Awlaki: CIA has "targeted for assassination" or "authorized to kill"?

[vaberella]

You see this is another bit of confusion that I need clarity on. Many people here have said the CIA is targeting him for assassination, yet another article states authorized to kill. These are two different things.

I don't want to appear nit-picky but I'm assuming when we're looking at policy we have to be clear in our language, n'est-ce pas?

Apologies I was about to write the rest of this in French.

In any event, if we look at the words "authorize to kill" as stated by several articles one from the Washington's posts Greg Miller, and others from Reuters and so on...and one article states this, "authorize to kill or capture" If this language of capture and authorized to kill (assuming he puts up a fight) would suggest to me, that we're reading this all wrong. This list is not a kill list, as some have described on this thread or other places. It would seem, this list is more of a Catch Them Now List---or kill if it comes to that.

I need to get the language straight. I know many on here would accuse of trying to either sugercoat this or rationalize the statements made by other articles. But if this is really a more authorized to kill during combat or battle engagement (as a last resort) I don't see why this is such a problem. I think we're getting caught up in the language of some of the articles.

Here is an example of an article that says what I mean:

U.S. officials say the Obama administration has authorized the CIA to capture or kill a U.S.-born radical Muslim cleric alleged to be an al-Qaida operative.

http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Reports-CIA-Authorized-to-Kill-US-Born-Cleric-90088012.html

Many other places has called this a Kill-or-Capture List or Capture-or-Kill list. If this guy has allegedly done a crime and we're trying to capture him so he can face trial----but in the midst of capturing him he resists capture....and a battle ensues, then what is wrong if he ends up dead. This would also mean this is not an assassination list as so many on this site are claiming it is. The ACLU statement, thanks with some help from a poster here DevonRex, I give credit where it's due, it would seem that the ACLU is asking about the criteria to get on this list and the precedent that an American has been put on the list. However,it doesn't seem to be arguing for him to be taken off a Kill-Or-Capture list or if it's constitutional or not for this guy to be on the list. But this is not a list where the CIA is hired to kill this guy or sent out to directly kill him. It's more of a capture, and if things reach a low point use extreme force.

This is very different from using "assassination" as so many here are pushing. Which to me, means, and I could be wrong, that there is a set plan and initiative to take out this guy without even giving him a trial. However, the Kill-or-Capture says otherwise, or suggest otherwise and that a person who is captured would face trial.

NYT uses:

targeted killing

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/07/world/middleeast/07yemen.html?hp

The truthout article uses:

targeted assassination

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x262344

I have another question? Have there been people on this list that we have captured and have faced trial? Or have all of them been killed? And I need clarity on which phrasing is correct..."targeted for assassination" or "authorized to kill"?

I know a lot of people may understand this so I'd like some help...because I do find this to be a very heavy topic and I don't like being confused.

-----------------------------------------------------------

As a note I will say this much. From what I've read, and I do wish the above to be answered. But if I read the truthout article correctly and various other articles on this topic. The ACLU is not arguing the constitutionality of the actions taken by the administration. They want to know the criteria the US government is using to put a person on this list.

Further more, if this is list is a Capture-or-Kill list, then the article posted by truthout and various other news companies who are using the language of assassination are actually sensationalizing and misleading it's readers. The reason I say this is because the truthout article says this:

Justifying Assassinations

, that is if this is an assassination list. Which seems to be disputed by various articles on the net----actually let me rephrase. This is not being disputed----some people are using assassination which leads to a completely different conclusion not only for the reader but the direction the writer takes. By using the terminology assassination they have created a strawman argument of sorts and gone into the constitutionality of this and created a completely different argument than what the case maybe. Keep in mind, I'm going by what I'm reading and I could be wrong here. But when using assassination I think of plot to kill- agent sent to kill- person who may or may not be guilty is killed without a trial.

However, if this is a Capture-or-Kill list as so many other articles or just as many articles have suggested..there is no argument of constitutionality. Why? Because we are under the impression that the person will be searched out for capture and if they are killed, then unfortunately that is what will happen. But if they are captured then they will face a trial like everyone else caught in cases as this---who are non-US citizens. I hope I'm a bit clear here.

In any case, what I am seeing is that this argument on constitutionality is not actually the case brought by the ACLU and is a case brought by the writer of the truthout article and other writers who use assassination. Otherwise, this would be any normal, let's say if it's domestic: FBI Top Ten Most Wanted Criminals (dead or alive). Again, please correct me if I'm wrong.

Please let me know if I'm misunderstanding anything or this is all incorrect. Further more we know the Pentagon has a Capture-or-Kill list, is this the same one as the CIA?

