Are We Killing Ourselves in Yemen, Now?

[Hoosier Daddy]

SANAA, Yemen — Anwar al-Aulaqi, the radical Yemeni-American cleric and one of the most influential al-Qaeda operatives wanted by the United States, has been killed in Marib province in northern Yemen, Yemen’s Defense Ministry said Friday morning.

The ministry, in a text message sent to journalists, said “the terrorist Anwar al- Aulaqi has been killed along with some of his companions,” but did not provide further details. The report could not be independently verified; Aulaqi has been falsely reported killed before.

A Yemeni security source, speaking on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak to the media, said Aulaqi was killed in an air strike, possibly by an unmanned American drone. The Obama administration in recent months have escalated the use of drones to target al-Qaeda-linked militants in Yemen and Somalia. U.S. officials could not be reached for comment.

If true, Aulaqi’s death would be considered a significant victory in the U.S. war against global terrorism. Believed to be 39 or 40-years old, the New Mexico-born cleric has been implicated in several attacks on U.S. soil, including the 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, Texas; an attempt later that year to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner; and an attempt in 2010 to send parcel bombs on cargo plans bound for the United States.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/anwar-al-aulaqi-us-born-cleric-linked-to-al-qaeda-killed-yemen-says/2011/09/30/gIQAsoWO9K_story.html?hpid=z1

Not saying the guy didn't deserve severe punishment, but, if the report is correct, we have just executed a man from New Mexico without trial.

[MrSlayer]

1. I don't consider him to be one of us.

So no, we aren't killing ourselves. We just killed a traitor. If this is true.

[malaise]

7. So you get to decide who is American?

The man was born in America so according to the constitution he is an American.

[TheWraith]

26. So is the fugitive who gets shot by the police resisting arrest. That's not a universal defense.

This guy was a wanted criminal. He long since had the opportunity to turn himself in.

[former9thward]

28. A "wanted criminal"?

What prosecutor charged him with anything? I didn't know you should turn yourself in when there are no charges against you.

[TheWraith]

32. He was tried and convicted for conspiracy to commit murder by a Yemeni judge.

He was also wanted in connection with several other attacks including the Fort Hood shooter, the underwear bomber, and the attempted murder of British former minister Stephen Timms.

[former9thward]

33. He was never charged in anything that happened in the U.S.

I did not know our military is now the justice enforcer for Yemen.

[TheWraith]

35. You seem to have skipped over his connections to Fort Hood and the underwear bomber.

There isn't a magical rule that only indicted fugitives get killed resisting arrest.

[former9thward]

38. You seem to be mixing legal terms.

How can someone be a fugitive if they have never been charged with anything? Maybe you can point out instances where someone who has never been charged with a crime is ordered executed but I can't. Sometimes people can be killed while fleeing/resisting arrest but this was mission to kill him, not capture him.

[Exilednight]

61. Let's not, also, forget that people who are executed are at least given a trial before

being sent to death. I've seen people try to rationalize this by saying that he should have given up, but who was out there with a set of handcuffs trying to arrest him just before he was killed?

[Luminous Animal]

50. You seem to be skipping over that evidence of such was ever presented in a U.S. court.

The government says it is so, so it must be so. Let's ignore that pesky detail of having the opportunity of confronting your accusers.

[bvar22]

41. We don't even have an Extradition Treaty with Yemen,

...but you want to endorse and abide by their court system?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Which_countries_have_no_extradition_treaties_with_the_United_States

What about Muslim countries with Sharia law?
Will you stand by their verdicts and help them carry out the sentences?

Absurd.

[Luminous Animal]

49. This defense cracks me up so much. How's the rule of law in Yemen? Last I heard, their democratic

legislative, and judicial institutions are anything that we'd be willing to trade for our own.

[MrSlayer]

44. Was.

He's worm food now and rightly so. He and his other asshole "American" buddy. Sorry but I have no interest in defending a traitor who openly declared himself an enemy combatant against us. He got exactly what he deserved and asked for. And there was nothing extra-legal about it, it was perfectly legal and justified.

[RetroLounge]

58. Turn in your liberal card

You obviously have no interest defending the Constitution either.

Nothing you ever say on this site will be taken seriously again.

RL

[TheKentuckian]

9. The constitution is clear on treason and there is no such charge here.

This is not a precedent that should be set and I don't accept it.

[sabrina 1]

30. How do you know 'we just killed a traitor'?

Where is the evidence? I have seen nothing other than declarations of guilt by the government. Don't you think it's a bit dangerous to simply accept the government's word when they kill an American citizen, and feel secure that they would never lie to us?

This guy was once invited to the Pentagon to dinner to help the US 'outreach' program towards Muslims. He was vetted by the FBI several times before being invited.

So why did they not arrest him while he was here giving speeches and easily found not that long ago?

