Yemen says it has killed U.S.-born cleric linked to al Qaeda

[Bosonic]

Source: Reuters

SANAA, Sept 30 (Reuters) - Yemeni forces have killed Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born Muslim preacher linked to al Qaeda's Yemen-based wing, the Defence Ministry said on Friday.

"The terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed along with some of his companions," it said in a statement sent by text message to journalists.

Awlaki had been implicated in a botched attempt to bomb a U.S.-bound plane in 2009. (Reporting by Mohammed Ghobari)



Read more: http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/yemen-says-it-has-killed-us-born-cleric-linked-to-al-qaeda

[MrSlayer]

1. Good news if true.

I'm not sure how much I trust Yemen to be truthful about this. I am sure the CIA will investigate it but, of course, I don't trust them either. Will they produce a corpse?

[Hissyspit]

8. Good news?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x2027764

[Freddie Stubbs]

15. The Yemenis did this, not the United States

[msanthrope]

17. After he didn't show on a murder charge--in Yemen. Yemen doesn't have to tolerate our

homegrown terrorists.

[Hissyspit]

19. @Reuters: FLASH: Two U.S officials tell Reuters that Yemen-based al Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaki was

@Reuters: FLASH: Two U.S officials tell Reuters that Yemen-based al Qaeda figure Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a CIA drone strike

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. Well, in that case:

Good!

[Nihil]

13. Unfortunately not ...

> I'm not sure how much I trust Yemen to be truthful about this.
> I am sure the CIA will investigate it but, of course, I don't
> trust them either. Will they produce a corpse?

... they buried him at sea out of respect for his religious beliefs ...

:yoiks:

[Ter]

106. Did we produce one with Bin Laden?

Just sayin'.

[Hoosier Daddy]

2. Guy from New Mexico Executed Without Trial

Just sayin'

[msanthrope]

11. I don't think Yemen need suffer our homegrown terrorists. He should have tried Pakistan. nt

[harun]

3. Extra judicial killing of a United States Citizen.

[msanthrope]

6. It's called irony, when you die of what you espouse.

I think when you direct the assasination of elected Britons, you cannot claim the moral high ground.

[Renew Deal]

26. Couldn't the same be said about the victims of 9/11?

[msanthrope]

4. Good. Nt

[kentuck]

5. Big story!

Breaking!

[pmorlan1]

7. They finally did it

If he was killed by the Yemini forces as this report says, those forces were probably either led or directed by the U.S. No trial, no evidence need be presented to execute an American because the Obama administration decreed that he was guilty.

I first heard this news on CBS a moment ago and Juan Zarate actually accused a-Awlaki of using propaganda while Zarate was promoting our government's propaganda. It was surreal.

[msanthrope]

9. Yemen has the right to hunt down fugitives within its borders. I think evidence from British courts

is an acceptable basis for Yemen to decide he needed to be pursued.

[vminfla]

21. I do not understand all of the comments sympathetic to al-Awlaki

It sure would be nice if he were to turn himself in and have his trial. He can then espouse his justifications for the Fort Hood and the Christmas Day bombing attempt.

Unfortunately for him, he chose to remain in a combat position and was summarily dispatched.

Do not begrudge the fact that the Yemenis chose not to put lives on the line and attempt to subdue this individual. He clearly demonstrated a willingness to kill and willfully chose to avoid prosecution for his actions. His death is simply a matter of cause and effect.

[stockholmer]

23. it's not sympathy for al-Awlaki, it's a POTUS-ordered assassination of a US citizen w/o due process

Fundamental destruction of a huge swath of legal rights and protections under the US constitution.

[vminfla]

25. al-Awlaki denied himself due process

He could have chose to turn himself in. It is not a due process issue. This was clearly reasonable force in a combat situation.

[stockholmer]

39. so sorry, but your tautological reasoning holds as much water as a sieve

Repetition of a specious argument does make the argument any less specious.

Due process can not be denied to a US citizen just because officials of the state says so.

If it can, you might as well toss your Constitution into the bin. I would argue that is well on its way there already.

[vminfla]

44. Start a rescue program for stray terrorists then

Bring them in, spay and neuter them, try to find them a good home, maybe send them back into the wild.


Your logical fallacy is quite egregious.

[stockholmer]

47. that is a strawman argument, due process is guaranteed to all US citizens, by asserting this I'm NOT

advocating a pro-terrorist stance whatsoever.

