PDA

View Full Version : Anwar al-Awlaki, American-Born Qaeda Leader, Is Killed in Yemen



troung
30 Sep 11,, 17:34
NYT September 30, 2011
Anwar al-Awlaki, American-Born Qaeda Leader, Is Killed in Yemen
By LAURA KASINOF and ALAN COWELL

SANA, Yemen — In a significant and dramatic strike in the campaign against Al Qaeda, the Defense Ministry here said 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 Obama administration official confirmed that Mr. Awlaki was dead. But the circumstances surrounding the killing remained unclear.

It was not immediately known whether Yemeni forces carried out the attack or if American intelligence forces, which have been pursuing Mr. Awlaki for months, were involved in the operation.

A Defense Ministry statement said that a number of Mr. Awlaki’s bodyguards also were killed.

A high-ranking Yemeni security official who spoke on condition of anonymity said that Mr. Awlaki was killed while traveling between Marib and al-Jawf provinces in northern Yemen — areas known for having an Al Qaeda presence, where there is very little central government control. The official did not say how he was killed.

Mr. Awlaki’s name has been associated with many plots in the United States and elsewhere after individuals planning violence were drawn to his engaging lectures broadcast over the Internet.

Those individuals included Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist charged in the 2009 shootings at Fort Hood, Texas in which 13 people were killed; the young men who planned to attack Fort Dix, N.J.; and a 21-year-old British student who told the police she stabbed a member of Parliament after watching 100 hours of Awlaki videos.

Mr. Awlaki’s death could well be used by beleaguered President Ali Abdullah Saleh to reinforce his refusal to leave office in face of months of protests against his 30-year rule, arguing in part that he is a critical American ally in the war against Al Qaeda.

Earlier this year, the American military renewed its campaign of airstrikes in Yemen, using drone aircraft and fighter jets to attack Qaeda militants. One of the attacks was aimed at Mr. Awlaki, one of the most prominent members of the affiliate group, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Mr. Awlaki’s death seemed likely to be welcomed in the United States, where Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta said in July that two of his top goals were to remove Ayman al-Zawahri, Al Qaeda’s new leader after the death of Osama Bin Laden in May, and Mr. Awlaki.

Word of the killing came after months of sustained American efforts to seriously weaken the terrorist group.

In August an American official said a drone strike killed Atiyah Abd al-Rahman, a Libyan who in the last year had taken over as Al Qaeda’s top operational planner after Bin Laden was killed.

In July, Mr. Panetta said during a visit to Kabul, Afghanistan that the United States was “within reach of strategically defeating Al Qaeda” and that the American focus had narrowed to capturing or killing 10 to 20 crucial leaders of the terrorist group in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen.

A month earlier, an American official said the Central Intelligence Agency was building a secret air base in the Middle East to serve as a launching pad for strikes in Yemen using armed drones.

The construction of the base was seen at the time a sign that the Obama administration was planning an extended war in Yemen against an affiliate of Al Qaeda, called Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which has repeatedly tried to carry out terrorist plots against the United States.

The American official would not disclose the country where the C.I.A. base was being built, but the official said that it would most likely be completed by the end of the year.

Last year, the leader of Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen sought to install Mr. Awlaki as the leader of the group in Yemen, which apparently thought Mr. Awlaki’s knowledge of the United States and his status as an Internet celebrity might help the group’s operations and fund-raising efforts.

Mr. Awlaki was accused of having connections to the Nigerian Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a former engineering student at University College London, who is awaiting trial in the United States for his attempt to detonate explosives sewn into his underwear aboard Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as it landed in Detroit on Dec. 25, 2009. The bomb did not explode.

Mr. Awlaki has been linked to numerous plots against the United States, including the botched underwear bombing. He has taken to the Internet with stirring battle cries directed at young American Muslims. “Many of your scholars,” Mr. Awlaki warned last year, are “standing between you and your duty of jihad.”

Major Hasan, the American Army psychiatrist charged with killing 13 people at Fort Hood had exchanged e-mails with Mr. Awlaki beforehand. Mr. Awlaki’s lectures and sermons have been linked to more than a dozen terrorist investigations in the United States, Britain and Canada. Faisal Shahzad, who tried to set off a car bomb in Times Square in May, 2010, cited Mr. Awlaki as an inspiration.

Laura Kasinof reported from Sana, Yemen, and Alan Cowell from London. Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: September 30, 2011

An earlier version of this article said that Yemeni forces had carried out the attack. The circumstances of the operation remain unclear.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world ... lobal-home

IND76
30 Sep 11,, 18:06
May he rot in hell , with his 72.

MIKEMUN
01 Oct 11,, 03:42
Obama: Anwar Al-Awlaki death is major blow for al-QaedaAdvertisementBarack Obama said the death was a "significant milestone" in the fight against al-Qaeda
Continue reading the main story
Awlaki killingObituary: Anwar al-Awlaki
Analysis: Media-savvy militant
In pictures: Anwar al-Awlaki
Profile: Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula

US President Barack Obama has said the death of senior US-born al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen is a "major blow" to the organisation.

Yemen said Awlaki was killed in Jawf province, along with several of his associates - US officials said US drones had carried out the attack.

Awlaki, who was of Yemeni descent, was a key figure in al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

He is believed to have been behind a number of attempts to attack the US.

Mr Obama said that as a leading AQAP figure, Awlaki had taken the lead in "planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans" and was also "directly responsible for the death of many Yemeni citizens".

He said Awlaki had directed attempts to blow up US planes and had "repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda".

His death, said Mr Obama, "marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates".

The president also paid tribute to the work of both the US intelligence agencies and Yemeni security officials who had co-operated on the killing.

"This is further proof that al-Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world," he said, but warned that AQAP "remains a dangerous though weakened terrorist organisation".