Sorry, I don't share your complete, unquestioning trust in any government when it comes to matters like this.

[TheWraith]

34. How about the fact that he openly claimed credit for attacks to kill Americans?

Did you even read a single thing about this guy, before you decided that if the government says it, it must be a lie? That's borderline Tea Party thinking.

In "44 Ways to Support Jihad," another sermon posted on his blog in February 2009, al-Awlaki encouraged others to "fight jihad", and explained how to give money to the mujahideen or their families after they've died. Al-Awlaki's sermon also encouraged others to conduct weapons training, and raise children "on the love of Jihad."<134> Also that month, he wrote: "I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies."<133> He wrote as well: "We will implement the rule of Allah on Earth by the tip of the sword, whether the masses like it or not."<133> On July 14, he criticized armies of Muslim countries that assist the U.S. military, saying, "the blame should be placed on the soldier who is willing to follow orders ... who sells his religion for a few dollars."<133> In a sermon on his blog on July 15, 2009, entitled "Fighting Against Government Armies in the Muslim World," al-Awlaki wrote, "Blessed are those who fight against (American soldiers), and blessed are those shuhada (martyrs) who are killed by them."<134><135>

"Nidal Hassan is a hero.... The U.S. is leading the war against terrorism, which in reality is a war against Islam..... Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the U.S. army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal."

Al-Awlaki said he "blessed the act (the Fort Hood shooting) because it was against a military target. And the soldiers who were killed were ... those who were trained and prepared to go to Iraq and Afghanistan".<26><141>

(The Obama) administration tried to portray the operation of brother Nidal Hasan as an individual act of violence from an estranged individual. The administration practiced to control on the leak of information concerning the operation, in order to cushion the reaction of the American public.
Until this moment the administration is refusing to release the e-mails exchanged between myself and Nidal. And after the operation of our brother Umar Farouk, the initial comments coming from the administration were looking the same – another attempt at covering up the truth. But Al-Qaeda cut off Obama from deceiving the world again by issuing their statement claiming responsibility for the operation.<142>

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

[sabrina 1]

36. I see nothing there but speech.

Since when is speech a Death Penalty case, no matter how vile? Where is the evidence of him being actually, physically responsible for killing any Americans? Isn't this why we have trials?

Why was he part of the Pentagon's outreach to Muslim's program? And he was preaching here in the US for years, known as a radical cleric, we are also told he was wanted by Canada while he was here. So, again, why was he not arrested and why did the TSA allow this 'wanted terrorist' get on a plane when they are harassing babies and old people every day?

Sorry, you are struggling to defend this action, about as successfully as Republicans struggled to defend similar actions when Bush was doing it, and I was doing exactly as I am now doing, demanding that the government provide clear, evidence that even comes close to justifying this kind of horrible, anti-Constituional, anti-Internataional law, behavior.

[AverageJoe90]

53. Yeah, he should have been investigated instead.

Perhaps if there had been an investigation there might have been an even deeper connection to certain people.........but now I wonder if maybe that could be part of the reason that he and that other guy were offed. You did point out Al-Awlaki's having visited the Pentagon during the Bush era, as I recall. Maybe he could've snitched on some buddies and/or controllers in the military, given enough incentive(no, not torture, of course)?

[Luminous Animal]

52. The Supreme Court has solidly ruled that speech is not action. If it was, then

if someone killed Michael Moore, then Glenn Beck could be targeted for state sanctioned murder.

[AverageJoe90]

54. I personally would've liked to see this guy detained.

They could have gotten him on inciting violence, which is a crime in most areas as far as I know, but after that, they should have investigated this guy and his pals; perhaps they could've found something. Sabrina pointed out that this guy did have visitation rights to the Pentagon, basically, during Bush's terms. I also wonder, could he have been a liability to the certain criminal factions within our military?

[JoeyT]

56. No one claimed that anything issued by the government must be a lie.

They claimed that we shouldn't automatically trust everything the government says, which is why trials are necessary.

Those are two wildly different claims. Unless you're prepared to claim the US government has never lied about anything to anyone, it's reasonable to doubt their willingness to tell the truth. Or did we find weapons of mass destruction and yellowcake from Africa when I wasn't paying attention?

[otohara]

37. I'm With You

he was a bad man!
good riddance!

[AverageJoe90]

51. Agreed, but I think it would've been much better if we had just arrested the prick & tried him......

......He'd suffer the humiliation, and facing the possibility of execution anyway, IF he were to be convicted of HIGH treason(don't recall what the Constitution says about regular traitors, though).

[ixion]

2. Killing is what the US government does best, followed by

torture and abuse.

The government kills people at home and abroad on a daily basis.

[Distant Observer]

3. That's the reason for the "official" designation for "war on terror." Allows us to kill anyone

who is a threat, "legally."

