Anwar al-Awlaki Dead

**Don Roley** · 10-01-2011, 10:20

Has anyone else run across raving moonbats crying over the death of this guy? Sad to say, even Ron Paul seems to be out of it.

A lot of people are screaming about how this guy was killed without being put on trial. When I pointed out to one guy that ethics allow us to shoot someone who is an obvious threat before they can kill others, one guy went on a rant about how we only know what the government is telling us (excuse me, you can find videos by Anwar on the internet), then he was saying that he may have been mentally ill and there are laws protecting such people, and a whole lot of other things like that.

It would have been nice to catch this guy alive. But to let more Americans be killed before he was stopped is not logical. And so far, none of the people that want the US military to go out of their way to capture him in Yemen seems to have ever volunteered to put their own tender, pink rear ends on the line themselves.

Anyone else run across nutcases like this? They seem to be coming out of the woodwork from where I sit.

**Ramirez** · 10-01-2011, 11:34

I was talking to Robert about this on Facebook, I'm shedding no tears over al-Awalki, but I was puzzled over how he could be put on the kill list , it seemed to be
unconstitutional. In any case it was not as if he was going to be taken alive regardless, so why risk troops when a drone can do the job.

I take it there is some way to legally classify a US citizen an enemy combatant. There must have been cases of American citizens joining foreign armies in conflict with the US sometime in the past. Wasn't that the case with John Lindh Walker? The only difference I can see here is al-Awlaki was specifically targeted.

**Don Roley** · 10-01-2011, 12:04

Originally Posted by Ramirez

I was talking to Robert about this on Facebook, I'm shedding no tears over al-Awalki, but I was puzzled over how he could be put on the kill list , it seemed to be
unconstitutional.

I think it kind of falls into the same category as someone with a gun running towards a crowded school yard. The first thing a police officer would probably do is pull his pistol and yell for the guy to stop. After he has been told, if he refuses to comply, the officer shoots him rather than let him kill a bunch of kids. al-Awalaki knew they were after him, and he was in a place where we could not get him alive. The choice was either let him go to help kill more Americans or kill him. He did not give us any other choice.

**David Craik** · 10-01-2011, 13:27

I was going to post a thread on this myself. I personally would feel better if he had been tried in absentia first, though this would likely be a formality. I would at least get a little warm fuzzy. I am overjoyed that he is dead, but it does raise a the spectre of possible abuse of power later, to simply order the death of a citizen. Mr. Roley's example is very good, however it kind of ignores the idea of urgency. The specific threat in the example is imminent, as it would be if Awlaki were running toward LAX with a bomb. Awlaki's threat was not as immediate as a lunatic running toward children with a gun. He was ordered killed a while back as a result of past actions, which is essentially a "sentence" without trial, not an intervention.

I think the right thing was done when the chance presented itself. But as always I worry about precedents being set and the criteria for what is and is not justifiable being blurred. We are essentially talking about an assassination order against a US citizen, and though this scumbag absolutely got what was coming to him I worry about who may be on the target list years down the road if the gubmint decides they don't like a specific individual. These are certainly strange times we are living in, and I'm of two minds how a precedent of torture and assassination can be reconciled with an eye toward future people and circumstances. I'm not naive enough to not realize that this stuff has occurred for ages, but now that is in the public spotlight I wonder.

Perhaps I should take a more Israeli mindset, but this would require a lot of trust in our elected officials. Given the wisdom of our government in recent decades I unfortunately find this level of trust difficult to muster. Threats obviously need to be taken out, but I'm at a loss to figure out who this power should be given to. To be able to order drone attacks against US citizens carries a huge amount of responsibility and correct judgement, and has the potential for abuse.

I read that Ron Paul was asked if his line of reasoning also would apply to OBL, and he pretty much said "that's different, because he was involved in 9/11". I'm surprised that he didn't point out that OBL was not a US citizen and thus not subject to the Constitution.

The problem faced is the same as was raised during those terrible days after 9/11. Are suspected terrorists to be treated as a combatant or a criminal? On one hand we order deaths and on the other we try some in a court of law. If Awlaki had flown back to the States he probably would have been tried with all the rights that the Constitution affords. But because he didn't, we basically said "screw it", and blew his arse up. Will this course of action be applied to other American fugitives?

