Al-Qaeda joins those questioning legality of U.S. killing of citizen Awlaki

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Washington Post

Al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen has confirmed the deaths of American-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, the young American propagandist killed alongside him in a U.S. drone strike late last month.

Al-Qaeda has also criticized the Obama administration for killing U.S. citizens, saying doing so “contradicts” American law.

“Where are what they keep talking about regarding freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms?!” the statement says, according to a translation by SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist Web sites.

The Obama administration has spoken in broad terms about its authority to use military and paramilitary force against al-Qaeda and associated forces, and al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula would find itself hard-pressed to claim the moral high ground in the debate over the killing of Awlaki and Khan.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/checkpoint-washington/post/al-qaeda-joins-those-questioning-legality-of-awlaki-killing/2011/10/10/gIQAH7nZaL_blog.html

[closeupready]

1. Unrecced for thinly veiled 'guilt by association' reporting tactics.

Not unrecced for posting, but for the fact that this story is useless.

[Kurska]

8. It happened and it is being reported.

Truths that you don't like still deserve to be reported, no?

[closeupready]

9. I repeat, it's a thinly veiled attempt to discredit good Americans who question the legality of what

happened to al-Awlaki.

[EFerrari]

11. Of course it is. n/t

[totodeinhere]

31. So are you suggesting that it not be reported? If it happened then I would prefer knowing

about it and coming to my own conclusions about it. If it is an attempt to discredit good Americans then I am fully capable of coming to that conclusion myself and I will take that into consideration. But I still want to know about it.

[No Elephants]

32. I'm not clear how unreccing this thread keeps anyone from reporting or knowing anything.

Now, if he or she had deleted the thread and LBN were the only source of news in the world....

[closeupready]

46. Not at all. And if I feel it's an attempt to use rhetorical devices to smear conscientious people,

you damn well better believe I have a right to say that, and to express my own opinion about such Machiavellian tactics.

[totodeinhere]

60. Thank you. Of course you have a right to say that. n/t

[vminfla]

45. Good Americans can be wrong about a lot of issues

Better Home and Gardens once ran a fawning adulation piece entitled "At Home with Hitler". It did not mean that that BH&G was a Nazi sympathizer. It just meant thaat BH&G did not understand the bigger context of Hitler's Germany.

[closeupready]

47. Sure. I agree. They can also be correct.

nt

[vminfla]

48. If they believe themselves to be correct, they should attempt to impeach Obama

The best way to demonstrate their convictions that they are correct is to attempt to impeach Obama. Clearly Obama is guilty of High Crimes and Misdeamoners and the only injunctive relief is impeachment.

Then again, they could just simply be wrong.

[demosincebirth]

2. Lets give them a congressional hearing

[Enrique]

3. i question their sincerity

I don't think they are truly committed to following American law. Call me crazy.

[Robb]

4. But he was only *allegedly* part of al-Qaeda.

Why would AQAP issue a martyrdom statement for him unless...

Oh.

Well, then.

[EFerrari]

6. Perfect. Now AQ is our most trusted name in news

And their word is as good as a trial.

[Robb]

7. Meh. You can't have it both ways.

Ends don't justify means, but you can't argue against the ends any more. They don't roll out the mujahid ribbons for just anyone.

[EFerrari]

10. You bet your icon I can argue against ends.

I did not vote for Dick Cheney's death squads.

The government claims it doesn't need to disclose to us who is on Obama's hit list or why they are there. And they made no case against either of these people; they certainly didn't win a case against them. Now you want me to sign off because Al Qaida has recognized them? That's sad to me, really. But in the absence of a functioning DoJ, I guess Al Qaida is as good an arbiter as any.

[Robb]

12. No one wept for al Awlaki's 5th Amendment rights last year

...when Treasury http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4468342">froze his assets. Why not?

[EFerrari]

14. If anyone weeps it shouldn't be for him but for us. n/t

[Muskypundit]

20. I weep I lost my ability to be a terrorist legally. Sad day.

Now I cant declare war on the U.S, and plea for people to murder all its citizens. It is a truly dark day for freedumbs.

[EFerrari]

24. Our criminal justice system wasn't set up to handle cute little girl scouts

but precisely to ensure that even the most repugnant criminals got a fair shake.

Maybe that was too ambitious given that so many people are so easily led to piss it away.

[Muskypundit]

27. He is not a criminal. He is a combatant until he turns himself in.

Just like the military doesnt need a court every time a soldier makes a decision to shoot back at the legally defined enemy, we dont need to give that terrorist a trial when he is not in custody, and still terrorizing.

[Downwinder]

28. Define "combatant" according to Geneva.

[EFerrari]

30. What utter tripe. It didn't work for Bush and it still doesn't work now. n/t

[No Elephants]

35. Because you say he is an enemy combatant? Or Bush claimed that?

"Just like the military doesnt need a court every time a soldier makes a decision to shoot back at the legally defined enemy, we dont need to give that terrorist a trial when he is not in custody, and still terrorizing."

Because you say so?