[MadHound]

4. We've been doing this for a couple of years now,

We're keeping Yemen on the back burner right now, a war in reserve so to speak. Something we can heat up when Iraq and Afghanistan start to finally cool down.

[CanonRay]

13. We've been doing this a lot longer than that

we just didn't have drones. Remember Viet Nam?

[geek tragedy]

5. AQ members are not 'one of us'

The lesson to be learned: don't join al-Qaeda.

[dixiegrrrrl]

6. Slippery slope indeed.

Apparently we have been blowing up people in Yemen in an attempt to get him since at least last spring.

http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-06/world/yemen.drone.strike_1_awlaki-al-awlaki-al-qaeda-members?_s=PM:WORLD

[customerserviceguy]

8. If he would have come here

We'd have given him a trial. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

[TheKentuckian]

10. What are his charges? I know when his death warrant was signed there were no charges

People who aren't indicted don't get trials and our laws dictate our citizens get a trial even for treason and the conditions are written right there in our constitution for such a charge.

The guy was sentenced without a trial and without charges, has this changed before the sentence was carried out?

[customerserviceguy]

40. He took up arms against our country

And specifically called for and aided in attacks on the civilian population. President Obama is proud of his order and it's execution, so am I.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[hack89]

12. Then perhaps he should have turned himself in. nt

[former9thward]

14. What were the charges against him?

What court or prosecutor made the charges? Do you turn yourself in when there are no charges against you?

[hack89]

17. I personally don't see this as a criminal matter

he was actively waging war against America - we don't need charges to kill enemy soldiers.

[DirkGently]

24. So he falls under the Geneva Convention? Who all is eligible to be at "war" against us. One guy?

Bush argued we are "at war" with whomever we didn't like. Because "war" is a convenient way to claim all bets are off. Yet he also claimed captured / kidnapped "enemy combatants" weren't eligible for the protections we afford enemy soldiers. Or the ones we afford to accused criminals.

What you're left with is a status, which can be conferred on anyone in the world, based on no particular proof, no trial, no evidence, which renders someone a non-person, and subject to treatment which would otherwise be completely illegal. Kidnapping. Torture. Murder.

We have a lot of names for countries who kill people they claim to be enemies of the state, with no proof or due process. None of them are complimentary.

[hack89]

27. No - he does not meet that criteria

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfill the following conditions:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly;
(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

The US could have extended Geneva Convention protections to him if they had captured him but that would have no relevance to whether or not we can go kill him. The Geneva Convention refers to how you treat enemy combatants after capture. Says nothing about how you have to go about killing them.

Look at the definition found in the Geneva Convention - it certainly makes it clear that there is the possibility during war that you could be fighting a military organization that is not entitled to the protection of the Geneva Convention. Al Qaeda is such an organization - they run military training camps and control organized fighting forces in Pakistan. They provide military assistance to other terrorist groups. They are clearly a military organization and threat. This is not a criminal matter - what you and I would consider organized crime has no bearing on Al Qaeda.

[DirkGently]

45. Nor is there any provision anywhere for going to "war" with one person & murdering him.

There is no "war" with a loosely affiliated, worldwide group that includes anyone the U.S. might consider an enemy. It's an intellectual dodge, invented by the Bush administration, for the purpose of granting itself unlimited authority. We do not recognize any other nation's right to do any such thing, and our Constitution flatly outlaws it regarding U.S. citizens.

There is no category of people the U.S. is entitled to hunt down and murder anywhere, anytime.

[hack89]

55. So you have found the grey area in international law.

We are at war with the group he is an active member of - a group with a long history of killing Americans. You think that if we can't arrest him we have no choice but to leave him and hope that he doesn't find a way to kill innocent Americans. I disagree.

We certainly recognize other countries right to kill terrorists if they are unable to arrest them. We also recognize other countries right to kill terrorists with the support and assistance of the country the terrorist are hiding in.

As to the Constitution, if in 1941 a US citizen had joined the German army we could not have killed him? Don't think so.

[DirkGently]

57. No one would find it particularly "grey" if another country shot a missile at, say, Cheney.

The only framework that allows this to even appear to pass is identity bias. It's the U.S. doing it, the victim fits the scary terrorist caricature, and the country where it took place strikes most Americans as a lawless foreign wasteland of some kind. There's a towering pile of assumptions in place to comfort people.

Change any detail, and try the argument again.

- Britain launched a Hellfire at an American citizen abroad, whom it claims was a terrorist. Still okay?

- Egypt launches a Hellfire at an English citizen it claims was a terrorist. It took place in Syria, with that government's approval.

- The missile strike takes place in Chicago.

- The accused American is a white Christian woman, who no one has ever publicly accused of being a terrorist.


All still okay? Just another day in the worldwide War on Terror?


There's nothing in the supposed justification being used here that prevents any of that.

