with such power? President Perry? President Palin? That, to me, is the greater point, that the executive has assumed the power to unilaterally strip American citizens of the rights of their citizenship, with no due process that the public is aware of.

I was deeply uncomfortable with Bush's notion of preemptive warfare/invasion, as I am deeply uncomfortable with this:

Because that logic can easily be extended out (as the administration itself recognizes). I'm sure you don't need ridiculous examples, but obviously, does this logic extend to foreign nationals on US soil? What about US citizens on US soil? Who is deciding when my-- or any US citizen-- stops having the full protection of the rights of citizenship? Because a unilateral declaration that strips me of those rights happening behind closed doors and only in the executive office is, in and of itself, a violation of due process.

I agree with you that Greenwald extends his first amendment arguments out too far, but his core question, that he's been asking for a long time about how can we reconcile this treatment of a US citizen with the rights promised us under the constitution, I feel, remains sound.

Dumb question from the guy who gets his news from the threads in CE:

Did Anwar al-Awlaki ever give up or rescind his US citizenship?

No.

A few years back, Lieberman co-sponsored a bill to try stripping his citizenship.

Okay, just making sure... although, I can't help but wonder how different a discussion we'd be having if he had.

I'm honestly not trolling here, but asking seriously- since this guy never gave up his citizenship, wouldn't he then be considered a traitor or guilty of treason?

incitement to violence?
violent overthrow of the gov't?
abuse of mentally ill? At least one of the attackers, the Ft. Hood shooter, has had his mental status questioned prior to their crime.

I'm not sure how his nationality is relevant. It seems pretty silly to me to be okay with drone strikes and targeted assassinations except when they're directed at an American citizen. And if you're not okay with them, then it's the tactic - not the target's nationality - that's the bone of contention, no?

Let us for a moment separate Anwar al-Awlaki from the position he held in Al-Qaeda. Would it be a legitimate targeted killing of the holder of that position and who took the same actions? If your answer is yes the citizenship of the individual is irrelevant and the assassination is a reasonable legitimate action. If the answer is no than the killing is wrong and the question of citizenship is again irrelevant.

I hope it's clear that I see where you are coming from and am not adopting my position out of some knee-jerk reactionism or anything. Questioning the actions of the government and the reach it claims is always fair game, particularly when issues of rights are concerned. While I think his questions are correct, I don't agree that his answers are. I don't think this is a case in which someone's citizenship rights are being trampled by an overly ambitious state entity. I think it's a case of a valid military target participating in military actions against civilian non-combatants, and facing a military response.

I guess my basic objection is that I don't care whether or not al-Awlaki was an American citizen or not. The rights and protections of citizenship are a agreement that someone will have social guarantees as long as he or she lives within the contract. Al-Awlaki, however, chose not to live in the United States, moving to a hostile country where he publicly called for the destruction of the US, called for attacks on civilian targets, and by all indications, was deeply involved in facilitating those attacks. Questions of citizenship seem completely irrelevant to what happened to him, unless it is a law enforcement issue. If it is a war issue, it doesn't matter what his citizenship is; we would be justified (not only legally but also in terms of moral justification) in killing him. Citizenship isn't and shouldn't be a concern when we are evaluating what happens to people who attack us in wars, whether it's ground soldiers, supply and logistics personnel, or enemy generals. The only seemingly valid criteria are whether the individual was a civilian or a combatant, and whether the killing was the minimum amount of force necessary to protect ourselves. To me, the legal side of the issue is less relevant, but our laws do reflect the general sentiment. People who take up arms against the US, become foreign agents, or join the armed forces of foreign nations all lose American citizenship and we consider them valid military targets. Is there really any reasonable doubt that he was in that category?

As far as the rights of the government and the president, they are trying very hard to argue that this was a valid military issue (though he was of course even more important due to his propaganda value). When the government starts claiming that they have the right to deny people (particularly civilian non-combatants) due process when we actually can target them with the law enforcement apparatus, then I'll start worrying that the government is claiming greater authority. I don't think that's what's going on here, though. I think this is an extension of the same sort of effort to eliminate bin Laden as a threat.

I see the meaningful difference between the bin Laden and al-Awlaki cases not in the question of citizenship but rather in the level of cooperation between our countries (US-Pakistan vs. US-Yemen) made possible for trying to apprehend the target without an assassination.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

I don't want to derail the conversation too much, but the slippery slope cuts both ways. I wouldn't want a scenario in which a valid military target is attacking an American diplomat, embassy, soldier, or whatever abroad to have to go through a trial process before we are authorized to return fire. That example is intentionally ridiculous, but in the same way that the competing slippery slope arguments are.

Intentionally ridiculous examples in either direction aside, my stance is that the executive branch has the authority to act against valid military targets with the least amount of force necessary to remove the threat, so long they and the public have no reasonable doubts regarding the validity of that military target.

Thank you. You summed up my stance with much greater brevity than me.

Yes, but keep in mind that those are legal concepts. If he is beyond the reach of law enforcement by virtue of being in a hostile state, then we still have the question of whether law enforcement rights and processes apply (Greenwald thinks they do on general principle) or if military responses are our only options to address the basic grievances that those laws try to avert (Obama's position).