Wither away your civil liberties at your own peril, for you too soon may very well find yourself in the cross-hairs of tyranny, regardless of what you think you either did or did not do.

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

If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.

George Orwell

[vminfla]

53. That is a begging the question logical fallacy

al-Awlaki should have been granted due process. He was denied due process because he avoided arrest, therefore his rights were infringed.

[stockholmer]

71. an American citizen (al-Awlaki) was assassinated via presidential fiat, with no trial, end of story

It is a hugely dangerous precedent that will be vastly expanded, just as all other encroachments upon civil liberties have been. A dark day in US history has been visited upon the citizens.

[vminfla]

72. chaining of logical fallacies

A straw man followed by a slippery slope.

A dangerous precedent to set is to encourage terrorists to hide and for law enforcement to endure loss of life in their apprehension.

[stockholmer]

76. terrorists by their very nature, 'hide' from detection, again you build a strawman

In addition, following your logic, it would be much simpler (and in your words less chances for law enforcement endure loss of life in their apprehension) to simply fly a drone in and blow up anyone that the government deems to be a threat, without any due process.

So glad you are not in charge of this.

[vminfla]

81. I do not think you know what Extra-Judicial or Straw Man actually means

The straw man that you used was: Let's kill them all.

Extra-judicial, in the context that you are implying is summary execution. In fact, as an agent provocateur, and an unlawful combatant, according to the Fourth Geneva Convention, he is afforded no trial. Go ahead, look it up. Article 4.

al-Awlaki's death was consistent with international law.

That you somehow believe that we can solve all of our problems by hugging terrorists more, I am glad that you are not in charge. I am also glad that the people in charge do not think the same as you.

[Muskypundit]

69. He is an enemy combatant. Not just a criminal.

Due process would only apply If he was taken prisoner. But he wasn't. He was combating and therefore got combated.

[The Stranger]

59. But you're the one defending terrorism here.

You have already started your own terrorist rescue program.

[The Stranger]

58. I don't understand all of the comments sympathetic to extra-judicial state execution/murder..

It is the PRINCIPLES involved. THE LAW. Remember that?

Some people just don't fucking seem to get it, do they?

[vminfla]

64. There is nothing extra-judicial about al-Awlaki's death

He avoided prosecution and would have used deadly force or fled if Yemeni ground forces were used.

Sometimes life is not the neat little package and bow that you would like it to be.

[Muskypundit]

66. When your at war

You don't need a trial every time you shoot.

[pmorlan1]

10. Yeminia-American Targeted for Assassination

I just found this AP piece on the Huffington Post and their reporting shows that it was the U.S. who killed al-Awlaki not the Yemini forces. We killed a Yemeni-American without the rule of law. He was born in America yet he received no trial and never got a chance to face his accuser to respond to whatever evidence they were using against him. I find this frightening that our government thinks it's ok to target Americans for assassination.

In a statement, the Yemeni government said al-Awlaki was "targeted and killed" 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the town of Khashef in the Province of al-Jawf. The town is located 87 miles (140 kilometers) east of the capital Sanaa.

snip>

The operation was run by the U.S. military's elite counterterrorism unit, the Joint Special Operations Command – the same unit that got bin Laden. JSOC has worked closely with Yemeni counterterrorism forces for years, in the fight against al-Qaida.

snip>

The 40-year-old al-Awlaki had been in the U.S. crosshairs since his killing was approved by President Barack Obama in April 2010 – making him the first American placed on the CIA "kill or capture" list.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/anwar-alawlaki-usborn-mus_n_988397.html

[msanthrope]

18. He should have shown up for his Yemeni murder charge. Yemen doesn't have to tolerate our citizen-

fugitives.

[frylock]

35. maybe we should target roman polanski with a cia drone..

he refused to show up for his trial as well. shit, why not just do a sweep of all outstanding warrants?

[vminfla]

45. Logical fallacy

straw man.

[frylock]

49. how so?

[vminfla]

54. Logical fallacy explained.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

[frylock]

57. i didn't ask for a dictionary definition..

i want you to explain to me the innaccuracies in my analogy.

[vminfla]

60. Asked and answered

Your nonsensical approach that we would target all jaywalkers with predator drones does not refute the justified response against al-Awlaki. A clear and present danger to civilians has been dealt with using the appropriate level of force.

[frylock]

68. who gets to make the decision of who presents "a clear and present danger to civilians?"

does your exceeding the speed limit not present "a clear and present danger to civilians?"