'Online inspiration'
Continue reading the main story “
Start Quote
There will be questions raised about his killing. He was at the top of the US hit list - but this is the execution of an American citizen without a trial”
End Quote
Mardell's America

Mark Mardell, BBC North America editor

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Awlaki: US fear of enemy within

In a brief statement on Friday, Yemen's defence ministry statement said Awlaki had been killed in Khashef in Jawf about 140km (90 miles) east of the capital, Sanaa, "along with some of his companions".

US and Yemeni officials later named one of those as Samir Khan, also a US citizen but of Pakistani origin, who produced an online magazine which promoted al-Qaeda's ideology and gave instructions for making bombs.

Unnamed US officials said Awlaki's convoy had been hit by a US drone strike, but Mr Obama has not commented on this.

BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera says the killing is significant because Awlaki's use of modern media enabled him to reach out to and inspire people susceptible to radicalisation.

He is accused of

recruiting and preparing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man who tried but failed to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day 2009
overseeing a failed plot to blow up two US-bound cargo planes in 2010 with explosives hidden in printer cartridges
encouraging US Maj Nidal Malik Hasan to carry out the 2009 US army base killings in Fort Hood, Texas which killed 13 people
inspiring the man who carried out a failed bombing in New York's Times Square in 2010
inspired a British women to stab her MP Stephen Timms over his support for the war in Iraq
plotting to use poisons including cyanide and ricin in attacks
repeatedly called for the killing of Americans, saying in a 2010 video online that they were from the "party of devils"
Continue reading the main story
Analysis

Jonny Dymond

BBC News, Dar al-Hijrah mosque, Washington

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many people going to the mosque don't know who Anwar al-Awlaki is or that he used to preach there.

But the first reaction of many is positive. "He was a bad man who killed many people," says one man. "It is good that he is gone." Two thumbs up and a "good riddance" come from a young man who had heard of Awlaki's death just a few moments before.

But there is more nuanced reaction from others. "I like justice to be done the normal way," said Tariq Diap. "If you are guilty of doing something, we have a law, we have courts, we have a judge. Why don't we proceed the normal way?

"We are here to condemn terrorists. And this is an act of terrorism too. Because you take matters into your own hand."

Mr Obama is said to have personally ordered Awlaki's killing in 2010, but the al-Qaeda leader has survived several attempts on his life.

Late last year, he survived an air strike in Shabwa province in which at least 30 militants were killed. He was also the target of a US drone attack on 5 May which killed two al-Qaeda operatives in southern Yemen.

However, some in the US have criticised the administration's targeted killing of a US citizen abroad, arguing he should have been arrested and put on trial.

Republican congressman Ron Paul - an opponent of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - said the killing amounted to an assassination.

"He is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged with any crime. Nobody knows if he killed anyone," he told ABC News.

However, the BBC's Mark Mardell in Washington says that despite the fact Awlaki appears to have been targeted for his words rather than actions, very few Americans are likely to be concerned about any infringement of his rights.

In a news briefing, White House spokesman Jay Carney would not give further details on the operation but said his role "has been well established" and that AQAP presented a "definite threat" to the US.

The killing comes amid concerns in Washington about the impact of Yemen's political crisis on its ability to tackle al-Qaeda militants.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh is facing a widespread protest movement, along with an armed insurrection by renegade army units and tribal fighters.

Mr Saleh, who was injured three months ago when his residence was shelled, returned last week after treatment in Saudi Arabia.

In an interview published on Thursday, he said he would not stand down, as promised in a deal brokered by Gulf States, if his opponents are allowed to stand in elections to succeed him.

BBC News - Obama: Anwar Al-Awlaki death is major blow for al-Qaeda (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-15132308)

troung
01 Oct 11,, 05:22
**** me - that clown car was packed....

Officials: Drone likely killed Saudi terrorist - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/officials-drone-likely-killed-saudi-terrorist-021239791.html)
Officials: Drone likely killed Saudi terrorist
DAM GOLDMAN and MATT APUZZO - Associated Press | AP – 39 mins ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — Two US officials say the drone strike in Yemen that killed Anward al-Awlaki appears to have also killed al-Qaida's top Saudi bomb-maker.

Officials say intelligence indicates Ibrahim al-Asiri also died in the attack. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the death has not been officially confirmed.

Al-Asiri is the bomb-maker believed to have made the explosives used in the foiled Christmas Day airline attack in 2009 and last year's attempted cargo plane bombing.

Al-Asiri's death would make the attack perhaps the most successful single drone strike ever

S2
01 Oct 11,, 06:33
I'm gratified we remain on our toes. PREDATOR and HELLFIRE go together like bourbon and beer and induce a similarly explosive effect on their intended target.

Stitch
01 Oct 11,, 07:15
I'm gratified we remain on our toes. PREDATOR and HELLFIRE go together like bourbon and beer and induce a similarly explosive effect on their intended target.

Well said.

And when the MQ-1C "Avenger" comes online later this year, armed with the AGM-114N, it will make an even more lethal combination.

tankie
01 Oct 11,, 15:19
Oh dear how sad never mind , bring on another martyr


Queen - 'Another One Bites the Dust' - YouTube (http://youtu.be/rY0WxgSXdEE)

Dreadnought
01 Oct 11,, 16:46
But there is more nuanced reaction from others. "I like justice to be done the normal way," said Tariq Diap. "If you are guilty of doing something, we have a law, we have courts, we have a judge. Why don't we proceed the normal way?

Fine let them spend the money and time and then when he is released by some lawyer dickhead for some strange technicality then put a bullet in his head as he walks out of court.

Law is for those that abide by it, for a POS like this, laws mean nothing so why waste the time in giving him something he NEVER gave his victims.

It not about him having his day in court, Its about his victims justice and in his case justice was served.