[jberryhill]

1. You mean...

[vaberella]

2. I don't know what you mean by the picture.

However, I see a lot of posters saying they have problem with this assassination attempt. However, if he was arrested for crimes that we deem a threat to our nation---that would fall in line with Capture-or-Kill----since it could be assumed he may have connection (as has been stated) with military rebels who may try to protect him.

And there is a complete difference, which people can choose to ignore between capturing someone and assassinating them.

If by the white flag you mean he surrenders. Then he would there fore be captured and then put up for trial. We have an America's Top Ten Most Wanted Fugitives or alleged people who have escaped custody and haven't been tried. Some of them are wanted dead or alive---hence we have bounty hunters out there.

[jberryhill]

3. I gather you haven't seen Dog Day Afternoon

Criminals get shot to death all of the time.

That scene is from a classic movie involving a bank robbery hostage situation, which is one of the common situations in which police will shoot to kill.

It's a great movie, and the image was meant in agreement with your point.

After Dog Day Afternoon, see Swordfish, which provided the cinematic answer to the dilemma in Dog Day Afternoon.

[vaberella]

4. No, I haven't. But you've peaked my interest, so I will. n/t

[jberryhill]

5. It's on any list of the best movies made

One historical note - There was a riot at the NY stat prison in Attica, the response to which was widely considered to have been a massacre by the police, and which contributed to perceptions of police brutality.

Other than that, needed to understand one scene, the film dealt with themes ahead of it's time.

And it is one of Al Pacino's great performances as a young man.

[vaberella]

6. Huh, thanks for the recommendation, will definitely watch.

Yeah, I just have a problem with this situation is mainly the usage of language. I don't like it when I'm confused on things. Anyway, again thanks for the recommendation.

[chollybocker]

21. Plus, he robs the bank to try to pay for his boyfriend's sex change operation.

Great movie.

[onenote]

7. I'm glad you posted this

I was going to start a similar thread. It seems a lot of folks are reaching categorical conclusions about the effect of al-Alwaki being placed on what is commonly referred to as the "kill or capture" list without offering any information as to what that actually means and what the "rules of engagement" are with respect to folks placed on the list.

[vaberella]

9. Thank you. It took me a while to understand what was going on.

And then I realized that the article people were spending their time quoting was misleading in it's language use and also added a bit of sensationalism. It was a soft-ball hit piece in a sense. Because it went off into conclusions that lead to talks of constitutionality and treason. Which confused the hell out of me when the debate began. I had to sit down and go through all of the topics that were brought up---ie constitutionality, the ACLU letter (which is completely separate from the issue of what is constitutional, Obama's Executive power, treason and of course what happens if someone is accused of it. Then I realized with the help of another poster that there was no discussion of treason at all and that it was more of a reactionary perception due to the article which sort of over powered some parts of the discussion. And that the truthout article was running on another idea that it had from using I would say the wrong language----which aroused the emotions of others. This then led me to realize that the shouting and anger towards Obama and the admin over this decision was actually unfounded since this is not unheard of, it's not a slippery slope and we have it for domestic individuals in the case of the FBI most wanted list. Then when you take those into consideration---that list would therefore be unconstitutional. And this whole really stemmed from the KO/ ex-CIA JR interview which peaked my interest when at the JR clearly said that if Obama has the evidence then he is absolutely correct in putting this person on the list. Then I was like, well I think I'm not getting something in the whole discussion. So I had to sit down and sift through everything again. Anyway, I decided to regurgitate in this post. Thanks for appreciating it.

[CTLawGuy]

23. of course. This is how the media operates

a story about "capture or kill" is not as interesting as a story about "assassination lists." And the most important thing to the media is how interesting a story is.

[lunatica]

8. Thank you for staying on this issue and digging for the facts

It pays not to jump to conclusions too quickly. When the government announces something quite publicly it's for a reason. As much as we think we know what goes on in the White House or Congress we only hear what they want us to hear. Even when they leak information to the press it's all about what they want us to know. There is always more going on than meets the eye.

Thanks!

[vaberella]

11. No problem.

I was more confused by anything in lieu of the discussion and the heated rhetoric on both sides. I didn't get what the hell was being discussed and I had to actually do some searches on the net until I realized what was going on and I'm siding with those that actually pushed against the idea this was in some way some assassination list. Which obviously it's not. It could also be why there is not much push back on this board after yesterday. Since this doesn't seem at all unconstitutional. If he's captured or he is captured after surrendering---he will face a trial--naturally. There is nothing unconstitutional about that. If he dies while he's on the most wanted list of American and, apparently, Yemen governments --during a capture attempt then unfortunately he dies before a trial. However, he would is on the list to being captured to be tried and all this hoop-la that happened yesterday was more reactionary response towards Obama's actions and a very misleadingly word-usage article.