[vminfla]

70. doubling down on the straw man

good move. proves you are consistent with the use of your logical fallacies.

[frylock]

74. and you continue to double down on the diversionary tactics..

these are some pretty simple questions i'm asking here.

[vminfla]

75. Very well then, again, there is nothing extra-judicial about al-Awlaki's death

I will answer your question. My speeding is treated as a non-criminal moving violation, if less than 15 miles an hour. If greater than 15 miles an hour, it may be a criminal infraction.

Likewise, al-Awlaki is defined as an unlawful enemy combatant and an agent provocateur by the Geneva Convention and other international regulations. His death is in accordance with international rules of warfare.

[frylock]

83. but more people are killed every day in traffic accidents than by terrorist attacks..

i thought this was about keeping the citizenry safe?

[vminfla]

86. Straw man

Another straw man. But, the world is a little safer today now that the man with ties to the Christmas Day bombing attack and Fort Hood atacks is dead.

[frylock]

102. i feel like we're more in danger than ever before..

i mean when you have supposed liberals cheering shit like this on, then i have to weep for what we've become.

[vminfla]

104. You remove cancer

I feel like we will be in greater danger if supposed liberals do not understand that there are people in the world that are cheering on the death of Americans. I have to weep for the effete milquetoasts that have come to define "liberal".

[dana_b]

12. not Yemeni forces, according to these articles

but U.S. drones as ordered by President Obama:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15121879

"The US had named him a "specially designated global terrorist" for his alleged role in a number of attacks and US President Barack Obama is said to have personally ordered his killing"

"But tribal sources told AFP news agency Awlaki was killed in an air strike in the eastern Marib province, said to be an al-Qaeda stronghold.

An unnamed US official told the Associated Press he was killed by US drone strike. However, the cleric's body was said to be in Yemeni hands."

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-is-killed-in-yemen.html?smid=tw-nytimes

"In a significant and dramatic strike in the campaign against Al Qaeda, the Defense Ministry here said that American-born preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, a leading figure in the group’s outpost in Yemen, was killed on Friday morning. In Washington a senior official said Mr. Awlaki had been killed in an American attack by a drone aircraft firing a Hellfire missile."

[n2doc]

14. Why doesn't Obama just use drones to blow up the Gitmo prisoners?

Essentially the same act. I guess he could "free" them so they could run from the missiles.

[stockholmer]

41. The Running Man 2012, coming soon to a theatre near you and yours

:banghead:

[pinboy3niner]

16. 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

[SnakeEyes]

22. CIA assassination of a US citizen

not cool

[IamK]

92. they had a non US citizen push the launch button just to be safe...

[Zorro]

24. Good riddance

[Renew Deal]

27. Officials: U.S.-born al Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaki killed

Source: CNN

Sanaa, Yemen (CNN) -- American-born Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki -- whose fluency in English and technology made him one of the top terrorist recruiters in the world -- was killed Friday in an airstrike in Yemen, officials said.

Al-Awlaki's death, confirmed by U.S. and Yemeni officials, dealt yet another blow to the al Qaeda network, reeling from the killing and capture this year of several top leaders, most notably Osama bin Laden.

A "successful joint intelligence-sharing operation" between Yemen and the United States led to the attack that killed al-Awlaki, a Yemeni government official said Friday. The official asked not to be named because he is not authorized to speak to the news media.

The United States regarded al-Awlaki, the public face of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), as a terrorist who posed a major threat to American homeland security. Western intelligence officials believe al-Awlaki was a senior leader of AQAP, one of the most active al Qaeda affiliates in the world. It has been linked to the attempt to blow up an airliner over Detroit in December 2009 and a cargo plane plot last year.
<snip>

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/world/africa/yemen-radical-cleric/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

---

[OnyxCollie]

28. Trials are so yesterday.

Assassinations are cool when Dems do it!

Go team!

[Renew Deal]

29. Why didn't he turn himself in?

:shrug:

[OnyxCollie]

30. So the burden of proof was on him?

We've gone through the looking glass.

[Renew Deal]

32. No, he could have cleared his name.

Why didn't he turn himself in?

[OnyxCollie]

Remember habeas corpus?

Apparently not.

[Renew Deal]

34. Yes, so why didn't he turn himself in?

[OnyxCollie]

36. He had already been declared guilty

without any presentation of evidence.

