If we celebrated Obama getting bin Laden, then why not the same for al-Awlaki?

[mtnsnake]

Both were leaders of Al Qaeda who we are officially at war with, and both of them promoted the killing of Americans before Obama got them. I mean, like they were the enemy, weren't they? :shrug:

[MannyGoldstein]

1. Was al-Awlaki a proven member of al Qaeda?

First off, seems like al-Awlaki was an awful person, but all of his illegal activities and al Qaeda connections were alleged, not proven or confessed.

Second, he's a US citizen. The Constitution affords him due process.

Third, the President's theory for executing Awlaki is that he can execute anyone, anywhere, at any time, if he alone suspects that person to be involved in "terror", whatever that is, e.g. the Bush Doctrine. OBL was clearly involved in 9/11, which makes him fair game under the AUMF.

[Kahuna]

4. If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck! And he quacked really loud. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Execute a person not fighting in the field based on "quacks like a duck"

is a bit different from the OBL situation, no?

[texastoast]

7. Define "not fighting in the field"

If you cook for the fighters, does that count?

[MannyGoldstein]

12. He was not actively in battle when executed. nt

[MADem]

23. And Bin Ladin was? I don't get your point.

Bin Ladin was sleeping on the top floor of his house in a Pakistani military town when the crew busted in on him, not engaging in nefarious conduct.

You don't get a pass because you're sleeping, watching tv, or going to a party.

[liberal N proud]

9. So are generals off limits in war?

This guy was said to have been doing the same thing as OBL directing attacks on Americans

[Kahuna]

11. Let's just call this aliwaki (sp?) OBL, jr.

:D

[MNBrewer]

14. He had the rank of General in the national army of some foreign country?

[MannyGoldstein]

15. No, they are declared members of a military force.

Alwaki encouraged al Qaeda, but as far as I know, he was not declared to be a member by either al Qaeda or himself.

[Kahuna]

18. So far as YOU know. You don't know jack! Admit it. If our intelligence

officials have determined that he was AQ, I will take their word for it as opposed to yours.

[MannyGoldstein]

21. So you're cool with the government executing people without judicial oversight

That sets a pretty slippery slope. And probably violates the Constitution.

[Kahuna]

31. I don't consider terrorist "people." They are garbage and should

be dealt with accordingly.

[TheKentuckian]

43. So, it is your standard mode of operation to consider accusation as the same as guilt?

Or are you saying in this one specific area, our intelligence is incapable of error?

Or are you saying in this one area, our decision makers are incapable of error?

Or are you saying errors are immaterial and essentially that it is on God to sort them out?

Are you also saying this is one area where there can be no mission creep or drift in definitions?

Further, are you stating that in this single area there is no possibility of abuse of power despite there being no checks and no oversight and if so why is this uniquely the case when in all other situations, even with someone looking over the shoulder there will always be those that abuse and misuse?

I've never heard a soul and DU preach or indeed mention (including far Reich trolls) the incorruptibility, trustworthiness, supreme and unerring competence, and rock solid good intentions of Republican. Not once ever but in this case they have your utmost confidence not only now but as far as one can project in the future? Interesting.

[Kahuna]

10. OBL didn't fight in the field either. He was a recruiter and planner just

like this POS.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. OBL was a confessed participant in 9/11

And thus was fair game under the AUMF.

[Kahuna]

19. Your boy alawaki (sp?) was a KNOWN because of his public

broadcasts and writings a known participant in planning attacks against the USA including the airplane bomber. What? We're supposed to give him a pass because the plan to blow up the plane was thwarted? Really????

[MannyGoldstein]

20. First off, he's not my boy. I'm happy that he's gone, just unhappy with the

way it was done.

Second, he was not a "known participant" in any of those things. Can you show me a direct confession or proof? Even a quote from a the airplane bomber implicating him?

I'm not saying that I know he's innocent - however, I've not seen any actual evidence that he's guilty, either. It's not illegal to inspire killers, it's only illegal to plot with them and I've not seen any evidence of that.

