Radical American-born Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, the top target on our terrorist hit list, was killed today when a drone-fired Hellfire missile hit his convoy in Yemen.
A senior administration official in Washington said the killing of Mr. Awlaki was important because he had become Al Qaeda’s greatest English-language propagandist and one of its top operational planners.
[…] 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 Major Hasan, the Army psychiatrist charged in the shootings at Fort Hood 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.
Assuming his was everything the US government says he was, good riddance.
Wow. It’s amazing how many slog readers are willing to parrot the empire’s talking points. It’s as if you actually believe it. Who will be the next Emmanuel Goldstein?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emmanuel_Go…
That’s good, I’m glad somebody loves me. Cause god knows the Iraqis and Afghanis don’t.
By gods, they sure cried, and screamed, a lot.
Really, this is similar to the western cliche, where the sheriff has a criminal in jail and the mob gathers outside to demand a lynching. The sheriff, says, “He’ll hang. After he gets a fair trial.”
In the scenario, the sheriff is the physical manifestation of the Constitution and its guarantees of due process to everyone. And I’m afraid the mob is everyone here who approves of this action.
Okay, if an American citizen is actively, intentionally contributing to a situation that puts American lives at risk- and I understand there’s disagreement on the matter, yes- then he should be held accountable for that, and in a fully legal fashion. Due process and whatnot.
But if assassination like this is unacceptable, what other options are there if due process is not available? If he surrounds himself with armed protection in some foreign land disinclined to apprehend and render him to us, what else can the US do? Again, if he was taking steps to bring about the deaths of Americans, it seems to me like waiting for an opportunity to follow due process is putting lives at risk, so it becomes a matter of the weight one life vs. others.
And I’m not saying this as some snarky attempt to undercut the “assassination is wrong” camp, it’s an honest inquiry. If not the assassination, what should have happened?
This was some good stuff right here. At least a dozen of you just reminded me so hard of Britta on Community that I actually heard her voice whilst reading your posts. Thanks for the entertainment, all.
@59, lot of “if’s” in your post. That’s the point of a trial. But your questions are good ones, and sincere.
First of all, we have no idea if he was “taking steps to bring about the deaths of Americans.” Many experts believe there’s no evidence whatsoever to suggest he was.
What do we do? We do what we do with any U.S. fugitive in a foreign country without a rendition agreement? We either threaten them or we send agents in or we land and surround the place and tell him to come out with his hands up. If he shoots, he dies.
If you’re genuinely curious about what else could have been done and why this was so wrong, you simply must read this piece by Glenn Greenwald.
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_…
There are a lot of people here saying killing Al-Awlaki this way was wrong. Let’s assume that he was actively engaged in planning terror operations against Americans and recruiting others to carry those operations out. What should the government have done instead?
@62 Why assume that when the US can provide no evidence that he was “actively engaged in planning terror operations?” Shall we accept the word of the State over the adversarial system established to keep that very State from depriving EVERYONE from being deprived of their right to life without due process? If it was a police action, it might be different but this was a consistent long-term campaign of bombing this man, with the help of dictatorial regimes in Yemen.
Also, when he stopped being a useful idiot for WaPo and the Pentagon, he became a “terrarist.”
@61
A useful article, thank you.
@62, it’s a legitimate question. But your hypothetical situation requires lots and lots and lots of evidence that isn’t present in this one. But, let’s say it is. The government would do what it does with all criminals. It would surround his compound and order his surrender. If he didn’t surrender, then he’d be taken dead or alive.
That’s the difference between an assassination and an attempted apprehension. It’s why the Constitution says you can’t deny a person their life without a trial. Living with due process is more difficult than living without it, to be sure. But what choice does any free society have?
@62, Also, it would be different if the suspect was known to shoot and kill those attempting to arrest him, like Dillinger or Bonnie and Clyde. It would be different if he was hiding in a place like North Korea or even Iran where we wouldn’t be allowed to go and apprehend him. Of course, none of that applies in this case.
Also: Any terrorist or guerilla warrior capable of doing anything operates within a cell that only a few people know about. It they are smart enough to kill you they are smart enough not organize themselves in such a way that killing someone who posts videos on YouTube accomplishes anything. I guarantee he had NO connection to any actual plots. Any supposed connection is to Obama what WMDs in Iraq were to Bush.