First, shooting back at anyone who is shooting at you is nothing like this, let alone "just like" it.

Neither is a war, which is something one nation starts against another.

The Constitution does not condition ur rights to a trial upon turning ourselves in. Just ask Billy Bulger, who was Public Enemy No. 1 both before and after Osama Bin Laden was and is now awaiting trial in Boston. Bet they even read him his Mirandas when they arrested him.

[No Elephants]

36. What does who did or did not weep last year have to do with whether an assassination is lawful?

[julian09]

13. They created plenty of martyrs they can give ribbons to.

by the dozens, including innocent women and children. Were he in custody, he would have had his trail.
Were we to let him go, to plot and kill more americans. Did he give his targets 'americans' a hearing
before ordering their execution, just because they were americans. If americans were his enemy isn't
he an american traitor; who spent his very life ploting against US?

[EFerrari]

26. What Americans are you talking about? What executions?

Gee, I see I have a lot to learn about this guy.

[No Elephants]

37. He is not "they." And what gangsters do does not alter what the Constitution REQUIRES of government.

[No Elephants]

34. And we should always take what AQ does and says at face value?

Besides, the Constitution does not say it's okay if AQ says so.

Instead, it says a bunch of stuff about trials, juries, right of the accused to counsel and to cross examine witnesses. Stuff that we've taken for granted as our rights since we were born or entered the U.S. since the Bill of Rights was adopted.

You bet we can argue against doing away with the Bill of Rights as soon as Obama finds it inconvenient.

[No Elephants]

33. After all, the Constitution does say that.

[TwilightGardener]

5. This is hilarious. I question the legality of knocking down skyscrapers with airplanes.

[gratuitous]

15. Why so?

Just because someone beat us to the "enemy combatant" punch? It's unfortunate, I suppose, that the Sept. 11 attacks were carried out with loaded passenger planes rather than missiles fired from unmanned aerial vehicles, but one uses the weapons one can in a war. Based on the logic of current U.S. policy, the felling of the World Trade Center towers is wholly justified as taking out a military target. Anyone on the planes or who worked in those towers who wasn't actively involved in the economic warfare being waged against third world poor would be collateral damage, and by the logic I've seen here at DU, those innocent dead should have been more careful about who they associated with, just like Samir Khan.

The logic of using terrorism to overcome terrorism is, of course, all nonsense, but the question remains why the United States trusts terrorist tactics more than our own constitutional system. Unless our aim is not justice, but more terrorism. In that case, mission accomplished.

[Nihil]

42. Spot on with that post ...

... but I really doubt that the resident "Team America Fuck Yeah" cheerleaders
will pay any attention to mere facts when they are inconvenient ...

:shrug:

[christx30]

18. Obviously that one was ok

It was perfectly OK for Mohammed Atta and his team to slit the thrats of flight attendants on 4 flights and fly them into buldings in New York and Washington DC, killing over 3000 people. No problem with that. All in a day's work. But killing one guy that is helping the murderers of 3000 people is totally wrong. :sarcasm:
My point is that if you know the U.S. Military is after you, and you don't want to die, you might want to contact them at some time. The army are not cops. They don't do the whole habeas corpus thing. They find the enemy, and kill them. That's what they do. If you don't want to die when they find you, it's best to surrender before that happens. If you are innocent of the crimes, then a court will decide that. If you are guilty, well then, you might just want to try to keep your head down.

[Downwinder]

19. Only because they didn't name a target?

Because we name a target it is OK?

[Alamuti Lotus]

25. well, so did Sheikh Awlaki

so weird that you & him agree on that..

[No Elephants]

38. You find the Constitution hilarious? By the way which skyscrapers did Alwlaki knock down with which

airplanes?

[slackmaster]

16. al-Awlaki was a US citizen AND he said that US citizens should be killed

I'm not seeing a problem here.

[closeupready]

17. Good to know - thanks for coming clean here.

:hi:

[No Elephants]

39. Did I miss a Constitutional amendment somewhere along the line?

When did assassination without a trial, counsel, jury, proof beyond a reasonable doubt and all that become the penalty for saying something?

[slackmaster]

49. He wasn't penalized for anything.

He was simply given what he asked for.

[No Elephants]

63. IOW, you have no sensible response to my post.

[slackmaster]

70. Fleeing fugitives get killed all the time

It's quite common.

[Kingofalldems]

21. Unrec for slick attempt at comparing DUers to al-Qaeda

A new low.

[alp227]

22. Who cares? n/t

[24601]

23. After giving this much thought, I have inferred that we really did it

because Allah willed it.

If you want to contest it - have Al Qaeda's new leader, accompanied by the top two tiers of AQAP, AQIM & AQEA come in person and petition the military court at Gitmo.

[No Elephants]

40. Every now and again, one of your posts surprises me. This is not one of those times.

[Chan790]

29. That makes me even more resolute in my support for killing that SOB.

If Al Qaeda thinks something, that pretty much tells me it's evil and wrong.

I'd have been more vexed if they were of an opposing opinion to the majority of American pacifists.