[treestar]

10. Another tempest in a teapot like the law cases

And various other "offenses." Wolf has been cried enough. No knee jerk reactions to this stuff. Too many times when it is looked into, it turns out to be nothing unusual and nothing like the labels assigned.

[vaberella]

12. Which is what I came to realize. Ugh...

To see the drama yesterday I was like man Obama doing something wholeheartedly unconstitutional while he's a constitutional lawyer--this seemed doubtful. Then when I went through the full information I realized what was really going on and this "progressive" writing was used on this board as more of a hit piece that wasn't out of the ordinary. The only precedent is the fact the guy is the first American on an international list of this nature. But this list is not extraordinary for domestic cases like the FBI's list or the CIA's list internationally for international criminals.

[Robb]

13. Not the first, won't be the last.

I rambled about this http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=163797&mesg_id=163797">a good bit ago. We behave like there's no yesterday sometimes.

[vaberella]

15. Why was is your thread locked?!

Does that naturally happen after a few months of no activity? In any event I agree with you wholeheartedly. The media feeds on sensationalism and I got the feeling since before the primary they were working for the right. During the primaries they created a hate meme between Obama and HRC supporters---of course with those on the DEM side following suit with being on two separate camps as though they were radically different. Then when Obama won the primaries they have searched high and low for dirt on him to basically smear the guy. And since his Presidency the one thing I've noticed is that they want to basically destroy his base in effect. The idea is to turn Dems against each other and against their lead Representative which would be Obama. By doing that the right could win house seats. Since then I've seen language in reporting that is used to incite the progressive faction of the Obama base in order create a wave of discontent with his policies and ultimately him as a person. Of course more often than not it has backfired but there seems to be Dems who go along with his reactionary role--not because they're not intelligent enough to see what is being done but because they may hold some grudge against Obama since the primaries or hold some grudge against the guy for something or another. And this is what I saw yesterday. Most of the people who reacted negatively and heatedly and said Obama shred the constitution are very much some of the same people who have searched out hit pieces on the guy regularly. Normally sometimes they're in reason. For instance I had major problems with his military usage in Afghanistan, but I don't claim to know the best usage so I let that slide. And I hate all off shore drilling and nothing will let me give a pass on that. However, the media is feeding the flames of discontent by appealing to the reactionary crowd or those who like such pieces because of problems with the President generally.

[Robb]

24. Threads become archived and locked to new replies

...after a while. Keeps discussion easier to follow.

I figure maybe half of the people here who express chronic concern over the President's moves are sincere. Probably too generous.

[boppers]

14. Obama authorizes wolf killing in ANWR.

DU goes into a tizzy.

--

Did I make that up or not?

[vaberella]

16. ...

After killing that fly in cold blood which had PETA going nuts, this is going to turn DU upside down and unleash all extreme PETA freaks against Obama.

[boppers]

18. LOL, forgot about that, but it's very appropriate.

Obama "moves his head wrong" or "swats a fly", and countless threads erupt.

[vaberella]

19. Oh, so true. n/t

[Ignis]

26. "extreme PETA freaks"

So, is every single person who donates to, is a member of, or works for PETA an "extreme...freak?"

[Phx_Dem]

17. Whatever. Just shoot that fucker and be done with it.

:patriot:

[EFerrari]

20. This is probably the fourth time or so that I post this link

to what the UN Special Rapporteur on Extra Judicial Executions had to say this morning. I hope you find it useful. There is video and a transcript at the link:

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/4/8/is_the_cia_assassination_order_of

[vaberella]

22. Thank you for providing this but it didn't clear up anything actually.

We're still facing a few situations. All we know is that the UN is not involved really in what goes on in regards to this situation and it won't be. I kind of see where the US is coming from...this ties directly to national security when a person is declaring war, and quite possibly, working with others to kill Americans. If there are investigations underway with operatives actively pursuing these suspects then there is no way the US would disclose information, and from my perspective should they. That being said I didn't pick up much from Mr. Alston's statement that hasn't been stated in other articles.

Further more, he's also running on this assassination is interchangeable with Capture-or-Kill. Until I get a clear definition I find that assassination and capture-or-kill are mutually exclusive. As I stated this person however does not see it that way. A capture of Awlaki alive would lead to an eventual trial of his crimes. Further more, an article posted here I believe by Clio the Leo shows that Awlaki's father has asked for three months to get him to turn himself in and for all intents and purposes that has been agreed too.