How fair a trial would he have gotten? Oh, who am I kidding? He wouldn't have even gotten a trial.

If he was lucky*, he would have been held indefinitely (without trial) in Gitmo or Bagram.

[Renew Deal]

37. That's not true

He was indicted in Yemen.

CNN: Yemen charges al-Awlaki with incitement to kill foreigners

Yemeni prosecutors Tuesday accused an American-born militant cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, with incitement to kill foreigners, a legal action that reflects the government's newfound resolve to hunt down the notorious al Qaeda figure.

Linked by U.S. authorities to Fort Hood shooting suspect Maj. Nidal Hasan and the suspect accused in the Christmas Day airline bombing attempt, al-Awlaki was charged in absentia at a court hearing in Sanaa.
<snip>

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-11-02/world/yemen.security.concern_1_senior-yemeni-government-official-qaeda-yemeni-authorities

He could have turned himself in and stood trial. He didn't chose to do so. He's no different than these guys: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejD1Gml-ZGc

They could have turned themselves in and chose not to as well.

[OnyxCollie]

40. "Linked by U.S. authorities..."

How was he linked? What was the evidence? Hearsay? Coerced by torture?

"Would you like to clear your name, Mr. al-Awlaki? Just come on down and step into this prison cell."

Go read Korematsu v United States and get back to me.

[Renew Deal]

42. His tapes and videos?

Are you "linked" to DU?

[OnyxCollie]

43. Okay, the burden of proof is on you.

Show me the evidence. Go.

[Renew Deal]

46. Here you go...

He admitted to email correspondence with Hasan to Al Jazeera:

<snip>
Two cases illustrate al-Awlaki's ability to attract followers online. The best known is the messages exchanged between him and U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who is being tried for the murder of 13 people at Fort Hood in Texas. In subsequent interviews, al-Awlaki said Hasan had initiated e-mail correspondence with him in December 2008. Al Jazeera reported: "He was asking about killing U.S. soldiers and officers," says al-Awlaki. "His question was, is it legitimate" under Islamic law.
<snip>

http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/world/meast/analysis-anwar-al-awlaki

BTW, the removed message was a dupe and I didn't delete it.

[OnyxCollie]

50. Going by what you presented

al-Awlaki was as guilty of committing the Ft. Hood shootings as Robert Spencer is as guilty of committing the Anders Brevik shootings in Norway.

'We could have another Timothy McVeigh': U.S. authorities warned against anti-Islamic terrorism after Norway shooter 'inspired' by Robert Spencer and Unabomber
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2018976/Norway-shooting-Anders-Behring-Breivik-inspired-Robert-Spencer-Unabomber.html#ixzz1ZS5IzDjb

It has emerged that Anders Behring Breivik lifted words from 'Unabomber' Ted Kaczynski and took inspiration from a range of other American right wing and anti-Islamic groups in his rambling 1,500 page manifesto discovered after Friday's attacks.

The fantasist also referenced co-founder of Stop the Islamisation of America, Robert Spencer, more than 50 times.

~snip~

According to experts, much of the manifesto outlining his reasoning behind the attacks was directly inspired by U.S. extremist groups - many of whom are directly quoted.

[Renew Deal]

52. That's not relevant

He was indicted by the Yemeni's. He could have turned himself in. He could have went to the US embassy. He didn't do any of those things.

[OnyxCollie]

55. Pretzel logic.

More rationalizations to excuse a CIA assassination of an American citizen.

Yay, team.:eyes:

[Renew Deal]

56. The article says Yemen did it.

"Yemeni forces have killed Anwar al-Awlaki"

I don't know why you're upset that they killed a fugitive in their country.

[OnyxCollie]

63. Keep your head in the sand

or wherever you have it lodged.

U.S.-Born Qaeda Leader Killed in Yemen
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-is-killed-in-yemen.html?smid=tw-nytimes

"In a significant and dramatic strike in the campaign against Al Qaeda, the Defense Ministry here said that American-born preacher Anwar al-Awlaki, a leading figure in the group’s outpost in Yemen, was killed on Friday morning. In Washington a senior official said Mr. Awlaki had been killed in an American attack by a drone aircraft firing a Hellfire missile."

[Renew Deal]

65. That works.

It's a shame he didn't turn himself in. This could have been avoided.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pettypace]

31. Praise be to Allah

If they had stones they would have crucifixied him.