**Don Roley** · 10-01-2011, 13:42

Originally Posted by David Craik

Mr. Roley's example is very good, however it kind of ignores the idea of urgency. The specific threat in the example is imminent, as it would be if Awlaki were running toward LAX with a bomb. Awlaki's threat was not as immediate as a lunatic running toward children with a gun. He was ordered killed a while back as a result of past actions, which is essentially a "sentence", not an intervention.

I have to disagree. He was active in promoting a terrorist organization's agenda. He had not stopped recruiting, organizing, etc and so he was a near term threat.

I think this differs from an assassination in that the perp was given notice that we were after him and if he had tried to turn himself in we would have put him on trial. If the government started killing folks that had no idea they were being pursued, that would be worrying to me.

**David Craik** · 10-01-2011, 13:58

So somebody would have died in around 15 seconds if we had not taken him out like in your example? What specific and imminent threat was there when the order to take him out was signed? He was riding in a car in the Yemeni desert, IIRC. There was no cop yelling "Stop, you're under arrest". If somebody is sitting in their house plotting a murder two weeks hence do you just shoot them dead or do you attempt to arrest them? In your example kids will die in seconds, not "near term" that in reality could be months away or not at all. I don't know how to explain the difference any more simply.

Do we take a military response to all suspected criminals that someone has deemed a "terrorist"? As a citizen, as despicable as he is, he has rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. We may like it or we may not, but that is a fact. The Bill of Rights is not an optional document for some political crook to decide when it applies and when it does not. It contains no clause exempting citizens from certain rights if they are a murderous, treasonous arsehole if they have not been tried and found guilty of same.

What else could be labelled a "terrorist organization" in the future? Fugitives are given notice or are well aware that they are being pursued all the time, do we just arbitrarily kill them all with drone strikes? I'm not defending this idiot, I'm talking about a precedent and it's potential for abuse. He's most likely absolutely guilty and deserves to die. But that isn't my decision to make, nor any person or agency's. Guilt is determined by trial by other citizens, not a "death panel" in the CIA or DHS.

Do you consider it right for our goverment to determine who among our citizens lives and who dies without trial? George III would certainly approve. After all, this country was founded by "terrorists".

What we are talking about here is the military being ordered to kill a citizen of the United States based on the judgement of investigative and executive agencies. I think such a precedent is a dangerous one to set.

**Don Roley** · 10-01-2011, 14:37

Originally Posted by David Craik

If somebody is sitting in their house plotting a murder two weeks hence do you just shoot them dead or do you attempt to arrest them?

Can you arrest them? More specifically, can you do it in the middle of Yemen without a whole lot of Americans getting killed before he was finally caught?

**David Craik** · 10-01-2011, 15:20

I don't see why not, the Yemeni government was involved and complicit in the operation. We could have sent whomever we like.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/wo...-militant.html

Yemen is the most impoverished nation in the whole Arab world, slide them a couple mil and you could ferry in a battalion of Marines if you like, and a score of tanks for good measure. He could not have been surrounded by Yemeni and US agents? They probably have pretty crappy cops but I'm sure they could understand "If this guy doesn't surrender, shoot him a whole bunch of times". We have 105,000 Federal officers in this country, not to mention reams of SEALS, Rangers, Force Recon, and Special Forces. We can surround an MS-13 stronghold yet not some anorexic-looking tool and his little motorcade? He could be surrounded with attack helicopters and troops in minutes, not to mention jets from whateever carrier group is in the area. You drop a couple 1,000 pounders a half mile or so in front of them and they will think better of trying to fight, guaranteed, or they will be vaporized. There would be not one American life lost.

He's not some invincible demon, he's a scrawny treasonous moron with a handful of peasants. I'd attempt to arrest him myself if I could take Tony and a few other dudes I know with me.

If not, try him in absentia, sentence him to death within the judiciary system and kill him as was done. The executive branch has no business ordering "hits" on US citizens sans trial regardless of how scummy they are. We are not the Mafia, no matter how vile the target.

As opposed to simply being squirted out on US soil, I worked for my US citizenship. I was investigated, interrogated, and quizzed. My background was investigated US-wide. I wasn't even allowed to avert my eyes during questioning because I might be "cheating" when asked about the US governental system, even having been in the Marine Corps for nearly 20 years at that time and wearing a chestful of medals and ribbons. Five or six rows of them. So, citizenship means something to me. It means one has to be tried in order to be guilty of a crime. It means that due process must be followed. It means that the Constitution which I swore to defend applies to everyone, even the most disgusting and heinous.