The constitutionality of Obama and the Pentagon's decision, CIA also I would assume, to put Awlaki on the list is seemingly justified if they have the evidence to prove Awlaki's actions. Unfortunately Goodman only provides a small tidbit of what Awlaki has said---and not gone into the full extent of his involvement in actions to kill Americans---such as the shoe bomber on the Airplane which named Awlaki as advising him on going through with his actions. If we have enough evidence proving that, that means Obama was in the right in his actions and this is not a constitutional problem. And considering the vast number of things we do know I find that Mr. Alston is actually marginalizing the extent of Awlaki's criminal acts against the United States.

Of course this is helpful in showing the extent international figures can play a role in this, which is limited to not at all.

[EFerrari]

25. The Special Rapporteur was talking about international law

so I can see how it would mean very little to some Americans. :)

[vaberella]

27. I'm not sure what you're implying.

I have a problem understanding what this person is trying to say. I'm not sure if I should take offense that as an American I'm uninterested in international law presumption, which is not the case. I will be a bit more clear in my problem with Alston's statements--which I find seems to echo or parrot a bit of the truthout article which I find to be an sensationalist piece of media work to misconstrue events and cause reactionary responses. However, Alston states this in regards to armed conflict and engaging in war with Yemen:

So it’s invoking an international law doctrine which is designed to provide a single exception to the prohibition on the use of force. Post-World War II, the rule was a country cannot make war on another country. The exception is if it’s in self-defense. Now that’s usually defined as some sort of imminent attack going on, that you then are able to respond to.
The US seems to imply that they will not object, and that would get around that particular dilemma. But then you come to this particular individual. The big issue there is, is there an armed conflict going on in Yemen in which the United States is engaged? If there is, then if he’s taking part in hostilities, he would be a legitimate target. But if there’s not an armed conflict—and most observers would question whether there is a sort of ongoing armed conflict—then one would need to deal with him through other means. It’s not to say that the guy should be let to, you know, do what he’s doing, etc. We need to take every step that can be taken, but short of a targeted assassination, which is a really dramatic step.

I find Alston made it clear that international law or the UN's position in this is almost near irrelevant. Further more he ignores the fundamental issue and speaks in a broad sense of the matter. For instance, he speaks about engaging in war with Yemen or engaging in an armed conflict that may be going on in Yemen that would allow the US to take out this guy. But actually, this is not the case. Awlaki is already on Yemen's most wanted list. So they are actively pursing him in Yemen as we speak. It would seem that when Awlaki moved up on our list our people may join forces with Yemen authorities (as is currently being done with AQ rebels in Pakistan with the Pakistani government)in order to pursue him and capture him. Alston seems to be speaking as though we plan on declaring war on Yemen because we want this individual. That's not the case. Further more, he insists this is an assassination. This is actually the point of my post. Is this a targeted assassination or a capture-or-kill list, if it's the latter then it's completely different from the former and it would mean we intend to capture and if captured he would be put to trial in a court of his peers. However, what we do find is that his actions are so grievous (and this is why the ACLU report is so important---what makes it so grievous---this is also failed in the interview with Alston because he doesn't know the extent of the information the US is using in order to determine that Awlaki belongs on it) that if he resists arrest we are allowed to take him out. However, it would seem if he resists arrest. The idea that capture is actually the course that will be taken and this is seen with the article of Awlaki's father.

However, his argument of armed conflict is in relation to a state or sovereign nation...and doesn't relate to the the issue at hand which is an individual. It would seem, based on his statements in this particular part that there is no real process of engagement for an individual who would be deemed an enemy combatant. Or he doesn't talk about that and that is the relevant issue, not entering conflict with Yemen who is not part of this. I think his statement, however, is far more relevant in the White House usage of drones in Pakistan.


The following statement about what the President has said is a bit outlandish. The capture or kill list, if it is the case, would seek to capture the individual and kill as a last resort. But not to out right assassinate----which is a term I see used although I guess it fits if it's sniper use and if he puts up a struggle. The list just gives authority to take extreme measures/force - if you will- to take out the guy. Or, well no one has said otherwise.

Alston is right about the US not spelling out it's reasoning behind the list. This is why the ACLU is asking for it. I see this similar to an FBI's Most Wanted List---not all people have been tried, they're fugitives with enough evidence who will be questioned. A good example is a case in which this rather famous Fitness Model and her Bodybuilder husband were accused of killing her assistant. Before being questioned they ran off, although there was testimony from an accomplice who provided evidence and everything else saying they were guilty. They took their money and ran off from California all the way to Boston I believe where they were caught. But these people were fugitives to the law and were seen as dangerous and there was a warrant out for their arrest. No one has seemed to question the constitutionality of that list. However, yes this a more extreme case because we saying kill if necessary but we're also dealing with someone, and possibly the people on this list have rebel military, who has connections to combative groups which could engage in a "battle" of sorts. In any event this is where Alston reiterates what ACLU is asking, but the ACLU is not looking at the constitutionality of the matter but actually what is the criteria to get on the list---especially for an American.