[slackmaster]

38. I will drink a cup of Yemen coffee this morning in Yemen's honor

Yay, Yemen!

:toast:

[stockholmer]

51. you cannot even get your facts straight, it was a CIA drone strike, NOT Yemen

Plus you sound like the Republican crowd cheering over Perry's execution record. Sickening.

here is your cup of coffee



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

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-is-killed-in-yemen.html?_r=2&hp


SANA, Yemen — Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric who was a leading figure in Al Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate and was considered its most dangerous English-speaking propagandist, was killed in an American drone strike that deliberately targeted his vehicle on Friday, officials in Washington and Yemen said. They said the strike also killed a radical American colleague traveling with Mr. Awlaki who edited Al Qaeda’s online jihadist magazine.

Many details of the strike were unclear, but one American official said that Mr. Awlaki, whom the United States had been hunting in Yemen for more than two years, had been identified as the target in advance and was killed with a Hellfire missile fired from a drone operated by the Central Intelligence Agency.

[Throd]

62. Groovy, I'll toast the CIA as I crack open my first beer tonight.

[slackmaster]

79. I got my information from the OP, and I'm not sorry that I had it wrong.

Plus you sound like the Republican crowd cheering over Perry's execution record.

You sound like a whiny little girl.

[rollin74]

48. good news!

:thumbsup:

[totodeinhere]

61. This is another victory for President Obama's sensible foreign policy.

I just have to laugh when Republicans call Obama weak on terrorism. Obama had accomplished more on this front than Bush ever dreamed of.

[stockholmer]

67. so having 6 hot wars (debt-increasing, civilian-murdering, civil liberty snatching empiric wars) is

SENSIBLE?!?

Yemen, Iraq, Somalia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Libya. Soon to be 7 (Syria), maybe 8 (Nigeria) or 9 (Iran). The war machine is indeed quite pleased.

This doesn't even count the police state rise in the so-called USA Homeland or the insanity of the drug cartel wars on the Mexican border.

The American way of life is being shredded on so many levels right in front of your face, and you cheer.

:puke:

[Muskypundit]

73. Your really missing a few key points. And it is kind of sad.

He is not just a criminal, he is an enemy combatant who only gets due process if he is captured or he surrenders. Until then, he himself is a legal target as long as the country he is in approves. Already this is more legal than the OBL killing.

[stockholmer]

78. find me the term 'enemy combatant' in the US constitution, and also where it is applicable to US

citizens in general under current international definitional case law.

It is so dismaying to see Democrats tying themselves into logical pretzels and defending horrific Bush-era policies, all because the current POTUS has a 'D' behind his name.



Obama's "enemy combatant" policy: following a familiar pattern

Glenn Greenwald

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2009/03/15/obama


Rich Lowry, National Review, Friday: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OTFkNjhkNzYwNmExZWZlYzcyOWIzZTg0NTBkZDMwOTg=

Barack Obama has perfected a three-step maneuver that could never even be attempted by a politician lacking his rhetorical skill or cool cynicism.

First: Denounce your presidential predecessor for a given policy, energizing your party’s base and capitalizing on his abiding unpopularity. Second: Pretend to have reversed that policy upon taking office with a symbolic act or high-profile statement. Third: Adopt a version of that same policy, knowing that it’s the only way to govern responsibly or believing that doing otherwise is too difficult.


Dick Cheney, Sunday, with the incomparably reverent and vapid John King of CNN: http://www.clipsandcomment.com/2009/03/15/transcript-dick-cheney-interview-with-cnns-john-king-cheney-says-obama-choices-create-risk/

KING (to Cheney): Well, since taking office, President Obama has done these things to change the policies you helped put in place. He has announced he will close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. He has announced he will close CIA black sites around the world, where they interrogate terror suspects. Says he will make CIA interrogators abide by the Army Field Manual, defined waterboarding as torture and ban it, suspend trials for terrorists by military commission, and now eliminate the label of enemy combatants.

I’d like to just simply ask you, yes or no, by taking those steps, do you believe the president of the United States has made Americans less safe?

CHENEY: I do. I think those programs were absolutely essential to the success we enjoyed of being able to collect the intelligence that let us defeat all further attempts to launch attacks against the United States since 9/11. I think that’s a great success story. It was done legally. It was done in accordance with our constitutional practices and principles.

snip

[Muskypundit]

80. I am not supporting this policy because a democrat is doing it.

I would have WHOLEHEARTEDLY supported it from bush. Selective attacks on high value targets instead of a full fledged invasion of multiple countries? Yes please. Bush didnt focus on this strategy enough, which is why hundreds of thousands of civilians are dead, instead of the few worthless motherfuckers we came to clear out in the first place.