Plead you case to Allah asshole and good riddens!

tankie
01 Oct 11,, 17:09
Yea seen that Dreads :slap:

Double Edge
01 Oct 11,, 21:39
A year earlier his father tried unsuccessfully to get him off the targeted kill list.

Judge Dismisses Targeted-Killing Suit | WSJ | Dec 8, 2010 (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703296604576005391675065166.html?m od=googlenews_wsj#)

By EVAN PEREZ

A federal judge on Tuesday dismissed a challenge to the Obama administration's targeted-killing program, meaning the U.S. can continue to go after a Yemeni-American cleric whom it blames for terrorist plots.

The case, brought by the father of cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, raised difficult questions about the breadth of U.S. executive power, but U.S. District Judge John Bates said he couldn't answer them as the father lacked legal standing to bring the case.

The "serious issues regarding the merits of the alleged authorization of the targeted killing of a U.S. citizen overseas must await another day or another (non-judicial) forum," Judge Bates wrote in an 83-page ruling.

The judge acknowledged the "somewhat unsettling nature" of his conclusion "that there are circumstances in which the [president's] unilateral decision to kill a U.S. citizen overseas" is "judicially unreviewable."

The U.S. says Mr. Awlaki is a leader of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP, the group that the U.S. believes was behind the recent thwarted attempt to blow up U.S.-bound planes with package bombs as well as a failed attempt to bomb an airliner last Christmas. AQAP has claimed responsibility for the plots.

Mr. Awlaki is believed to be in hiding in Yemen, where he regularly issues Islamist sermons popular among jihadists on the Internet. He is a target of a U.S. program aiming to kill leaders of terror groups, U.S. officials say.

Mr. Awlaki's father, Nasser al-Awlaki, brought the case with the help of lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights. They argued the father had to bring the case as the younger Mr. Awlaki couldn't seek protection of the courts himself for fear of being killed.

The lawsuit sought to prevent Mr. Awlaki's killing unless he presented an "imminent" threat.

The government, in its court arguments, didn't confirm plans to kill Mr. Awlaki. It argued that the cleric, as a U.S. citizen, could ensure his safety by turning himself in to U.S. authorities or filing suit himself.

Judge Bates wrote that Mr. Awlaki had used the Internet in recent months to issue anti-American messages, while taking no action to indicate he wants the U.S. judicial system to hear his case. To the contrary, the judge wrote, Mr. Awlaki wrote an article in April asserting that Muslims "should not be forced to accept rulings of courts of law that are contrary to the law of Allah."

The judge heard arguments in the case last month on the day a jihadi website published the complete version of Mr. Awlaki's latest anti-American sermon.

Matthew Miller, a Justice Department spokesman, said the ruling "recognized that a leader of a foreign terrorist organization who rejects our system of justice cannot enjoy the protection of our courts while plotting strikes against Americans."

The court's ruling suggests the government can "carry out the targeted killing of any American, anywhere, whom the president deems to be a threat to the nation," said ACLU lawyer Jameel Jaffer. "It would be difficult to conceive of a proposition more inconsistent with the Constitution or more dangerous to American liberty."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The below source contains a link to the 83 page judgement

Judge Tosses Suit Seeking to Prevent Targeted Killing of Cleric Who Urged Jihad | ABA Journal| Dec 7, 2010 (http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/judge_tosses_suit_seeking_to_prevent_targeted_kill ing_of_cleric_who_urged_j/)

Zinja
02 Oct 11,, 01:18
If nothing else can be said about the president, he certainly has a very prolific security policy. That much he will leave a legacy for himself.

JAD_333
02 Oct 11,, 04:45
Ron Paul on Anwar al-Awlaki’s Demise: ‘I Think It’s Sad’
The State Column | Staff | Saturday, October 01, 2011

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.), a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, slammed Obama for Anwar al-Awlaki’s demise on Friday. While Texas Governor and GOP candidate Rick Perry cheered the attack on Awlaki, Paul was highly critical of the US’s role in Awlaki’s demise.

As quoted in The Los Angeles Times, Paul told reporters at a campaign stop at Saint Anselm College in New Hampshire that Awlaki’s demise demands serious reflection from Americans. “I don’t think that’s a good way to deal with our problems,” Paul said.


During a videotaped message, Paul pointed out that Awlaki “was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody.” The Texas Congressman added that “if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys. I think it’s sad.”

Paul compared the attack on Awlaki to the trial and eventual execution of Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh’s case was different, Paul posited, because he “was put through the courts then executed.” “To start assassinating American citizens without charges, we should think very seriously about this,” Paul argued.

On the other hand, Perry had some kind words for Obama’s role in Awlaki’s demise. “I want to congratulate the United States military and intelligence communities – and President Obama for sticking with the government’s longstanding and aggressive anti-terror policies – for getting another key international terrorist,” Perry said in a statement.

Anwar al-Awlaki, a propagandist and American-born cleric, was killed by a drone strike in Yemen on Friday. The drone strike was part of a CIA-US military operation that targeted the influential al Qaeda leader. Samir Khan, another influential propagandist, was also killed by the drone strike.

Read more: Ron Paul on Anwar al-Awlaki’s Demise: ‘I Think It’s Sad’ | The State Column (http://www.thestatecolumn.com/articles/ron-paul-on-anwar-al-awlakis-demise-i-think-its-sad/#ixzz1ZaFzP81s)


Here he goes again. He said the same thing about the Bin Laden killing. In his opinion the right way is the way we got KSM, by cooperating with Pakistan, and then putting him on trial to prove his quilt.

Paul and others like the ACLU do not seem to grasp that the War on Terror is a real war, and the way to defeat the enemy includes decapitating its leadership. Anwar al-Awlaki was the acknowledged leader of AQ in Yemen. He had pledged his fealty to Bin Laden, who lest we forget openly declared war on the US. He was the enemy and, as such, was a legitimate target.