[No Elephants]

41. When did what Al Qaeda does or does not think begin to inform your interpretation of the Bill of

Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment?

You sure are giving Al Qaeda a lot more credence and power than I would.

[Chan790]

44. I don't think we acted outside the scope of either.

This is a military conflict as much or more than a police-action.

Being an American killed by US forces hardly makes him unique or his death more illegitimate. He is in no way different from the 150,000+ Confederate soldiers killed in the Civil War or the unknown number of US nationals killed abroad by US intelligence services (primarily but not solely the CIA) for espionage during the Cold War...if you make war in rebellion, you're a legitimate target to be killed. In military conflicts, it is utterly legitimate to target and kill enemy forces, their leadership and auxiliary support: nationalities and trials do not enter into the equation. You don't usually get nor are you legally entitled to a trial. If he wanted a trial, it was entirely within his capacity to have one by surrendering and withdrawing from the arena of combat. The same is true of Samir Khan. It does not in any form invalidate our laws that they chose instead to die as they did.

However, the fact that Al Qaeda thinks it does and American pacifists also do tells me that they both have little grasp on that reality. This comes as no surprise to me but it never fails to disappoint me to have it confirmed.

As an aside, whiny terrorists? Terrorists complaining that something is unfair or illegal I think necessitates an :eyes:.

[No Elephants]

64. Where did you come up with your definition of "military conflict?"

Something is not a war simply because you call it a "war." Ditto "military conflict," whatever that means.


Obama tacitly recognized that when he officially stated that the term "War on Terror" would be dropped.

We had a War on Drugs and a War on Poverty before we had a War on Terror, but at least Nixon and Johnson did not claim CIC powers under the War on Drugs and a War on Poverty.

We had plans hijacked before 911. We had terrorist attacks, too. None of the foregoing were wars, nor were our responses "military conflicts."

A war is something one nation wages on another nation. You invade a nation, not an individual or band of individuals. A drone attack (or any other kind of attack) on an individual or group of individuals is assassination, not a military maneuver.

Something is not transformed from a crime into a war or a "military conflict" (whatever the hell that is) merely by Rovian Newspeak.

[Odin2005]

50. Your post proves that MSM spin works.

[Chan790]

51. You've clearly missed out on my fundamental hatred of pacifists.

The fact that Al Qaeda agrees with them confirms my hatred of pacifists more than anything. That the MSM confirms what I already knew is only of minor consequence.

I don't need to be spun to know that pacifists are my enemy. I can logically intuit that much.

[Odin2005]

54. WTF does pacifism have anything to do with THE RULE OF LAW?

[vminfla]

55. Pacifism has absolutely nothing to do with the rule of law

effete milquetoasts who think that they can hug the evil out of terrorists are not good crime fighters.

However, al-Awlaki was killed in the field of battle as a self-professed enemy of the west. He knew that he was on the kill or capture list. If he wanted to prolong his life, he should have turned himself in. Instead, he chose to flee and hole himself in. This is where the rules of law comes in --- so rather than risking soldiers lives, a sound military decision was made to use the means necessary to neutralize al Awlaki.

[Odin2005]

56. Terrorists are not soldiers, they are criminals.

Criminals have a right to a fair trial.

[vminfla]

57. Again, impeach Obama

If you believe that Obama comitted high crimes and misdemeanors, contact your congressperson and work on having him impeached. I will wait right here. Since no laws were broken, Obama is going to be OK.

[Odin2005]

58. Red herring.

[vminfla]

59. Not a red herring at all, as no laws were actually broken

despite your steadfast denial with the rules of combat, Obama is safe from impeachment. However, it is duplicitous to, in one breath state that this is a high crime, and in another not acknowledge that this is an impeachable offence.

[Nihil]

62. "no laws were actually broken"

I think you have just beaten the previous record
for American Exceptionalism ...

:wow:

IOKIYAR + IOKIYAD = IOKIYAA

[No Elephants]

67. Rules of combat, my ass. Please see Reply 64. And please tell us where you are reading

these "rules of combat" to which you refer.

A quote from said rules that applies to this situation would be useful, too.

By the way, why are you are using British spelling?

[No Elephants]

66. Obama may be fine as a practical matter, but that has less than nothing to do with the rule of law.

Neither do pacifists.

[snooper2]

61. Why don't you take a nice countryside tour of Yemin

Get back to us when you are able to talk to some of these "criminals" and find out what they are thinking eh?

[No Elephants]

68. Yemen.

[No Elephants]

65. Sorry, that is not how war or the Constitution works.

As far as the snark about hugging the evil out of terrorists, it's just lame.

[krabigirl]

52. Yes, killing is the answer! More killing! Lol.

[Chan790]

53. Of legitimate targets, absolutely n/t

[No Elephants]

69. Again, something is not a "legitimate target" simply because you so declare.

Let us know when you are ready to post claims with something to back them up.

[TroglodyteScholar]

43. Sorry, Al Qaeda doesn't get to have a say in this matter.

I don't like the extra-judicial killing, but that doesn't mean I need input from those who have mastered such tactics.