[vminfla]

82. Article 4, Fourth Geneva Convention

of which, the US is a signator of.

"If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents"

[stockholmer]

84. yes, and your citation sinks your case completely

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant

1. The Geneva Conventions apply in wars between two or more sovereign states.

2. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial.

3. 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law," because in the opinion of the ICRC, "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action".

4. Military Commissions Act of 2006 Among its more controversial provisions, the law stipulates that a non United States citizen held as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination may not seek habeas corpus relief. Such detainees must simply wait until the military convene a detainee status review tribunal (under the procedures described in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005). The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Boumediene v. Bush that the MCA constituted an unconstitutional encroachment of habeas corpus rights, and established jurisdiction for federal courts to hear petitions for habeas corpus from Guantanamo detainees tried under the Act. As such, the provisions of MCA suspending Habeas Corpus are no longer in effect.

5. The Geneva Conventions do not recognize any lawful status for combatants in conflicts not involving two or more nation states. A state in such a conflict is legally bound only to observe Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and may ignore all the other Articles. But each one of them is completely free—and should be encouraged—to apply all or part of the remaining Articles of the Convention.


Article 3

In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
1.Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria. To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons: violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
taking of hostages;
outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;
the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

2.The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.

The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.


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

US constitutional law guarantees full right to due process to all citizens, and al-Awaki is a US citizen. Thus this was an extra-judicial assasination. Even if he was found to be an "unlawful combatant" he still have rights under international humanitarian law (which the US HAS signed onto) – to humane treatment, to a fair trial if charged with a crime, and not to be tortured. This is per the US Supreme Court.

[vminfla]

87. He was killed on the field of battle

'nuff said.

[stockholmer]

91. so, if he was blown up by a drone in say, Portland, Oregon, this would be fine with you? (your logic

posits the entire globe is 'a field of battle'.

It is reasoning like yours that makes it so utterly hard to defend the US government's actions to the rest of the world in almost any arena of endeavour.

One set of laws for the US systemic controllers, another set for all others (including US citizens).

And when you, or your progeny are labeled 'enemies of the state' in either the near or distant future, by a 'rival' US political party, then hunted down and killed like dogs, dont expect anyone else to shed a tear.

[vminfla]

99. straw man. straw man. straw man. and slippery slope. n/t

[stockholmer]

103. U need to go read the definition of basic logical fallacies,such as strawmen (you use them, I don't)

[vminfla]

105. Thanks, but I actually lecture on the topic and can see your logical fallacies to be transparent

"One set of laws for the US systemic controllers, another set for all others (including US citizens)."

Classic straw man...you allege that there are two systems to make your point, when in fact, there are not.


"And when you, or your progeny are labeled 'enemies of the state' in either the near or distant future, by a 'rival' US political party, then hunted down and killed like dogs, dont expect anyone else to shed a tear."

Classic slippery slope. "if we give gays the right to vote, what's next? man and goat?"

[OnyxCollie]

89. The US now cherry-picks the parts of the GC it wants to follow.

Obama called on the former general chairman of the RNC to stop Spain's investigation of US torture crimes.

WikiLeaks: How U.S. tried to stop Spain's torture probe
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/12/25/105786/wikileaks-how-us-tried-to-stop.html

MIAMI — It was three months into Barack Obama's presidency, and the administration -- under pressure to do something about alleged abuses in Bush-era interrogation policies -- turned to a Florida senator to deliver a sensitive message to Spain:

Don't indict former President George W. Bush's legal brain trust for alleged torture in the treatment of war on terror detainees, warned Mel Martinez on one of his frequent trips to Madrid. Doing so would chill U.S.-Spanish relations.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

6. (C) As reported in SEPTEL, Senator Mel Martinez, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, met Acting FM Angel Lossada during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 15. Martinez and the Charge underscored that the prosecutions would not be understood or accepted in the U.S. and would have an enormous impact on the bilateral relationship. The Senator also asked if the GOS had thoroughly considered the source of the material on which the allegations were based to ensure the charges were not based on misinformation or factually wrong statements. Lossada responded that the GOS recognized all of the complications presented by universal jurisdiction, but that the independence of the judiciary and the process must be respected. The GOS would use all appropriate legal tools in the matter. While it did not have much margin to operate, the GOS would advise Conde Pumpido that the official administration position was that the GOS was "not in accord with the National Court." Lossada reiterated to Martinez that the executive branch of government could not close any judicial investigation and urged that this case not affect the overall relationship, adding that our interests were much broader, and that the universal jurisdiction case should not be viewed as a reflection of the GOS position.