Because if if it doesn't apply to them, it does not apply to the rest of us either.

**Cliff Hargrave** · 10-01-2011, 19:59

He was directly involved with recruiting and planning three attacks. 9/11, the Fort Hood Massacre, and the underwear bomber in 2009. Good enough for me.

**Don Roley** · 10-01-2011, 20:17

Originally Posted by David Craik

I don't see why not, the Yemeni government was involved and complicit in the operation. We could have sent whomever we like.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/wo...-militant.html

Yemen is the most impoverished nation in the whole Arab world, slide them a couple mil and you could ferry in a battalion of Marines if you like, and a score of tanks for good measure. He could not have been surrounded by Yemeni and US agents? They probably have pretty crappy cops but I'm sure they could understand "If this guy doesn't surrender, shoot him a whole bunch of times". We have 105,000 Federal officers in this country, not to mention reams of SEALS, Rangers, Force Recon, and Special Forces. We can surround an MS-13 stronghold yet not some anorexic-looking tool and his little motorcade? He could be surrounded with attack helicopters and troops in minutes, not to mention jets from whateever carrier group is in the area. You drop a couple 1,000 pounders a half mile or so in front of them and they will think better of trying to fight, guaranteed, or they will be vaporized. There would be not one American life lost.

My knowledge of Yemen is about 180 from what you say. I have read about Yemen over the last few years and have an acquaintance that worked there until recently.

Yemen's leader is nominally on our side, but is hated by many. He recently had to go outside the country to get medical treatment from an attempt on his life. Large portions of his military have defected to the rebels and fight against him.

According to the guy I know who lived there, the country is basically composed of a lot of tribes that are used to fighting against each other. But all the guys he worked with, western trained educated types, they all believe that Osama Bin Ladin was a CIA plant who worked to let the US invade Islamic countries by giving them an excuse. I can only imagine what the common folks who have never met an American think.

Everything I know points to the idea that American forces operating in Yemen openly would cause all the factions to unite against us and make our Somalia mission under Clinton look tame. I also expect an Al Queda linked group to fight to the death, taking as many US soldiers with them as possible.

I would have liked to take him alive. But all the deaths that would result makes me think that targeting him with a drone is the best bet if he was not willing to peacefully give himself up.

**Tony Dismukes** · 10-01-2011, 20:39

David pretty well expresses everything I have to say on the subject.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not suddenly become disposable as soon as someone says "terrorist" (or "drugs" or "communist" or whatever the boogie man of the day is).

**Erik** · 10-01-2011, 20:52

******* is dead. Very, very good.

Gov't executed an American citizen without a trial, looks like the Bill of Rights was circumvented. If so, the we have harmed our country more than that fruitcake himself could have.

My feelings are very mixed.

**Don Roley** · 10-01-2011, 20:54

Originally Posted by Tony Dismukes

David pretty well expresses everything I have to say on the subject.

The Constitution of the United States of America does not suddenly become disposable as soon as someone says "terrorist" (or "drugs" or "communist" or whatever the boogie man of the day is).

Agreed. So if there is a way of catching someone who is a citizen without a lot of American lives lost in the mean time, we should take it. We all seem agreed on that point. The point of contention seems to be if we could capture this one guy without really screwing up our position overseas and leading to the deaths of a lot of Americans.

No one here is saying we should kill folks in secret like a whole lot of journalists and opposition figures have been in Russia.

**Jonathan Randall** · 10-02-2011, 00:09

Originally Posted by David Craik

If not, try him in absentia, sentence him to death within the judiciary system and kill him as was done. The executive branch has no business ordering "hits" on US citizens sans trial regardless of how scummy they are. We are not the Mafia, no matter how vile the target.

As opposed to simply being squirted out on US soil, I worked for my US citizenship. I was investigated, interrogated, and quizzed. My background was investigated US-wide. I wasn't even allowed to avert my eyes during questioning because I might be "cheating" when asked about the US governental system, even having been in the Marine Corps for nearly 20 years at that time and wearing a chestful of medals and ribbons. Five or six rows of them. So, citizenship means something to me. It means one has to be tried in order to be guilty of a crime. It means that due process must be followed. It means that the Constitution which I swore to defend applies to everyone, even the most disgusting and heinous.