Now, I'm a bit on the fence on how I feel about this. If there is currently active investigation by releasing information pertinent to the case---any information might be too sensitive and could endanger our people who are directly involved, if there are any. I wouldn't want that information out. However, I am also interested and I do think it's a relative point to know what has been going on. But I will also say there has been a lot of information released on the actions, associations, and activities of this man in the past 10+ years. You can find article after article on this guy on DU. He's extremely dangerous.

At first I thought Alston bringing up the Baghdad incident was irrelevant. I say this because I know next to nothing about the Baghdad incident---unless it's the atrocity of the Reuters film crew and that wasn't a targeted assassination more so poor intelligence. You'd assume in a targeted assassination they would know who they're shooting. Apparently they didn't in this case---which means this was a botch job and not even remotely related to intelligence work which is what we're dealing with here. That is if this is the right case, but I could be wrong. In any event, his final point is valid. The American people are generally hypocrites and I don't understand why there is more outrage over this and not a non-citizen. But what's interesting, is that if we capture and imprison all the people who are involved where do we put them? Gitmo would be the best place---but that will raise another slew of outrage. You can't win.


As for the wikileaks clip that Goodman provided, and I had to question Alston's knowledge on this. There is again plenty of information out there on Awlaki's associations, actions, possible actions, and what not. His statement is actually minor in comparison to everything else I've read on DU about him. So I think Alston might change his tune a bit if he was given a full list of what is out there, irrespective of any further incriminating evidence that might be provided by the US government.

As for the rest of his statement, it again seems to go back to if there is active agents pursuing the culprit. And how sensitive is this information. I do think the rules of engagement should be more clear. But again, there is a lot of undisputed information on the actions of this guy which is rather dangerous and damning enough. But again if this is a capture-or-kill...if he surrenders or is captured he will have a trial. However, Alston does say in a combat situation this might be justified, not in so many words but it's there. And as stated earlier, the US is not the only ones after this guy---so is the Yemeni government and further more---he is said to be directly connected to AQ and has apparently trained the shoe bomber kid. In effect that would justify the US gov. decision.


And I've commented on the whole UN thing.

[EFerrari]

28. Why would the UN Special Rapporteur for Extra Judicial Executions

parrot anything? What an astonishing comment.

As I said, some Americans have very little interest in international law.

Apart from that, you have rumor and speculation about an American citizen that is now fair game for assassination. As a citizen, I'd think that should be at a minimum, mildly disturbing to you.

[vaberella]

29. Once again...

Assassination and captured-or-killed are mutually exclusive here. However, you're running on this as though they're not as well. They are not synonymous of each other from what I have gathered. And yes, I said he is parroting the same statements that were made in the truthout article, or even better and if it makes you feel better the truthout article is parroting him. I don't hold anyone in some high esteem. I can read and come up with my own conclusions as well. I don't need someone telling me how to think. People can inform me when I'm wrong, but in this situation he doesn't seem to doing that. And he's not given most of the evidence our intelligence has given us in relation to this man's connections and allgeded crimes.

However, this official really never mentioned how this international law really works in the case of this individual. Because his association is not explicitly detailed by the Government doesn't mean that information has not been released about his connection. Further more, the Yemen government is after this guy and he's been on a watch list since the 90s. <---That is not rumor or speculation. Continuously Alston went on speculations and what ifs...then nothing he said is factual but also speculation. But when I detail the evidence that is given to us by articles that may be speculation---I have an argument built on speculation----that's interesting. I see the value system you've put on who's speculation you choose to agree versus the ones that have been publicly spoken about for months and years it would seem.

Further more, I'm tired of people making statements about how I should think, as though if I think differently from them I am in some way uncaring, inhumane, or in some way matter of fact about our civil rights. And yes, your final statement was a dig, for all intents and purposes. I'm looking at the information logically here and not about my personal feelings.

As I stated very clearly on this thread and several times I support the ACLU inquiry---however the inquiry is about the criteria to get on the list. While I find the evidence that we have collected, and apparently the underwear boy has helped our intelligence a long way or that is what has been said---I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt.


In the end, if he's captured he'll be given a fair trial, if extreme measures are needed to be used it will be used. But there is no planned targeted killing, which you and many others are pushing.