No war has ever been fought in which the enemy had to be first proven guilty in a court of law before being killed. Restricting our forces to a capture policy would give AQ leaders like Anwar al-Awlaki more latitude to operate against us . It would also prolong the war on AQ and thereby increase the number of terrorist plots against the US and its allies. The more plots the greater the chances some will succeed. Paul is wrong.

troung
02 Oct 11,, 07:30
Beat me to it.

Dude was an enemy combatant overseas - Ron Paul is a clown.

USSWisconsin
02 Oct 11,, 09:56
Sounds like this strike flushed a terrorist sympathizer politician. Good riddence to the terrorist, good to have this clown speak up, before the elections, about how he feels about America's security...

Chogy
02 Oct 11,, 14:53
Only in America (or Britain, Germany, Australia, etc) would there be the slightest noise about the legality of this man's killing.

I'm picturing scruffy bearded law professors with tweed jackets, elbow patches, and a pipe, proclaiming "Outrageous! A Constitutional violation! There is merit for an arrest warrant for everyone involved!"

JAD_333
02 Oct 11,, 19:28
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/world/middleeast/yemen-notes-its-own-role-in-us-attack-on-militant.html?hp



Yemen Notes Its Own Role in U.S. Attack on Militant
By LAURA KASINOF
Published: October 1, 2011


SANA, Yemen — Yemeni officials provided more details on Saturday about their role in the tracking and killing of an American-born cleric, while a government spokesman said that the United States should show more appreciation to Yemen’s embattled president for his assistance in the case.

A high-ranking Yemeni official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said that Yemen had provided the United States with intelligence on the location of the cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, who was killed by an American drone strike on Friday. The information came from “a recently captured Al Qaeda operative,” the official said.

He said that Yemeni security officials located Mr. Awlaki on Friday morning in a house in the village of Al Khasaf in Al Jawf Province. The remote village lies in a desert where the Yemeni state has no control and tribes with varying loyalties rule.

The United States said that Mr. Awlaki, a propagandist for the Yemeni branch of Al Qaeda, had taken on an operational role in the organization, and last year the Obama administration placed him on a list of targets to kill or capture. The Yemeni group, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, is considered Al Qaeda’s “most active operational affiliate,” President Obama said Friday, and the United States was a major target.

The State Department issued a travel alert on Saturday, warning that the attack “could provide motivation” for retaliatory attacks worldwide against American citizens and interests.

The killing came a week after the return to Yemen of President Ali Abdullah Saleh, who had been recovering in Saudi Arabia from wounds sustained in an assassination attempt and whose resignation after 33 years of autocratic rule has been demanded by a large protest movement in Yemen, the political opposition, regional powers and the United States.

The timing of the airstrikes fueled speculation that Mr. Saleh, who has frequently portrayed himself as an essential bulwark against Al Qaeda, had handed over Mr. Awlaki to the Americans in order to reduce American pressure on him to leave.

American officials said Friday that there was no connection between Mr. Saleh’s return and the airstrikes. They said that American and Yemeni security forces had been hunting Mr. Awlaki for nearly two years, and that new information about his location surfaced about three weeks ago.

That information allowed the C.I.A. to track his movements, the officials said, and wait for an opportunity to strike when there was little risk to civilians.

A senior American official made it clear on Saturday that Mr. Saleh’s immediate resignation remained a goal of American policy and said that Yemen’s government was under no “significant illusion” that the United States had changed its position.

“Sustaining military-to-military cooperation is in our best interest,” the official added, speaking on the condition of anonymity. “We don’t want to undermine that cooperation.”

A Yemeni government spokesman, however, said that Mr. Saleh deserved credit for helping the Americans.

“After this big victory in catching Awlaki, the White House calls on the president to leave power immediately?” a deputy information minister, Abdu al-Janadi, told Reuters. “The Americans don’t even respect those who cooperate with them.”

The spokesman for Yemen’s opposition coalition, Mohammed Qahtan, rejected the idea that Mr. Awlaki’s killing was a feather in the government’s cap. Instead, it showed “the regime’s failure and weakness to perform its duty to arrest and try Awlaki in accordance with the Constitution,” Mr. Qahtan said. “And it’s that that forced America to go after him using their own means.”

Although Yemen did not carry out the strike, which was launched from a secret American base, Yemeni officials were quick to trumpet the results. A high-ranking Yemeni security official called The New York Times at 10:15 a.m. local time on Friday, about 20 minutes after the attack.

The Defense Ministry broadcast the announcement an hour later, hours before American officials made any public statement.

Double Edge
02 Oct 11,, 19:53
Only in America (or Britain, Germany, Australia, etc) would there be the slightest noise about the legality of this man's killing.
And what is wrong with that ? if anything its a healthy sign of a thinking, questioning free society. To me public opinion isn't really worth anything, what matters is what the courts have to say.

Targeted killing IS a controversial issue. And if you notice govt isn't all that clear about it precisely to avoid any lawsuits. They can get away with this. I certainly had questions after reading what Ron Paul said. Then i dug up AA's wiki page and found out that the question had already been answered in your courts last year, and hence my earlier post.

Whether that judgement is worth anything depends on whether more people pursue the matter but for now, its stands and USG is off the hook. There is no outstanding issue with adding US citizens to 'kill lists' if they satisfy certain criteria. The list is reviewed every six months and if conditions change then names can be taken off.

In the end AA had the chance to get off the list and knew that his only option was to turn himself in. His father did try to save him but instead AA took his chances. AA was offered the 'surrender or else' option. Will need more time to go through this judgement only half way through.