Watch “The Battle of Algiers” sometime for more insight. Also, how many times does your government have to lie to you before you stop believing it? Seriously.
LJM
“What do we do? We do what we do with any U.S. fugitive in a foreign country without a rendition agreement? We either threaten them or we send agents in or we land and surround the place and tell him to come out with his hands up. If he shoots, he dies.”
It is apparent you have not thought this through. Grabbing up a terrorism suspect in a hostile region is not so simple as strapping on the guns and sending in the troops. First, he is surrounding by heavily armed folks who are going to resist when you show up. Second, he is apparently not sticking around in one place long enough to verify his presence, determine what else is there, plan an operation, and get the logistics in place to carry it out. So your plan amounts to either doing nothing while this guy carries out plans to kill Americans, or sending in a bunch of troops in a hastily planned risky operation, where a whole bunch of people are likely to get killed.
@68 A hastily planned, risky operation in a foreign territory? Oh, like we did with unarmed Osama Bin Laden?
I believe Milosevic was also captured and handed over to the UN after a lengthy standoff at an armed palace. It’s been done before. We gave a trial to that scumbag, too.
dirac:
Whether you trust what the government is telling you is a different question than what are the legitimate means the government can use to protect its citizens. I am only addressing the latter question. Based on Al-Awlaki’s own words, it is apparent to me that he was active in recruiting people to be terrorists in the organization of which he was a member, if nothing else. That makes him a legitimate target.
Osama was staying in the same place for an extended period of time with almost no guards. That made it possible to carefully plan an operation, and it was still risky. There was also a benefit to making sure it was him, in person. It would have been a different matter if he had been constantly moving around with a large armed escort. I guarantee that they would have used a drone.
No, it doesn’t and that’s the point. It’s not even close to a legitimate target. First and foremost because the Yemeni war is illegal. Not to mention all that due process crap that doesn’t matter to you anymore, especially when it’s a Donk in office.
What did Awlaki say and when did speech become an offense, summarily punishable by death? Why are we not bombing others who *say* bad things then? I’m pretty sure the government killed MLK Jr for the same reasons. Cuz he was saying verrry bad things. He was a very bad man. Right? Usually, that means you have to go ahead and kill people that say very bad things.
@71 This wasn’t the first drone attack against Awlaki, where it entirely missed him in the past killing many innocent women and children. How does your perverted sense of Imperial morality justify those killings that will continue long past this day?
dirac:
Take a look at Al-Awlaki’s wikipedia page. You are free to think he was just some poor schmo exercising his freedom of speech. It is obvious to me he was hip deep in planning operations and recruiting suicide bombers.
@74 Thanks for converting me, Hallowed Source of Truth Wikipedia. I was going to consult some other peer reviewed articles or foreign press but I can just go believe the Wiki. Now I can swallow that bitter pill so much easier. I don’t care if he’s a schmo or a criminal. Principled belief in rights means everyone has ’em–especially when they are not even actively engaged in hostilities.
dirac
If you were making the decision on what to do about this guy, and you believed he was actively engaged in planning terrorist operations against America, would you have waited to do anything about him until you could get boots on the ground? Would you have made this decision even if you believed that the delay might enable him to plan operations that killed Americans? Would you have made this decision even if you knew troops would likely be killed or captured in an operation that would be violently opposed by heavily armed tribesmen protecting Al-Awlaki? That’s not the decision I would make.
Why does it seem like ytou are more suspicious of the government made up of your fellow Americans, than a guy who puts out videos telling people to kill Americans.
“Why does it seem like ytou are more suspicious of the government made up of your fellow Americans, than a guy who puts out videos telling people to kill Americans.”
I am equally suspicious of both, only one has an extensive military apparatus and the other posts videos on YouTube.
I am suspicious of a government that claims it has the right to kill Americans away from a battlefield and then hides behind the power of the state to conceal any evidence that it says exists to substantiate those claims. Are you not? It’s as clear a violation of the entire social contract as all the other egregious bullshit that Bush and Obama and everyone else have put over on us “fellow Americans” not to mention the rest of the world. Just remember who the “biggest purveyor of violence in the world is…my own government.”