Judd Gregg, Obama's Republican nominee for Commerce secretary, didn't like the investigations either.

US embassy cables: Don't pursue Guantánamo criminal case, says Spanish attorney general
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/202776?INTCMP=SRCH

4. (C) As reported in REF A, Senator Judd Gregg, accompanied by the Charge d'Affaires, raised the issue with Luis Felipe Fernandez de la Pena, Director General Policy Director for North America and Europe during a visit to the Spanish MFA on April 13. Senator Gregg expressed his concern about the case. Fernandez de la Pena lamented this development, adding that judicial independence notwithstanding, the MFA disagreed with efforts to apply universal jurisdiction in such cases.

Why the aversion? To protect Bushco, of course!

US embassy cables: Spanish prosecutor weighs Guantánamo criminal case against US officials
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/200177

The fact that this complaint targets former Administration legal officials may reflect a "stepping-stone" strategy designed to pave the way for complaints against even more senior officials.

Eric Holder got the message.

Holder Says He Will Not Permit the Criminalization of Policy Differences
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=7410267&page=1

As lawmakers call for hearings and debate brews over forming commissions to examine the Bush administration's policies on harsh interrogation techniques, Attorney General Eric Holder confirmed to a House panel that intelligence officials who relied on legal advice from the Bush-era Justice Department would not be prosecuted.

"Those intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and in good faith and in reliance on Department of Justice opinions are not going to be prosecuted," he told members of a House Appropriations Subcommittee, reaffirming the White House sentiment. "It would not be fair, in my view, to bring such prosecutions."

CIA Exhales: 99 Out of 101 Torture Cases Dropped
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/06/cia-exhales-99-out-of-101-torture-cases-dropped/

This is how one of the darkest chapters in U.S. counterterrorism ends: with practically every instance of suspected CIA torture dodging criminal scrutiny. It’s one of the greatest gifts the Justice Department could have given the CIA as David Petraeus takes over the agency.

Over two years after Attorney General Eric Holder instructed a special prosecutor, John Durham, to “preliminar(ily) review” whether CIA interrogators unlawfully tortured detainees in their custody, Holder announced on Thursday afternoon that he’ll pursue criminal investigations in precisely two out of 101 cases of suspected detainee abuse. Some of them turned out not to have involved CIA officials after all. Both of the cases that move on to a criminal phase involved the “death in custody” of detainees, Holder said.

But just because there’s a further criminal inquiry doesn’t necessarily mean there will be any charges brought against CIA officials involved in those deaths. If Holder’s decision on Thursday doesn’t actually end the Justice Department’s review of torture in CIA facilities, it brings it awfully close, as outgoing CIA Director Leon Panetta noted.

“On this, my last day as Director, I welcome the news that the broader inquiries are behind us,” Panetta wrote to the CIA staff on Thursday. “We are now finally about to close this chapter of our Agency’s history.”

CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE
and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

Part I

Article 1

For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.
Article 2

Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 3

No State Party shall expel, return ("refouler") or extradite a person to another State where there are substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.
For the purpose of determining whether there are such grounds, the competent authorities shall take into account all relevant considerations including, where applicable, the existence in the State concerned of a consistent pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Article 4

Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under its criminal law. The same shall apply to an attempt to commit torture and to an act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
Each State Party shall make these offences punishable by appropriate penalties which take into account their grave nature.
Article 5

Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred to in article 4 in the following cases:
When the offences are committed in any territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that State;
When the alleged offender is a national of that State;
When the victim was a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
Each State Party shall likewise take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over such offences in cases where the alleged offender is present in any territory under its jurisdiction and it does not extradite him pursuant to article 8 to any of the States mentioned in Paragraph 1 of this article.
This Convention does not exclude any criminal jurisdiction exercised in accordance with internal law.
Article 6