Ron Paul's argument comes from his ideaological position, he believes there are no circumstances where govt may just kill a citizen, there should be no 'kill lists' at all, they must attempt to apprehend first. The counter of course is this would present an unjustifiable risk to which Ron Paul would reply what stops govt from doing it more often or adding more criteria in the future. So its a slippery slope argument once you make the decision to use 'kill lists' on citizens.

We are also in new/old territory here, has this principle been used in the past, drones come to mind, but the justification there is 'enemy combatant'. Assasinations of foreign leaders was made illegal in the early 80s IIANM.

Israel of course has been doing this for some time now. What was that line in the movie Munich, that Golda Meir used..

From time to time, every civilization finds it necessary to negotiate compromises with its own values.

USSWisconsin
02 Oct 11,, 20:03
Participating in terrorist attacks against ones country negates ones rights as a citizen. It is an act of treason - and of attempted murder of innocent non-combatants.


AA was offered the 'surrender or else' option.
More chances than he intended to give his victims.

Swift Sword
02 Oct 11,, 20:24
Botched job. The Military-Intelligence-Executive complex is ten years into managing a police state and they have yet to grasp the utility of a highly publicized show trial in absentia.

The Pinal County Court tried me in absentia for a minor moving violation yet successive Republican and Democrat Presidential Administrations cannot get their act together on some pretty obvious, high profile characters where treason might be a likely component of the charges.

William

Double Edge
02 Oct 11,, 21:58
Participating in terrorist attacks against ones country negates ones rights as a citizen. It is an act of treason - and of attempted murder of innocent non-combatants.
Yes, but does this automatically qualify for inclusion in a 'kill list'. We don't know, your govt refused to divulge its reasoning here. They managed to win the case without having to do so.

This 'state of war' business gives your govt,any govt for that matter, lots of wiggle room.

Just so its clear i'm undecided on this case, the arguments pro & con seem equally valid. Its a tough one.

There was no way ever you could have apprehended this guy and he would never have turned himself in. Meanwhile he's actively plotting against you, has already plotted against you and is an operational head in his region. Your imperative is to take him out.

Doktor
02 Oct 11,, 22:10
And not letting him make a public circus out of a trial that will last long and cost a lot.

Also, this way USG doesn't risk the lives of the men who would make the arrest.

There isn't much when you got on the kill list, but there must be something you've done to be there ;)

ArmchairGeneral
02 Oct 11,, 22:29
Botched job. The Military-Intelligence-Executive complex is ten years into managing a police state and they have yet to grasp the utility of a highly publicized show trial in absentia.

The Pinal County Court tried me in absentia for a minor moving violation yet successive Republican and Democrat Presidential Administrations cannot get their act together on some pretty obvious, high profile characters where treason might be a likely component of the charges.

William


For more than 100 years, courts in the United States have held that, according to the United States Constitution, a criminal defendant's right to appear in person at their trial, as a matter of due process, is protected under the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

In 1884, the United States Supreme Court held that
the legislature has deemed it essential to the protection of one whose life or liberty is involved in a prosecution for felony, that he shall be personally present at the trial, that is, at every stage of the trial when his substantial rights may be affected by the proceedings against him. If he be deprived of his life or liberty without being so present, such deprivation would be without that due process of law required by the Constitution. Hopt v. Utah 110 US 574, 28 L Ed 262, 4 S Ct 202 (1884)

I expect this does not apply to non-federal cases, hence your moving violation trial.

IMO, this is not a straightforward matter. A US citizen is a US citizen. We have a well established procedure for removing some of the rights of citizens, via the courts. I can see that some alternate method may be necessary for some cases, such as this one, but it should be carefully thought out and extremely constrained. Due process is there for a reason, and the constitution is there for a reason. It is not sufficient that anyone with common sense can see the subject is guilty- there has to be a system in place to determine this, with lots of checks and balances. Perhaps they already have something like this- if someone is aware of a good explication of the current policy and how it fits with constitutional requirements, I would love to see it.

I would be open to a constitutional amendment allowing trial in absentia in certain cases, if that turns out to be necessary.

Double Edge
02 Oct 11,, 22:52
And not letting him make a public circus out of a trial that will last long and cost a lot.
Translation: we are not confident in our system to deliver justice ;)

Costs ? lol

If the system is trusted to work for everything else then why make exceptions. It leads to the insinuation that the only time you outright kill somebody is if you don't have sufficient evidence to convict.

We tried the surviving perp of 26/11, a cop died apprehending him. He did not make a joke out of our system. Rather I would say we vindicated ourselves.

Anyway, say 'state of war' and all of the above goes up in a puff of smoke.

We were not in a state of war.

Doktor
02 Oct 11,, 23:20
Translation: we are not confident in our system to deliver justice ;)
Lost in translation. I was thinking more like Goering did during Nuremberg.


Costs ? lol
Well, yes, costs. I would expect such a process to last long and to have serious security and media attention around it.


If the system is trusted to work for everything else then why make exceptions. It leads to the insinuation that the only time you outright kill somebody is if you don't have sufficient evidence to convict.
You deliberately skipped the point with risking the lives of those supposed to arrest the perp ;)


We tried the surviving perp of 26/11, a cop died apprehending him. He did not make a joke out of our system. Rather I would say we vindicated ourselves.

Anyway, say 'state of war' and all of the above goes up in a puff of smoke.

We were not in a state of war.
I believe you don't have problem when someone is getting shot by the police while running away from them.

Spaniards did the same for the train plotters and I agree that is the right way. IDK if they were in a state of war or not.

There are laws for state of war, too. You just have to lose the war to feel that justice.


...
A US citizen is a US citizen. We have a well established procedure for removing some of the rights of citizens, via the courts. I can see that some alternate method may be necessary for some cases, such as this one, but it should be carefully thought out and extremely constrained.
I believe you have set of procedures for US citizens outside USA and for foreign citizens as well.

