My thoughts on Anwar al-Awlak

I consider this:

In the Civil War Union soldiers shot and killed American citizens (who had joined the confederacy) regularly. Trials were not an issue.

I think a reasonable argument can be made that Al Qaeda is at war with the US. So attacking and killing members of that group would fall under the standard operations of war.


On the other hand it is troubling to think that a President can put citizens on a list to be killed.

So I think what we have here is a conflict of moral and ethical principles. The principle to protect the lives on innocent Americans is coming into conflict with the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

The fact that Al Qaeda avoids the conventions of standard warfare, like wearing uniforms, makes it all the more difficult.


Now on a practical level you had other considerations

Al Qaeda's tactics and operations makes it nearly impossible to capture and try their ranking officers

The intelligence is being provided by the same agencies that either misreported or allowed their information to be twisted into selling the American public on Iraqi WMDS


Now I also have some of my own personal beliefs:

If you join a group at war with our nation your actions should be construed as effectively renouncing your citizenship and all rights that go with that.


Now while I would feel more comfortable with completely objective standards that ruled who could and couldn't be targeted, I just don't see that as practical.

So we are left with the option of allowing former US citizens operate with impunity in their efforts to kill our citizens and destroy our nation

OR

We allow the President to exercise some judgment when it comes to these rare situations.

In this particular case what I find telling is that the issue is news world wide. Anwar al-Awlak has not issued any sort of statement (We have seen Al Qaeda is skilled at releasing statements) where he disputes his activities or denies the accusations against him. So considering the evidence against him and his failure to dispute any of the charges or accusations, I think it's reasonable and prudent to take him out before he can kill any more Americans or other innocents.

in so many ways. The president does not have the right to to kill American Citizens without due process if then.

reason due process was in the constitution. WE do not elect kings. Quit with the false analogy's.

...be declared by Congress.

Unless, of course, you abide by Bush/Cheney**'s rules.

NGU.

NGU.

Our FIRST war, following the revolution, was against a stateless enemy - the Barbary Pirates.

WTF is NGU?

It has seldom (if at all) been declared since World War II. Yet states still fight wars.

So Vincardog is correct.

NGU.

And calling Awlaki a "victim" is just nutz.

going to be seen as any different from any other foreign terrorist because of his citizenship status. I read it as the US seeing this man as an imminent threat.

toward foreign terror suspects. Not "capture or let escape".

This is about a US citizen terror SUSPECT .
That is why we require trials before we find people guilty..

how to get on the list. This is the bulk of their questions and issues with this recent case, but not so much this guy is a threat or Obama's authority on the matter.

How fucking convenient.

Wait until The Government uses THESE TERMS on US Citizens. Oh wait! :scared:

Wait until they "let loose" these KILLER DRONES on USA HOME SOIL?

Stop it now or they will do this horrific "summary execution" on our own citizens within the continental USA.

LABELS do not make someone LESS OF A HUMAN BEING.

Are we that chicken-shit as a Nation that we have to KILL all THREATS without even charges or a trial?

Are these so called "terrorists" SUPER-HUMAN?

This is just a way to justify cold-blooded MURDER by "the state" and it is IMMORAL.

Further, sending our Killer Drone planes into foreign countries to KILL people without charges and a trial, is just plain VILE.

America has lost it's moral compass.

It's time to take back the stranglehold that the Executive Branch has on our Government.

Not unlike I told the DNC representatives, show me that the Democrats in Congress truly have a spine, THEN I will donate my hard earned money to your organization.

As usual, our "gutless wonders" in Congress are abdicating their RESPONSIBILITIES.

I realize it's a murky situation, and if he were killed on the battlefield it would be one thing, but a targeted assassination? That strikes me as a complete violation of our constitutional principles that nobody - and certainly no American citizen - can be denied due process of law if accused.

The problem is what are the safeguards and standards? I don't doubt that al-Awlaki is likely guilty, but if the government can now simply declare that someone is an enemy combatant and summarily execute them, what's stopping a future administration from going further and targeting someone who may be innocent?

It comes down to the choices of:

giving some trust and leeway to the President

Giving a significant advantage to our enemies


In my mind neither choice is a particularly good one. Although I think choice one can be made better with reasonable safeguards.

Bon Jovi wouldn't have had much of a song, the other way.

NOTHING

but there are ways to remove them.

I agree with you.

If he wants a trial and full due process he's more than welcome to turn himself in at the nearest American consulate. Otherwise...

if he feels he has been wrongfully accused, although even a public statement renouncing Al Qaeda and its goals would be a game changer to me.

and tell me again how "Al Qaeda's tactics and operations makes it nearly impossible to capture and try their ranking officers."