[AngkorWot]

35. "Obama a confessed participant in 9/11"

Which one of the planes was he on again?

[MannyGoldstein]

36. Conspiracy is a crime, no?

In any case, participation is specifically called out in the AUMF.

[AngkorWot]

37. Indeed it is.

And that's why Alwaki was tried and convicted in absentia for participating in those terrorist attacks.

[MannyGoldstein]

38. He was tried and convicted? No. I don't think he was even INDICTED.

Please provide some evidence, thanks.

[AngkorWot]

39. Here you go, chief.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

[MannyGoldstein]

41. Nothing in there, at all, refers to indictment or conviction. Zero.

I'm guessing that you aren't armed with facts here, but feel free to try again.

[msanthrope]

42. Um, Manny, try reading it again, You did miss a conviction, and his refusal to show for trial. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

44. The Yemeni charges?

You trust anything from Yemen?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/18/yemen-police-massacre-45-protesters

He was scum, but he seems to have been denied due process. This is a very slippery slope.

[msanthrope]

45. The Yemeni conviction? Or does Jacques Spagnolo not count as a person to you?

He got his due process. More than he would have given the passengers of flight 253.

If he wanted due process, he would have shown up in Judge Bates' courtroom, and not sent his dad to do his dirty work.

[Honeycombe8]

52. Yes. He was an admitted key member of Al-Qaeda. In charge of recruiting

westerners to the organization for the purpose of killing ordinary American citizens, military, or any other harm and damage that could be done to the country and its citizens.

[rfranklin]

2. Mnay here questioned the Osama rubout...

but wasn't this a case of an American being executed without a trial? Which would seem to be a violation of the Constitution...

[Kahuna]

16. You can't get due process if you're hiding out in a foreign country and

hanging out with terrorists. What are we supposed to do...let him continue to chill and conspire against America, until he decides to come home? Come on now. Let's be realistic.

[rfranklin]

32. Undeclared wars, okay...Extrajudicial executions, okay...Torture, okay...

exactly where do you draw the line?

[Freddie Stubbs]

60. Are American citizens given more due process than non-citizens by the US criminal justice system?

[treestar]

3. Good question. Strangely enough, liberal American

Exceptionalism comes into play. OBL was not a US citizen, but Awlaki was born in the sacred soil of the US and that makes him a person worthy of human rights. The rest of the world's citizen are not. They're not even thinking of what they are saying.

[grasswire]

6. a bogus argument.

But you already know that.

[krawhitham]

48. You have a better answer to the outrage?

[Drale]

8. I didn't shed a tear when Bin Laden bit it and

I didn't when al-Awlaki got it either.

[MNBrewer]

13. "We" didn't all "celebrate" the killing of bin Laden

Some of us had concerns at that time about why he was executed, not brought back and tried.

It's debatable whether we're "officially at war" with al Qaeda.

If the list of charges against Awlaki are so provable, why not go to a Federal Grand Jury and at least get an indictment? EVEN IF it's not legally required (which, again, is debatable).

9/11 DIDN'T change everything. I believe we still have the same Constitution we had on 9/10.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

22. + 1

I wasn't "celebrating" shit when Bin Laden was assassinated. I wanted him tried in a US court of justice, just like Awlaki and every other terrorist fuck. :shrug: I'm old school that way.

[bigwillq]

54. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[MrSlayer]

24. I'm treating it the same.

A job well done by the President and his team.

[jefferson_dem]

25. I do...

Not sure I would say celebrate but I applaud their demise. Both were the enemy, obviously. I find all the "awww...poor al-Awlaki" pity party kind of sad and funny, all at the same time.