Can someone show me the legal ground any government can kill anyone on foreign soil while not in direct war with that country?

Double Edge
02 Oct 11,, 23:50
Lost in translation. I was thinking more like Goering did during Nuremberg.
?


Well, yes, costs. I would expect such a process to last long and to have serious security and media attention around it.
Like other trials.


You deliberately skipped the point with risking the lives of those supposed to arrest the perp ;)
Cops or SWAT handle such on a routine basis. They are well trained & equipped to do so. This is an altogether different case in a foreign country so there are much more variables & chances of things going wrong.


I believe you don't have problem when someone is getting shot by the police while running away from them.

Spaniards did the same for the train plotters and I agree that is the right way. IDK if they were in a state of war or not.
Yes, because they are offered the chance to surrender. In the Spaniards case thought the perps blew themselves up rather than be captured.


There are laws for state of war, too. You just have to lose the war to feel that justice.
US isn't at risk of losing any war. And yes, war changes the way we traditionally view things. That is the reality of the situation.

Doktor
03 Oct 11,, 00:32
?
Well, defending ideology, how they were right, wasn't me...

If you like add Seselj in Hague. Same material.


Like other trials.
Like other high profile trials - yes.


Cops or SWAT handle such on a routine basis. They are well trained & equipped to do so. This is an altogether different case in a foreign country so there are much more variables & chances of things going wrong.
And the "award" for taking that risk would be sentence for life^5 or death penalty waiting to be executed for 10 years at least. Giving the perp enough time to get enlighted and write stockpile of utter BS defending its'ideology.
Meanwhile, the plebs will be uber-pissed screaming how this isn't justice, and the MSM will make you a mince meat.

I mean look what happens with the man for only expressing his opinion how he would trial them all.


Yes, because they are offered the chance to surrender. In the Spaniards case thought the perps blew themselves up rather than be captured.
IIRC there was a court trial anyway. Wouldn't go into CT that surrounded all that drama afterwards.


US isn't at risk of losing any war. And yes, war changes the way we traditionally view things. That is the reality of the situation.
Agree

JAD_333
03 Oct 11,, 02:30
IMO, this is not a straightforward matter.

I think it is, and I'll try to explain why.



A US citizen is a US citizen.

True, a citizen has rights, both the criminal and the victim, and among them is the right to due process. But if a citizen presents a clear and present danger to others his right to due process becomes secondary to the principle of public safety. We've see that over and over, such as when a SWAT sniper shoots someone holding a hostage at gunpoint. No trial; no proof of quilt.

We accept this as reasonable because law enforcement has a lawful duty to protect citizens when there is a clear and present danger to their lives. We don't hear Ron Paul and the ACLU complaining when the police do it in the US. My question to them is, what's different about killing a member of an paramilitary organization that has not only killed many innocent US citizens as a matter of policy, but openly plots to kill more?

Paul and like-minded critics seem to believe that due process is a rigid system of unyielding requirements. But in truth it is not. Ask any professor of law
whether a citizen who is a clear and present danger to a fellow citizen and to the security of the nation must first pull the trigger or detonate the bomb before any legal action can be taken to stop them.


It is not sufficient that anyone with common sense can see the subject is guilty-

Point well taken, but that is not the case here. If the subject is a hostage-taker holding his victim at gunpoint, proving his guilt in a court of law is problematic. Saving innocent lives demands quick action, and obviously the niceties of due process can't come first.

And consider the fact that cops don't carry guns just to protect themselves. They also use them to apprehend dangerous criminals and prevent all sorts of violent crimes when no other recourse is available. Many a criminal is killed before ever seeing a courtroom. I wouldn't say they were denied due process.

Awlaki's group would kill planeloads of US citizens if it could. Chances are the longer they are around, the more they will try, and sooner or later, they'll succeed. If that is not a clear and present danger that warrants deadly action, I don't know what is.

troung
04 Oct 11,, 21:05
Paul is a fool - the guy was an enemy combatant overseas. There isn't an issue of legality in dispute here, just fools who don't get it.

Ron Paul says Al-Awlaki killing could be impeachable
By Chris Moody | The Ticket – 3 hrs ago
Ron Paul says Al-Awlaki killing could be impeachable | The Ticket - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/ron-paul-says-al-awlaki-killing-could-impeachable-150700978.html;_ylt=ArTKGJ1tw0Ywq9Cgi7t3ei1VbBAF;_ ylu=X3oDMTRodjlyb25uBGNjb2RlA2dtcHRvcDIwMHBvb2xyZX N0BG1pdANOZXdzIGZvciB5b3UEcGtnA2JkNDRhMzA0LWUxYWYt M2UyZS1hYjc5LTQzYjZlODE2N2RiMwRwb3MDNQRzZWMDbmV3c1 9mb3JfeW91BHZlcgM4OWUxMzU4MC1lZWE0LTExZTAtOGZmYi00 NTgyNDRjMTQwZjI-;_ylg=X3oDMTJ2MWRlOXVzBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDOGNlMmY0ZDYtZjY1ZS0zMDgzLWI4YzItYWI3OGFkM2 FmZTM2BHBzdGNhdAN3b3JsZHxldXJvcGUEcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdl ;_ylv=3)

Politico reports that at a campaign event in Manchester, N.H., Monday, Paul said that impeachment was "possible" and that the act of killing an American citizen without due process was a step toward "tyranny."

"I put responsibility on the president because this is obviously a step in the wrong direction," Paul said, according to Politico's Dan Hirschhorn. "We have just totally disrespected the Constitution."

Paul, a libertarian congressman from Texas, has been the only Republican presidential candidate to criticize the effort. When first asked about the assassination last week, Paul called the operation "sad."

"He was born here," Paul said. "He is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged with any crime. Nobody knows if he killed anyone."

Earlier this year, Paul said that sending U.S. forces to Libya was "an impeachable offense" as well.

Dreadnought
04 Oct 11,, 22:11
Earlier this year, Paul said that sending U.S. forces to Libya was "an impeachable offense" as well.

Funny that everyone but him would miss an oppertunity like that huh?:whome:

troung
04 Oct 11,, 22:13
Do you want a year of President Biden?

But seriously Ron Paul would make the zero look good...

Dreadnought
04 Oct 11,, 22:16
Do you want a year of President Biden?

But seriously Ron Paul would make the zero look good...

Oh HELL no, That would be like wishing Gore was a President for a year.:biggrin:

JAD_333
04 Oct 11,, 23:09
Update. Note: US never claimed Asiri was killed as reported by Yemen.


AQAP's senior bomb maker Asiri not killed in strike that killed Awlaki
By Bill RoggioOctober 2, 2011


Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's top bomb maker was not killed in the US airstrike in Yemen that is thought to have killed American citizens and AQAP operatives Anwar al Awlaki and Samir Khan. But two other AQAP operatives killed in the strike have been identified.

Ibrahim Hassan Tali al Asiri "was not killed nor targeted in this operation," a senior Yemeni official who wishes to remain anonymous told The Long War Journal. Asiri was thought to have been killed, but his death was not confirmed by US officials.

Read more: AQAP's senior bomb maker Asiri not killed in strike that killed Awlaki - The Long War Journal (http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/10/aqap_bombmaker_asiri.php#ixzz1ZqiyZaIR)

gunnut
06 Oct 11,, 00:44
I think it is, and I'll try to explain why.

True, a citizen has rights, both the criminal and the victim, and among them is the right to due process. But if a citizen presents a clear and present danger to others his right to due process becomes secondary to the principle of public safety. We've see that over and over, such as when a SWAT sniper shoots someone holding a hostage at gunpoint. No trial; no proof of quilt.

What about someone who plans the murder of another? Who openly issues death threats, but is not "in the act" of carrying out that threat? Does the police break down the door and shoot him? Or does the police arrest the guy and then hands him over to the DA for trial?

Al Awlaki, at the time of his death, did not have a gun or a knife pointed at another American. No one was in imminent danger.



We accept this as reasonable because law enforcement has a lawful duty to protect citizens when there is a clear and present danger to their lives. We don't hear Ron Paul and the ACLU complaining when the police do it in the US. My question to them is, what's different about killing a member of an paramilitary organization that has not only killed many innocent US citizens as a matter of policy, but openly plots to kill more?

Oh ACLU complains about it alright.

If a man is plotting the murder of someone, we arrest him and put him on trial. If a man is accused of murdering someone, we arrest him and put him on trial. The only time we execute someone without a trial is when someone else is in imminent danger and the only way to defuse that danger is to kill that someone.



Paul and like-minded critics seem to believe that due process is a rigid system of unyielding requirements. But in truth it is not. Ask any professor of law
whether a citizen who is a clear and present danger to a fellow citizen and to the security of the nation must first pull the trigger or detonate the bomb before any legal action can be taken to stop them.

Point well taken, but that is not the case here. If the subject is a hostage-taker holding his victim at gunpoint, proving his guilt in a court of law is problematic. Saving innocent lives demands quick action, and obviously the niceties of due process can't come first.

And consider the fact that cops don't carry guns just to protect themselves. They also use them to apprehend dangerous criminals and prevent all sorts of violent crimes when no other recourse is available. Many a criminal is killed before ever seeing a courtroom. I wouldn't say they were denied due process.

Awlaki's group would kill planeloads of US citizens if it could. Chances are the longer they are around, the more they will try, and sooner or later, they'll succeed. If that is not a clear and present danger that warrants deadly action, I don't know what is.

I think this is a slippery slope. I cheer for the killing of Al Awlaki, but also troubled at the same time. He was a US citizen. Unless he renounced it, he should be afforded due process, even a trial in absentia. I have no problem with assassination of OBL or other non-American terrorists.

troung
06 Oct 11,, 01:14
I think this is a slippery slope. I cheer for the killing of Al Awlaki, but also troubled at the same time. He was a US citizen. Unless he renounced it, he should be afforded due process, even a trial in absentia. I have no problem with assassination of OBL or other non-American terrorists.

AQ Terrorists overseas out of the reach of law enforcement. No different then shooting a German American fighting for the Nazis. The conservative justices on the SC would no doubt come down on this being legal.

gunnut
06 Oct 11,, 01:43
AQ Terrorists overseas out of the reach of law enforcement. No different then shooting a German American fighting for the Nazis. The conservative justices on the SC would no doubt come down on this being legal.

That also comes down to "imminent danger" for our servicemen.

We shoot and kill enemy soldiers because they are a threat to our people. We do not shoot and kill enemy soldiers if they surrender, even if they have killed our people, and plan to do so in the future if given a chance. If they have committed war crimes against us like that of Malmady massacre, then we give them a trial and then execute them.

How about a military tribunal that could try Americans fighting against the US overseas, in absentia? At least everything will be on record and technically given them due process.

troung
06 Oct 11,, 02:27
How about a military tribunal that could try Americans fighting against the US overseas, in absentia? At least everything will be on record and technically given them due process.

Would violate DPC in and of itself. And merely get in the way of an already legal target.


We shoot and kill enemy soldiers because they are a threat to our people. We do not shoot and kill enemy soldiers if they surrender, even if they have killed our people, and plan to do so in the future if given a chance. If they have committed war crimes against us like that of Malmady massacre, then we give them a trial and then execute them.