Upon being satisfied, after an examination of information available to it, that the circumstances so warrant, any State Party in whose territory a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is present, shall take him into custody or take other legal measures to ensure his presence. The custody and other legal measures shall be as provided in the law of that State but may be continued only for such time as is necessary to enable any criminal or extradition proceedings to be instituted.
Such State shall immediately make a preliminary inquiry into the facts.
Any person in custody pursuant to paragraph 1 of this article shall be assisted in communicating immediately with the nearest appropriate representative of the State of which he is a national, or, if he is a stateless person, to the representative of the State where he usually resides.
When a State, pursuant to this article, has taken a person into custody, it shall immediately notify the States referred to in article 5, paragraph 1, of the fact that such person is in custody and of the circumstances which warrant his detention. The State which makes the preliminary inquiry contemplated in paragraph 2 of this article shall promptly report its findings to the said State and shall indicate whether it intends to exercise jurisdiction.
Article 7

The State Party in territory under whose jurisdiction a person alleged to have committed any offence referred to in article 4 is found, shall in the cases contemplated in article 5, if it does not extradite him, submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution.
These authorities shall take their decision in the same manner as in the case of any ordinary offence of a serious nature under the law of that State. In the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 2, the standards of evidence required for prosecution and conviction shall in no way be less stringent than those which apply in the cases referred to in article 5, paragraph 1.
Any person regarding whom proceedings are brought in connection with any of the offences referred to in article 4 shall be guaranteed fair treatment at all stages of the proceedings.
Article 8

The offences referred to in article 4 shall be deemed to be included as extraditable offences in any extradition treaty existing between States Parties. States Parties undertake to include such offences as extraditable offences in every extradition treaty to be concluded between them.
If a State Party which makes extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty receives a request for extradition from another State Party with which it has no extradition treaty, it may consider this Convention as the legal basis for extradition in respect of such offenses. Extradition shall be subject to the other conditions provided by the law of the requested State.
States Parties which do not make extradition conditional on the existence of a treaty shall recognize such offences as extraditable offences between themselves subject to the conditions provided by the law of the requested state.
Such offences shall be treated, for the purpose of extradition between States Parties, as if they had been committed not only in the place in which they occurred but also in the territories of the States required to establish their jurisdiction in accordance with article 5, paragraph 1.
Article 9

States Parties shall afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with civil proceedings brought in respect of any of the offences referred to in article 4, including the supply of all evidence at their disposal necessary for the proceedings.
States Parties shall carry out their obligations under paragraph 1 of this article in conformity with any treaties on mutual judicial assistance that may exist between them.

...

[vminfla]

90. Irrelevant non sequitur: al-Awlaki is dead and that is not a bad thing

No crimes were comitted in his death. Job well done.

[OnyxCollie]

93. "No crimes were comitted in his death."

Did you get your juris doctorate from the University of Internets?

[bitchkitty]

107. LOL LOL n/t

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

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

[totodeinhere]

77. Now you are even bashing President Obama for something that may be?

It seems that you already have Obama unilaterally declaring war on Syria, Nigeria and Iran. That's delusional.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mvd]

94. War is one area where I don't agree with Obama

He's also been too easy on the banks and too willing to throw out principles without much of a fight. We should have attempted to capture this guy first. Still think being an American citizen should count for something. I think the U.S. makes Al Qaeda out to be far more dangerous than it is in order to have a boogeyman.

[stockholmer]

96. see this post for more on al-Qaeda and its role in US policy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2027764&mesg_id=2029163

[mvd]

97. This is the type of thing I'm worried about - more than further attacks

Thanks for posting.

[totodeinhere]

98. No I read it well. And what I am objecting to is your criticism of Obama for mere "possibilities."

That is totally unfair. I guess that any number of things are theoretically possible including pigs flying. But I will wait until it happens before passing judgment on it.

[IamK]

100. he does like to blow people up... I'll give him that..

[ChiGal]

85. Thank goodness he wasn't waterboarded!

/s

I can NOT believe that targeting and assassinating a natural born American citizen, is acceptable to this administration.

My President said that waterboarding was wrong.....but assassination of a US citizen is ok? Really??? Really???

[IamK]

101. was blowing people up one of his campaign promises?

[bitchkitty]

108. Oh, but he was such a bad guy, right?

We should trust in our government and be assured that nobody but the really bad guys will get hurt. I mean, what's the Constitution but a moldy old pile of parchment, right?

Let's pick the next bad guy! Who needs to be hunted down and killed without due process? Should I start a poll? It'll be fun!

USA! USA! USA! USA!