Because if if it doesn't apply to them, it does not apply to the rest of us either.

Incredible points, as always. It's great to have you as a Citizen. You put many of our natural born citizens to shame.

Very sorry, I clicked "dislike this post" by mistake. Big mistake. I LIKED THIS POST.

**Webmaster** · 10-02-2011, 00:26

Originally Posted by Cliff Hargrave

He was directly involved with recruiting and planning three attacks. 9/11, the Fort Hood Massacre, and the underwear bomber in 2009. Good enough for me.

Allegedly he did all of these things... but without a trial, we'll it's not a proven point.

BTW, I'm glad the maggot is dead, but like David, I have issues with the government ordering the execution of a US citizen without a trial. If the government can order the death of a US citizen for being a "terrorist", then what's to stop them from ordering the execution of anyone that is anti-government? Am I or someone you know going to someday be put on the hit list because of something we write on the internet? That's just scary.

**Cliff Hargrave** · 10-02-2011, 08:31

I would definitely have a problem if he was hit on US soil. But he left and went to work in a foreign country for an enemy group. I think his constitutional rights have ended at that point.

Even if you had a trial in absentia, there would still be protests that it was just a rubber stamp.

As a comparison, if a US citizen during WWII left the country and joined the Nazis, and then rose to a high rank in that organization, would we still not be allowed to kill him without a trial? What if you wanted to kill the other guys in his car? Does the fact that one of the persons in the car was a US citizen prohibit you from attacking it?

Thankfully we live in a country where we can talk about these things and if something isn't right, we can change it.

**TonyU** · 10-02-2011, 09:57

Damn, there are some solid points on both sides of the issue. I have to admit I'm on the fence on this one.

**David Craik** · 10-02-2011, 11:21

As a comparison, if a US citizen during WWII left the country and joined the Nazis, and then rose to a high rank in that organization, would we still not be allowed to kill him without a trial?

Who knows, if he was some sort of scientist or engineer we may welcome him back with open arms and put him straight to work.

As Tony U said, I can see both sides. On a visceral level I really would just like to go with "There's the bad guy, go kill him." But I always ask myself what the potential for abuse of power is, once a precendent is set and the law of the land is circumvented. It has nothing to do with Awlaki personally, it has to do with who might be considered similar to Awlaki by the powers that be in the future. With this assymetrical "war" against factions as opposed to nations and the blurring of police and military lines it seems very hard to set a standard of action that will be both effective and not disregard the rule of law nor the Founder's intent. The fact is we simply aren't set up in a legal, procedural sense to deal with enemies like these.

Unfortunately any solution I could come up with has potential landmines. One would be to make jus soli citizenship revokable for treasonous activities just as it is revokable for a naturalized citizen. Taa-daa, instant enemy combatant. But this would also have the effect of rendering someone essentially stateless, and I don't know what tangles could result from that, not to mention the danger of a corrupt government being able to just arbitrarily strip someone of their birthright if they decide they don't like them or what they have to say. It also turns a "right" - irrevokable by definition, into a "priviledge".

I dunno, all I know is I'm glad I'm not the POTUS. The reality is that despite all this banter I would have probably paid a Yemeni faction through a series of intermediaries guaranteeing plausible deniability or my own version of the Mossad to take him out and been done with it. Just like the good old days when the public was kept mostly in the dark about matters of governmental expedience and shadiness. You cannot be questioned about a potential transgression against the Bill of Rights if none seems to have occurred. I'd issue no statement beyond "Mr. al-Awlaki appears to have been involved in an unfortunate accident. How 'bout them Phillies?"

**Webmaster** · 10-03-2011, 10:58

This is flat out disturbing...

If the Obama Administration felt it was necessary and had the legal backing to kill an American citizen and deprive him of his rights under the Fifth Amendment, then why not release the memo?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ricans/246004/

**Cliff Hargrave** · 10-03-2011, 13:15

Originally Posted by Webmaster

This is flat out disturbing...

If the Obama Administration felt it was necessary and had the legal backing to kill an American citizen and deprive him of his rights under the Fifth Amendment, then why not release the memo?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/...ricans/246004/

Just imagine if it was Bush who was not releasing it. It would be the top story on every news agency for weeks.