And, maybe it's just me, but I'm not particularly moved by appeals to prior abuses of authority to justify current or proposed ones. Didn't Lincoln also have journalists imprisoned? I'm amazed the Republic survived at all.

are not being repeated. Al Qaeda is adaptable and they have decentralized making capture far me difficult.

As for how the Republic survived, it survived by Lincoln doing the things you object to. Had Lincoln followed your guidelines our nation would not exist today (at least not with 50 states) and slavery would have lasted another few decades (at least).

Also, your 50 state comment doesn't make sense, since there weren't that many then anyway.

And nice shifting goal line, there, going from how nearly impossible it is to capture any AQ leaders (which was not true) to how we haven't caught a single man who is, most likely, long dead of disease.

And, wait, NOW AQ is decentralised? No no, they've BEEN that way, as the talk in your OP of their irregular features goes to show you know already. All those reports I directed you to (which were not all "early successes" btw) show that if we can find them to kill them, we can find them to capture them.

Then why have we killed ANY of them?

Just because we have captured some, that does not mean we have the capability of capturing any and all. That is pure nonsense. Think of all those that were killed in the border region of Pakistan, where we have NO capacity to capture, where even the Pakistan army can't go. We killed them. We did what was possible. If the terrorist happens to be an American, do the rules change?

This is the right policy by tautology--it is Obama's after all. But once you know its right, the real challenge is doing to mental gymnastics to make it sound that way. I applaud you

and didn't address any of the issues I raised. It was a text book example of attaching the messenger though. I suspect you are not interested in reasoned discussions that require independent thinking or critical thought and analysis.

You rose to the challenge of justifying why yet another policy that you knew was correct was in fact correct. I find it amazingly difficult to fabricate all my arguments according to how I want to perceive the world, rather than letting my perception craft my arguments. While I take the easy road, you tread deeply into these matters and stand forever by your convictions

:toast:

And its so obvious. If this man was infallible prior to being elected, to such a degree that he was electeble, it stands to reason he still is! "All is for the best in the best of all possible worlds"

:eyes:

Well said.

Do the actions of Anwar al-Awlak fit the above definition.


You should also read: "Al-Jazeera Interview: Anwar al-Awlaki Regarding Malik Nidal Hasan December 23, 2009"

He has made the choice to make war against the United States and its citizens. He has acted to cause the death of American Citizens. I encourage him to surrender himself to the appropriate authorities so that he can defend himself against his accusers. If not, then any and all means are appropriate to defend the citizens of this country against a man complicit in mass murder.

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

what they were doing was limiting what could be considered treason as well as deal with the abuse of the treason charges that were common under English law. This section was not supposed to provide a sort of diplomatic immunity to those actively fighting against the US.

But even the most basic search for information shows a man who has gone to the other side.

There would be no questions if he were seen on the battlefield, or a battlefield commander caught in a raid. What we all fail to understand is that in asymmetric warfare battlefields are not set places.

I read a book that gave me an understanding that Clinton had such a thing about OBL (he never was killed because in those days we refused to put women/children at risk in order to get him, and OBL was in a compound with women and children).

you and your family in the crossfire? :shrug:

By GAWD! Anything for our Blessed President and Country!

BOMB THEM ALL! :crazy:

I also don't blame the Clinton Administration for failing to take out OBL while in a compound with women and children.

But you're skirting with the idea we have no right to go after him or others in Al Qaeda at all. We have to be able to arrest them. On foreign soil. And give him a fair trial.

And I am guessing you would be against the bombing of Hiroshima, too.

There are some indicators that Japan was ready to surrender. We certainly didn't need to drop TWO atomic weapons to get our point across. I do believe that Japan would have surrendered after the first nuke strike. But call me "hopeful?" :shrug:

No, unless you're willing to turn this "terrorist - dead or alive" on your own citizens, I don't believe in TARGETED EXECUTIONS. It will come back to home - on the continental USA.

Once we throw out all semblence of humanity and due process, you may get a drone dropping bombs on you or your neighbor's home in the not too distant future.

WHO decides who is "a terrorist" and deserves to die without a full investigation, charges and a trial?

The Government will turn on THEIR OWN PEOPLE if you give them this power overseas.

We must take back the Executive Branche's POWER to ORDER these medevil "EXECUTIONS" via killer drone and/or trained assassins. After we've totally lost our moral compasses, the Government will turn their killing machines on DOMESTIC TERRORISTS. Heaven help you if you get caught in the cross fire. Or as one sociopathic sniper quipped, "The chick got in the way." :crazy:

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

for treason and I think by any reasonable standard what he is doing is treason. Convict him and strip him of citizenship and now he is just another terrorist.

He's already been convited and faces 22 years in prison, should he again enter Jordan. Let's seek due process for our buddies in Jordan? :evilgrin: