ACLU Lens: American Citizen Anwar Al-Aulaqi Killed Without Judicial Process

[EFerrari]

Snip

In response to today's killing of Al-Aulaqi, ACLU Deputy Legal Director Jameel Jaffer said:

The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law. As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts. The government's authority to use lethal force against its own citizens should be limited to circumstances in which the threat to life is concrete, specific, and imminent. It is a mistake to invest the President — any President — with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country.

http://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security/aclu-lens-american-citizen-anwar-al-aulaqi-killed-without-judicial-process

[Solly Mack]

1. K&R

[sabrina 1]

2. We used to condemn extra-judicial assassinations when Bush

was president, but the silence from the left now is deafening. What IS the position of the left on these murders without trial or conviction? I thought we were pretty clear on our position. I recall so many outraged discussions of Bush ordering the killing of 'terrorists', how no president should have those powers, the powers of a king in this democracy. Has the left lost all of its principles now?

Disgusting to witness how easily people lose their principles for partisan reasons. No wonder there is a revolution starting in this country. Partisan politics keeps the corruption going. How will the left react to these illegal activities when there is Republican president? Having lost now the moral high ground?

[gratuitous]

9. "Silence" - if only

The rah-rah chorus from the pwogs is positively appalling.

But then, when a person's principles can be cut to fit this week's fashion, it's not surprising that they're so changeable.

[Solly Mack]

16. Just wait until the next Republican President comes along...

The wind will blow again and that "silence" will turn into howls of outrage. (again..as it was directed against Bush)

Weather vane principles.

[hootinholler]

10. Apparently the answer is yes.

The left has abandoned their principles.

I am astounded that so few see this as a problem.

Thanks for being one of the good guys.

-Hoot

[lunatica]

11. I respectfully disagree with you

I don't remember too many people objecting to the deaths of Saddam Hussein's sons. They objected more to the photos of their bodies being shown than to the deaths.

I think it would have been best if the Bush administration had gone after the actual perpetrators of the 9/11 attack instead of declaring war on two countries and killing far more innocent people than any terrorist could ever hope to do.

[sabrina 1]

18. Airc, they objected to whole bloody war.

And even Bush was more secretive about the assassinations that were apparently being ordered. But whenever news would leak out about them, sorry, I KNOW the outrage from the left I saw and agreed with.

Iraq was never our problem. And if we had not been interfering there for decades, at one time protecting Saddam Hussein, the people there would have decided their own fate.

I objected to the killing without trial of anyone who was not directly engaged in combat and could have been captured and tried.

But for the US to claim the moral high ground regarding Saddam and his sons when they created them, was pointed out often by the 'left'.

Nothing the US is doing in those countries is legal or moral. It wasn't when Bush did it and it is not now. And it won't be if the next president is a Republican, but it's going to be very hard for the 'left' to argue against violations of International Law by anyone from now on. And that is how a country slides into total immorality.

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were so right about political parties being a threat to democracy. I guess they knew human nature. I had to see it for myself, and now regret the furious arguments I had with Republicans over these moral and legal issues, because sad as it is, they were correct when they told me 'you are a hypocrite, because when Democrats do things like this, you cheer them on'. How right they were.

[TheMadMonk]

32. Sadly, I think a major problem with the US is how far to the "right"...

...it's "left" sits.

Case in point, the government of John Howard (George's bestest bum buddy) had an operational platform (and maintained services) which leaned well to the left of Obama's most progressive campaign promises, and yet we vilified him with all the passion DU had for */shrub/the arsehole in chief/etc.

Our danger is that we will follow the US pattern of only stepping to the "right" more slowly under a left wing government, with the other major left wing distinguishing features being the extention of any remaining liberties to a greater proportion of the population and the softening of sanctions.

Ultimately we have the situation of today, where there is a nearly total disconnect between rights and responsibilities at EVERY SINGLE LEVEL of modern society.

Even here, much of the discussion centres around eroded rights, with very little attention paid towards responsibility.

Fuck the endless debate about who is taking away who's right to vote. Get out there and damned well drive home the idea that it is every single citizen's responsibility to do whatever it takes to register their vote. Consider this, our DU meme is that the average teabagger has an IQ which compares unfavourable with the fecal deposits of canis familiaris and yet, gerrymanderring OR caging aside, (s)he is able to make their vote count.

Numbnuts Teabag Tony is able to make his vote count because the people that appeal to him, force him to come to them and ask for help in voting. Our Lefty approach is to just make all the information available and leave it up to Joe Average to use it as he will.

Sadly, the truth is, Joe average and Teabag Tony have one thing in common, two to one, both, whatever they might claim otherwise, prefer to have their options narrowed to a very limited number of choices, provided with too much information, the average person will react by choosing the simplest "solution" on offer.

We need to stop trying to show people the error of their ways and simply offer up our own "simplistic solutions" to "life's little problems."

[chill_wind]

3. K & R.

[lunatica]

4. I bet fewer Americans will feel safe being terrorists against the US

Or anyone else for that matter. Al-Aulaqi would kill you and me in a heartbeat without hesitation. He committed crimes against humanity. It's a choice he made, and there should be consequences for those choices.

As a personal matter this killing should be considered illegal, but as National Policy I think it's justified for the simple reason that it's done to protect human life against a known danger. I think any country has the right to defend it's people against known and self avowed murderers.

[trumad]

5. Well Ok...

Let's go kill a few gang members that will kill you in a second for walking in their territory.

[lunatica]

12. No. I didn't say that

I'm talking about National Security

[EFerrari]

6. I am amazed that people repeat this cr@p without a shred of skepticism.

A person is not a terrorist because your government says he is or because you take their unsupported statements and repeat them.

[Cali_Democrat]

8. +1000

[lunatica]

13. A person is a terrorist when they declare themselves one and back it up with actions

I think it's preferable to go after the individuals who are terrorists than to declare wars on countries and kill millions of innocent people.

Reality is not always as clear cut as we'd like it to be. Would you have objected to going after the people who planned and implemented the Final Solution in Germany in order to save millions of Jews from the Holocaust? Sure we brought them to the Nuremberg trial, but what if we had been able to stop the crimes before they happened?

[EFerrari]

21. You are confusing a exercise of power with security or justice

or even prevention.

If Obama had so much evidence of criminality, he could have gotten an indictment and tried this man in absentia.

The choice not to do that is illegal and clearly illegal. There is nothing murky about it.

[lunatica]

31. I'm not confused and I don't believe you are either

I do prefer due process any day.

I'm not comfortable or happy with this type of 'justice' but I'm also far more uncomfortable when self-avowed mortal enemies of this country or any other country declare their intentions to kill innocent people just because of their political views. There is plenty of evidence of Al Aulaqi's crimes.

And it is very murky It isn't black or white. But I can't claim doing away with an enemy who has such a huge potential of killing thousands of innocent people here or anywhere in the world is a bad thing.

[Dreamer Tatum]

17. From 2001-2008, your post would have been classified as TROLL.

How does that make you feel?

[lunatica]

19. Your statement does not offend me or hurt my feelings

I don't care what you think. Nice try though.

[Dreamer Tatum]

20. Another satisfied Bush voter. nt

[lunatica]

22. Nope

You're wrong. You know nothing about me.

[Dreamer Tatum]

23. I know you could give a shit about due process. That's enough. nt

[lunatica]

25. He was tried in absentia by Yemen

I believe that's due process, but you may disagree, which is your right.

"U.S. intelligence identifies Aulaqi as the intellectual author of attacks including the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, last year that left 13 dead, and the attempt to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110206509.html

People were killed in the US because of Al Aulagi.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

28. He, an American citizen, was never tried by us --

so he was assassinated by our governemnt without trial.

I take issue with extrajudicial assasssinations by our governemtn, regardless of which Party is in power.

The next time a GOPer is in office and decides someone like a Julian Assange or Bradley Manning is a "terrorist" and has them killed with no trial, I hope you'll remember what you support.

[lunatica]

29. Al Aulaqi was a self-avowed Al-Qaeda terrorist

I don't recall Julian Assange or Bradley Manning claiming any such thing. Nor do I remember them actually planning the killing in Fort Hood or elsewhere, or even killing anyone. So your rather hysterical assertion that they're the same is simply wrong.

[sabrina 1]

30. He is a US citizen. He was here in the US preaching at his mosque

for years, he was invited to the Pentagon to participate in a Muslim 'outreach program' after 9/11 and vetted by the FBI and found to be trustworthy by them, so they said at the time.

He was here, IN THE US, up to just a short time ago, easily found and easily arrested. Why are we sinking to the level of a third world dictatorship and why is anyone on the Left supporting it?

[sabrina 1]

26. What crime did he commit? What were the charges?

Dining with the enemy: Al Qaeda leader linked to 9/11 hijackers 'was invited to the Pentagon for lunch after attacks'

American-born Awlaki, of Yemeni descent, 'was considered to be an up and coming member of the Islamic community'.

'After her vetting, Aulaqi (Awlaki) was invited to and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army's Office of Government Counsel'.

Awlaki was apparently interviewed at least four times by the FBI in the week after the September 11 attacks because of his links to the three hijackers.

What do we know about him? Other than what the government is NOW saying which is different from what they WERE saying. He is a US citizen, are you in favor of killing US citizens without trial or conviction by drone? I guess it might spare us all those messy trials and media coverage, but personally I like democracy, no matter how messy it is.

[lunatica]

33. Actually quite a bit is known about him

"Al-Awlaki's name came up in a dozen terrorism plots in the U.S., UK, and Canada. The cases included suicide bombers in the 2005 London bombings, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2006 Toronto terrorism case, radical Islamic terrorists in the 2007 Fort Dix attack plot, the jihadist killer in the 2009 Little Rock military recruiting office shooting, and the 2010 Times Square bomber. In each case the suspects were devoted to al-Awlaki's message, which they listened to on laptops, audio clips, and CDs.<24><44><41><121>

Al-Awlaki’s recorded lectures were also an inspiration to Islamist fundamentalists who comprised at least six terror cells in the UK through 2009.<88> Michael Finton (Talib Islam), who attempted in September 2009, to bomb the Federal Building and the adjacent offices of Congressman Aaron Schock in Springfield, Illinois, admired al-Awlaki and quoted him on his Myspace page.<122> In addition to his website, al-Awlaki had a Facebook fan page<123> with a substantial percentage of "fans" from the U.S., many of whom were high school students.<11>

Al-Awlaki influenced several other extremists to join terrorist organizations overseas and to carry out terrorist attacks in their home countries. Mohamed Alessa and Carlos Almonte—two American citizens from New Jersey who attempted to travel to Somalia in June 2010 to join Al Shabaab, the al-Qaeda-linked terrorist group based there—allegedly watched several al-Awlaki videos and sermons in which al-Awlaki warned of future attacks against Americans in the U.S. and abroad.<124> Zachary Chesser (nicknamed Abu Talha al-Amrikee), another American citizen who was arrested for attempting to provide material support to Al Shabaab, also told federal authorities that he watched online videos featuring al-Awlaki and that he exchanged several e-mails with al-Awlaki.<125><126> In July 2010, Paul Rockwood pleaded guilty to, and received an eight-year prison sentence for, assembling a hit list of 15 targets for assassination or bomb attacks within the U.S. of people who he felt had desecrated Islam.<126> Rockwood admitted to having become a “strict adherent to the violent jihad-promoting ideology of cleric ”, which "included a personal conviction that it was religious responsibility to exact revenge by death on anyone who desecrated Islam,” and following al-Awlaki’s ideology, “including devotion to violence-promoting works, Constants on the Path to Jihad and 44 Ways to Jihad."<126>

In October 2008, Charles Allen, U.S. Undersecretary of Homeland Security for Intelligence and Analysis, warned that al-Awlaki "targets U.S. Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen."<110><127> Responding to Allen, Al-Awlaki wrote on his website in December 2008: "I would challenge him to come up with just one such lecture where I encourage 'terrorist attacks'".<128>"

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

**********************

I prefer due process also. But I can't condemn a National Policy protecting it's citizens from terrorist attacks.

[sabrina 1]

34. Awlaqi was here in the US up to two years ago. Why was he never

charged with any of these 'crimes' and tried right here? When did all this information about him become known? 2005? 2009? He was here, preaching openly in his mosque. This is just a wiki page, where are the formal charges and the evidence?

Why was he not arrested after the Fort Hood shootings when he was interviewed on TV airc, if all this evidence was already available?

[lunatica]

38. I don't disagree with you

I prefer due process too. And if it was known he was a terrorist then the US is at fault for not arresting him while he was here, if he was. You haven't provided any links and have dismissed all of mine, yet I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I'm not someone who believes the US does no wrong. As a matter of fact this country is accountable for its part in the creation of terrorists in the world. It's dead wrong to have been in any war since WWII and I hope to see some major changes within the next decade or two.

But I can't claim that I'm not relieved that an avowed enemy of our people has been killed. He would have killed you and me without any qualms and he would have celebrated it. I'm not celebrating his death.

[sabrina 1]

39. But there is no evidence that he would have killed you and me

Why didn't he do so while he was living here if that is the case? He was not prevented from leaving the country so you have to assume he was not on a terror list two years ago, even though NOW we are being told that he was, since 2005. So doesn't make you worry that a man on the terror list of several countries was here, free to go about his business, right up to two years ago, then got on a plane and was not stopped by the TSA, when other innocent people are stopped all the time?

Something doesn't add up here and when that is the case, American citizens have a duty to ask, no to demand, answers from their government. I saw this man being interviewed on tv AFTER the Fort Hood shootings. If he was on a terror list in Canada and elsewhere, why did Canada not ask the US to arrest him and hand him over to them at that time?

I don't feel safer. We just created a whole lot more people who hate us and proved that we do not practice what we preach which the world has noticed. Had there been a trial, as there was of the Blind Sheik Rahman under Clinton, the people could see the evidence and feel that justice was done, and the world could not accuse us of violating our own laws, and of killing a possibly innocent US Citizen.

I feel less safe each time the US does this sort of thing.

[ThomWV]

7. If there is ever another Nuremberg many will have much to fear.

[lunatica]

15. Many Americans will for sure.

[slipslidingaway]

14. knr nt

[lunatica]

24. He was tried in absentia by Yemen

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/02/AR2010110206509.html

Al Aulagi is responsible for deaths in this country.

(snip)
U.S. intelligence identifies Aulaqi as the intellectual author of attacks including the shooting rampage at Fort Hood, Texas, last year that left 13 dead, and the attempt to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day.

[EFerrari]

35. US intelligence also said Bruce Ivins was the anthrax mailer

which made them wrong 2X in that case.

And he wasn't the only death in that drone strike.

[lunatica]

40. I thought it was the FBI who said Bruce Ivins was guilty

maybe it wasn't.

[sabrina 1]

37. He was here during the shooting at Fort Hood. He only left this

country a short time ago. Why was he not arrested here and tried? You have posted that he was known to have participated in terrorist attacks as far back as 2005, so why was he allowed to leave the country without being arrested?

And why did the Pentagon invite him to dinner using him in their outreach program to Muslims after 9/11?

Do you always accept what the government tells you without any evidence? Where is the evidence for all this? A man has just been killed and all we have is 'reported' to 'have been involved'. And Yemen?? We trust that government to tell the truth to us while they kill their own citizens for merely protesting? Maybe he protested that government, that would be enough to get him killed in Yemen, but we are NOT Yemen, and I find it abhorrent that they would be used to back up the killing of a US citizen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

27. Maybe the government should start assassinating people in Boston.

Irish Americans who donated and abetted the IRA. Or, maybe the Brits should do so.

BTW I'm Irish American.

"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you." Friedrich Nietzche

[EFerrari]

36. Someone pointed out to me that the same logic was used to kill Black Panthers

but at least nobody claimed it was legal.