He hadn't surrendered. He was still "under arms" as an enemy combatant. It wouldn't matter if he were taking a dump, running away, or shooting at NATO troops.

He need not be planting a bomb to justify hitting him with a Hellfire.

JAD_333
06 Oct 11,, 14:19
What about someone who plans the murder of another? Who openly issues death threats, but is not "in the act" of carrying out that threat? Does the police break down the door and shoot him? Or does the police arrest the guy and then hands him over to the DA for trial?

Al Awlaki, at the time of his death, did not have a gun or a knife pointed at another American. No one was in imminent danger.

Oh ACLU complains about it alright.

If a man is plotting the murder of someone, we arrest him and put him on trial. If a man is accused of murdering someone, we arrest him and put him on trial. The only time we execute someone without a trial is when someone else is in imminent danger and the only way to defuse that danger is to kill that someone.

I think this is a slippery slope. I cheer for the killing of Al Awlaki, but also troubled at the same time. He was a US citizen. Unless he renounced it, he should be afforded due process, even a trial in absentia. I have no problem with assassination of OBL or other non-American terrorists.

Gunnut:

I understand your concern. I agree we have to be extremely careful in using deadly force against individuals and groups even when they are a clear and present danger to us.

As Trong pointed out, the enemy in this case was not located in the US where domestic law enforcement could possibly have rooted him out alive. That accounts for the extreme method of eliminating him, but not principle by which we did so in the first place.

We reason from the premise that AQ is a sworn enemy of the US; it has declared war on the US; it has a long record of successful attacks on the US; it is actively plotting and attempting to carry out attacks as we speak. Therefore, eliminating its leaders and operatives is justified.

Paul is wrong because he believes the citizenship of the enemy is material. That to me is a formula whereby AQ can exploit US citizenship. It already recruits US citizens for missions. It could begin putting them in positions of leadership with the expectation that they will not be targeted by US forces.

Citizenship of the enemy does not matter. When tried in US courts for murder, conspiracy to commit murder and so on, the defendant's citizenship is not a factor. Everyone gets due process. In war it is the same. During WWII, US citizens were killed fighting for NAZI Germany; US citizens have been killed in earlier drone attacks; US citizens defected as far back as the US-Mexican war and were killed. What's different here? The enemy was high profile.

troung
06 Oct 11,, 16:34
Paul is batshit crazy....

Ron Paul: Government could begin to target media, just like it has with terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki

BY Aliyah Shahid
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Thursday, October 6th 2011, 8:31 AM
Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul blasted the U.S. killing of U.S.-born terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki at the National Press Club on Wednesday.

Ron Paul is still mad as hell over America's killing of U.S.-born terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki - and he's warning that members of the media could be next on the government's target list.

The Republican presidential hopeful told an audience at the National Press Club on Wednesday that if citizens do not protest al-Awlaki's death, the country could start broadening its threat list to include reporters.

"Can you imagine being put on a list because you're a threat? What's going to happen when they come to the media? What if the media becomes a threat? ... This is the way this works. It's incrementalism," the 76-year-old Texas congressman said.

"It's slipping and sliding, let me tell you," Paul added.

The libertarian-minded politician made national headlines after he blasted the Obama administration last week for killing al-Awlaki in Yemen without a trial. He said the death of the New Mexico native-turned-terrorist-recruiter was akin to "assassination."

During his latest speech, Paul compared al-Awlaki, and Samir Kahn, another American killed in the attack, to Nazi war criminals.

"All the Nazi criminals were tried. They were taken to court and then executed," said Paul. "The reason we do this is because we want to protect the rule of law."

President Obama, like several lawmakers, called al-Awlaki's death by U.S. drone strikes a major blow to Al Qaeda.

While Paul was criticized by some for his remarks, Paul's supporters don't seem to be fleeing from him. At the speech, he announced that his team has raised a sizeable $8 million for the third quarter.

With News Wire Services

Read more: Ron Paul: Government could begin to target media, just like it has with terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/10/06/2011-10-06_ron_paul_government_could_begin_to_target_media _just_like_it_has_with_terrorist_.html#ixzz1a0oPsa g4)

JAD_333
11 Oct 11,, 14:55
Thank you Ron Paul. AQ in Yemen has picked up on his theme. For a group that doesn't care whose citizens it blows up, their concern for US principles is rather ironic.


October 10, 2011, 8:59 pm
Al Qaeda Group Confirms Deaths of Two American Citizens
By CHARLIE SAVAGE

WASHINGTON – Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula on Monday issued a statement on Islamist Web sites confirming the deaths of Anwar Al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, two American citizens who were killed in a drone strike in Yemen last month, while saying that their killings “contradicted” the principles that the United States says it was founded upon and stands for.

“The Americans killed the preaching sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, and they did not prove the accusation against them, and did not present evidence against them in their unjust laws of their freedom,” the statement said, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors and translates jihadist online forums.

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, an affiliate of the original Al Qaeda, was behind the attempted bombing of a Detroit-bound airliner on Christmas Day 2009 and other attempted terrorist attacks, as well as an effort to blow up two cargo jets last year.

American counterterrorism officials have said Mr. Awlaki, a radical Muslim cleric, was involved in both plots. Mr. Awlaki was apparently the target of the strike, but three other companions – including Mr. Khan, who produced a Web-based magazine for the group promoting terrorism – also died in the blast on Sept. 30.

The Obama administration has resisted growing calls that it make public its legal rationale for the strike, and declined to comment about the matter again on Monday.

The New York Times on Sunday published a report that contained numerous details about a still-secret memorandum by the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. Completed around June 2010, it concluded that it would be lawful to target Mr. Awlaki if he were to be located and it was infeasible to capture him.

The description of the memorandum was based on accounts from people who had read it. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were discussing it without authorization.