[lunatica]

26. I don't celebrate either death but I'm glad they're no longer alive to kill people

[unblock]

27. i was not at all happy about an american president targeting an individual and carrying out a hit.

if i focus on bin laden, of course i think the world's a better place without him.
and politically, i'm happy that a democrat gets the credit instead of a republican. the inevitable republicans gloating would have sickened me.

however, i think it's a horrible thing for a president to announce that he's going to KILL an individual and then to carry out that promise.

sorry, but as president, you should ANNOUNCE that you want to bring him to justice, to capture him alive to stand trial for his crimes against humanity. if he capturing him alive can't be accomplished, then killing him is not an unreasonable SECOND choice.

however, given the "KILL" promise well prior to the deed and the actual details of the mission, it's clear to me that capturing him alive was not deemed to be a priority.

i think this is a horrible precendent.



the problem, of course, is that when it's applied to someone like bin laden, it's extremely difficult to oppose the hit without appearing to "defend" a heinous individual who "deserved" to be killed.

when it's applied to the next guy, though, it becomes more clear that, hey, he can do this to anyone. bin laden we knew was evil. al-awlaki, most of us said, "who"? and we needed to be told he was evil. but that sequence gives one pause and raises the concern that the president can kill ANYONE and then simply explain that that person was evil, don't question it.

very scary, if you think about what historically governments have done to extend such powers.

[Marnie]

28. We are not officially at war with anyone.

And not all Americans applaud assassination of those who have been charged in absentia but never proven guilty.

It used to kind of required.

Like it's part of your sense of Justice.

Or at least it used to be.

[hack89]

57. The AUMF specifically invokes the War Powers Resolution

it is an official a war as you are going to get.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

29. Yes, but everyone keeps setting the bar higher and higher for this particular president.

So, when someone points out the double standards, we should really listen to what that person is saying.

The bar will continue to be raised. There could be 0% unemployment, and sure enough, there will be another outrage.

He can't win.

[JoePhilly]

30. If a person who claims to be a terrorist in a foreign country wants due process ...

I'm sure we can provide it.

But if they (in this case an American citizen) won't turn themselves in to even be questioned under oath, then I can't maintain much sympathy for the next solution the US selects.

OBL was "Determined to strike within the US" ... we know this, there was a PDB that says it. And it happened.

This discussion is not abstract. An Al-Qaeda leader, called for strikes in the US, perhaps using planes, and it occurred.

al-Awlaki has been calling for similar events. I suppose we can WAIT for something big to happen with his name on it, but I'd rather not play that game.

[elleng]

33. No reason for 'not the same,' and yes, they were the enemy.

People really should recognize that its 'war,' unconventional even so.

[AngkorWot]

34. The people complaining about al-Awlaki's death also complained about Osama's death.

Also the same people who are upset at everything good that Obama does, whether it's killing Osama or killing DADT, there'll be people on DU crying about it.

[cherokeeprogressive]

53. "The people" who complained then, are complaining about THE SAME THING now.

You do get that, right?

[zalinda]

40. I didn't celebrate

I wanted him to get his day in court, not become a martyr. By killing these guys, Obama has made them both martyrs for a cause. If brought to justice, we could have held our heads up high, by being the people that makes America what it was, and should be again.

zalinda

[Lasher]

49. Do you think a lengthy OJ Simpson-style trial would have been a good thing?

Would you have enjoyed the inevitable appeals that would have gone on until after both of them would have died of natural causes? Would you like to see 'free bin Laden' t-shirts everywhere for the next decade or so? Would that make you hold your head up high? How about al Qaeda taking US hostages far and wide to demand the release of these two sadistic assholes?

Your scenario affords much more sympathy and attention to these two killers and their perverted cause. Good riddance to these vermin.

[zalinda]

56. First of all, the OJ Simpson trial was a circus

No one was served in that judicial nightmare.

Secondly, I doubt very much that many people would have watched either Osama or al-Awlaki trials. Neither of these people are 'celebrities', politics are only interesting to those who are interested in this country, rather than what star is dating what star. Or the reality shows from Orange Country or New Jersey, whatever they are called. Now if it was a Kardashian, maybe people would sit up and take notice.

No, America is supposed to be better than Iraq or Iran or any other repressed country. We are supposed to be a country of laws, and lately those laws seem to only pertain to some of the people.

zalinda

[Lasher]

58. Yes, the OJ Simpson trial was a circus. On that we agree.

But I don't agree that Americans would show less interest in a bin Laden or al Awlaki trial. Please consider the Casey Anthony trial, which was another circus. Fame was not a requisite for national obsession with that one, so I don't think there would have been a lack of interest because neither of these killers were Hollywood celebrities. Further, while many Americans had never heard of al Awlaki, bin Laden certainly did not lack notoriety.

Our national moral character was not compromised by the killing of these two men. Al Qaeda is waging war against us. They have confirmed this in both word and deed. We were therefore justified when we eliminated these key members of the group.

I agree with you on another point: Our criminal justice system is shameful. Verdicts and punishment are inconsistently administered, depending on how much money you have and/or who you are. And, as I alluded earlier, trials and appeals can drag on literally for decades. A delay of justice is injustice itself.

We would have been obliged to have some sort of trial for these two enemies if they had been captured alive. But I'm glad they were killed. It's much better this way.

[mtnsnake]

46. My apologies about the "we celebrated" part for those who are offended that Obama took bin Laden out

I sure as hell celebrated it, though, and I was proud of Obama for his courage in the way he handled that operation so successfully. Like it or not, bin Laden's death and al-Awlaki's death will go a long way toward Obama's re-election next year.

Sure, there are some things I personally wish Obama handled differently such as when he extended Bush's tax cuts for the rich and when he backed away from the clean air bill on behalf of big oil recently, but taking out world class scumbags like bin Laden and al-Awlaki in the manner that he did? That was HUGE, and it was the right thing to do. Well done, Barack!

[krawhitham]

47. Apparently it is morally wrong to kill a US Citizen, but ok to someone who is not

[joshcryer]

50. Short memory. Bin Laden was 10x as hysterical.

A few people who were so loud about Bin Laden's "injustice" later went on to be tomb stoned.

[Rowdyboy]

51. If mourning = celebrating then guilty as charged....

I don't celebrate any death but neither man deserves my pity. Both should rot, regardless of citizenship.

[Enrique]

55. see 2:29 in this video

the whole thing is good, but starting at 2:29 we get the whole debate in a couple of seconds. ;-)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pkKNPEU8oc&feature=results_video&playnext=1&list=PL815555338A1558AD

[whatchamacallit]

59. From a government that lied us into war (and god knows what else)

I require a little more than summary executions of people they say deserve it. It's shocking how malleable we are once an official "truth" has been established...

[Ignis]

61. Here's a better question: Why did we put boots on the ground for OBL?

If we weren't going to capture and try OBL, why risk American lives instead of drones?

Hell, if we knew where OBL with a sufficient degree of certainty to put boots on the ground, why didn't we just blow up the whole block with a bunker-buster?
Or a 1-mile radius around the location?
Or the whole town?

After all, if we've moved into a casual acceptance of "collateral damage" in the "war on terror," why not just nuke all of Pakistan?

:crazy:

The slopes are rather slippery around this whole argument, and it's disconcerting to see a (D) POTUS take advantage of extraordinary means to capture and prosecute summarily execute criminals.

[truedelphi]

63. In the very first weeks of our going into

Afghanistan - way back in early winter of 2002, we had OBL in our sights.

But he was let go.

And by the time that Obama got around to killing him, he was already dead.
Bhutto talked about his death when interviewed by David Frost for the BBC.

She was dead within weeks of her statement, even though she had asked for the help of the USA to beef up her security. (We declined, preferring to let her become a martyr.)

Although I have no idea who was killed when our "boots" entered that compound,I doubt that it was OBL. For that reason alone, he couldn't very well have been captured and put on trial.

[TK421]

62. GW wasn't after al-Awlaki, mtnsnake! There you go!

There was no continuation of a legacy there!