[treestar]

59. There was a court in Yemen that he skipped

He knew we were after him (his father sued regarding it) - so he could have tried to clear things up had he just been praying for the poor or other entirely innocent activities.

[pinboy3niner]

15. Yemen Defense Ministry: another American in al-Qaida, Samir Khan, was killed with al-Awlaki

Reported by AP – 7 mins ago. Just one sentence, no further details.

ETA: Update with a few more details:
http://news.yahoo.com/yemen-second-american-militant-killed-strike-133008183.html

[Lyric]

16. Yeah, but, but, he's a BAD GUY. Therefore we don't care about his Constitutional rights.

Or something like that.

:sarcasm:

( ^needed?)

[DirkGently]

25. ... and bad guys are whoever we say they are. Amazing, isn't it?

[sad sally]

39. When government asserts an unreviewable power to kill its own

own citizens, it mocks the rule of law, and claims a power more familiar to tyrants than democracies

[DirkGently]

18. Drone killings are illegal assassination. How did that magically become okay?

[Poll_Blind]

20. Obama's doing them.

PB

[DirkGently]

21. When's the first one going to take place openly in the U.S.? If it's "legal" there, it's legal here.

If it's really okay for the U.S. government to blow up someone it considers an enemy, without arrest, without trial, without proof, then there's no reason it can't launch a Hellfire or three at someone's house. Or walk up to a suspected "terrorist sympathizer" on Mainstreet, USA and blow their head off.

The only thing going for the idea all these killings are fine is that we're blowing up other people's streets and towns and roads to do it. We wouldn't accept another country's right to blow up its suspected, unconvicted "enemies" anywhere, and I suspect no American arguing in favor of these killings imagines the next street to explode will be theirs.

But, should that occur, they've already given up the right to complain. For all of us.

[DearHeart]

23. You are correct! Once you open this door, you can't close it

and it will happen here, especially if there is no outcry.

[dionysus]

19. lol

[AngkorWot]

22. Cry some more.

Ha ha.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

29. Yes. But, it makes good PR during the campaign season.

[JCMach1]

31. Obama promises and delivers that he will go after terrorists and DU

pisses and moans...

In 2.5 years Obama has done more to win the war on terror than Bush did in almost 8.

[dreamnightwind]

42. Obama creates more new terrorists than he kills

Our country loses all moral authority when it takes actions such as these. The people we need to connect with, make them realize that we aren't evil nor are we at war against Islam, learn the exact opposite when they see or hear about these extra-judicial drone killings.

Not in my name, no thanks. :(

If we are to kill people using drones, we should have to try and convict them first in an open court of law, giving the accused every opportunity to defend himself. Then, if we have convicted him, and only then, should we be allowed to kill them. And I oppose the death penalty anyway, as does most all of the civilized world.

How about the organizers of Occupy Wall Street? Are they enemies of the state? Drones for them? When the real riots come, some people will be killed, most likely. Should the organizers be killed with drones?

[JCMach1]

47. He lost any moral authority by continuing the wars period!

When you are fighting a war, it sure as hell better be fought with the full-force that you can apply.

[dreamnightwind]

48. Agree about the wars, we should leave

I can't agree with the other part, that wars should only be fought with full force applied. It's like getting into a fight with someone on the street. You can use appropriate force for the situation, fists, and possibly lose, but that doesn't mean you should pull out a gun and kill the person. Situations require appropriate response depending on context.

Then there's the little detail that the "global war on terror" is not a war, not in Yemen, that's a crazy stretch planted in our minds by BushCo and a compliant media. It's an open-ended excuse to mess with anyone we want to, wherever we want to. That's a policy, not a war, and it's used selectively to advance some think-tank's idea of what U.S. interests are, pretty much regardless of any moral authority (the moral authority is just a one-sided narrative fed to the mostly powerless public so they don't make too much of a fuss about their interests not being the same as those of the think tank's corporate funders.)

And the terrorists are primarily a reaction to the over-reach of U.S. foreign policy. Typical "the beatings will continue until the morale improves" thinking to fight this as a war. So that gets back to my earlier remark that we, by killing this guy in Yemen, create more terrorists in the future. A more enlightened response would be more effective.

Sorry to rant, it isn't at you at all. I'm hating that our nation is out of control of its citizens and these corporate beasts of no nation are using our names and our military around the globe to get access to cheap raw materials and cheap repressed labor pools. In the end, the people of the world will blame the citizens of the U.S., and there will be a price to pay for that.

[UTUSN]

43. Who is this "ourselves" we're talking about, somebody wanting to kill YOU and ME?!1 n/t

[Electric Monk]

46. Ten recs and counting, and a pizza too. Hmm. nt

[RetroLounge]

60. Candidate Obama

Big tough guy on Terror.

Not so much on The COnsitution

:puke:

RL