So the lesson here is that sometimes it’s unconstitutional to kill AmeriKKKan citizens without charges or trial, unless the Preznalent or some other random authority figure like some mindless CIA desk-jockey demanding more funding for their department sez they’re A Very Bad Person, then–presto!–it’s totally OK to kill anyone, anywhere at anytime. Especially if a Google search sez they’re guilty of Thoughtcrime. The End.
“Despite the folklore, pirates were seen as outlaws not because of what they DID but what they WERE. The threat was the notion that people could liberate themselves.”
hahahahaha
oh wait, you’re serious
let me laugh even harder
HAHAHAHAHAHA
“First of all, we have no idea if he was “taking steps to bring about the deaths of Americans.” Many experts believe there’s no evidence whatsoever to suggest he was.”
Doesn’t matter if he was planning deaths. One of the standards for treason is “aid and comfort,” which he most certainly was providing as a willing propagandist.
@81- Once again, you have to TRIED for treason.
*have to be TRIED for treason.
Bullshit. Any trial in absentia would be bitched about endlessly as well, because that’s what it would have to be. Considering every person that’s watched his videos is a witness to his crimes, the evidentiary standard has more than been met. Managing to spirit yourself to shores w/out extradition treaties doesn’t give you carte blanche to do whatever you want. He willingly became an enemy combatant and got his just desserts. It’s no different than if he picked up a gun and and was fighting in that sort of battle, American forces aren’t under the obligation to not shoot at him while he’s shooting at them just so he can be put on trial.
@84 – I’ll just quote GG on this.”Because he wasn’t shooting at anyone when he was killed – other than that, it’s a great comparison “
ddt58,
We are allies with Yemen. How do you know that Anwar al-Awlaki was surrounded by “heavily armed folks?” How do you know he was in a “hostile region?” How do you know these things?
It may be “clear” to you that he was actively doing something that required him to be blown up by remote control, but that’s not how things work in a free society. Evidence is presented and evaluated by a jury. But the government refused to present ANY evidence that al-Awlaki was doing the things you’re sure he was doing. “State secrets,” don’t you know.
How many more innocent people need to die violently so that we can kill a guy who was cheerleading terrorism on the internet? Five? Twenty? One hundred? Okay, how about this. How many of your family members would be worth violently killing to put an end to a guy cheerleading terrorists on the internet? Seriously.
Churchill was right. Now that I’m over 40 my youthful idealistic liberalism has given way to a more common-sense approach. This guy wasn’t the Rosenbergs (nice Jewish intellectuals tried and executed for their ideas). He was an Al Aaeda terrorist in Yemen, plotting to attack and kill Americans on our own soil. Better a drone than the waste of more American lives and the tragedy of the “collateral damage” of innocent lives lost in Yemen, Afghanistan, or Iraq.
Should the Constitution protect those who shun their own citizenship?
@ #88 – It doesn’t, good point. He was a traitor who joined the enemy in a time of war…because of that the USA executed him. There was no need for due process. We are at war and he was our enemy. Congratulation to President Obama for doing his duty as Commander in Chief and defending the USA’s safety from those who seek to destroy us.
@87 There’s nothing conservative or “common-sense” about the War on Terror.
Actually the Rosenbergs were completely guilty and got what they deserved. Decoded Soviet cables confirmed this, and one of their co-defendants admitted it in 2008.
@88 Once again, you’re showing your ignorance. All wonderful little bromides you can tell yourself though so you can go back to sleep with ease. None of those bromides carry a shred of truth.
@86 — How many of your family members would have to be violently killed before you’d put a stop to it without a trial? Seriously.
“All wonderful little bromides you can tell yourself though so you can go back to sleep with ease.”
Yes, bromides like “avowed traitors actively working to harm their own country in foreign lands ought to be tried, and if that option doesn’t exist then welp I guess they get away with it!”
@87, We don’t know that he was an Al Qaeda terrorist. The government refuses to release any evidence because of “state secrets.”
What makes you think that killing him will decrease the number of civilians we’re killing in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen? You think we’re going to stop with the drone attacks now that everyone is applauding them?
@Reader01 — even Ethel? Still, not the point. The Rosenbergs were idealists, not murderers. Anwar al-Awlaki would have all of us on this threat murdered in front of our families and laugh as we died.
@ #92 – Do you know what bromide means? My statements are not trite. I appreciate your resolve, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are at war and he had joined with the enemy. Why are you defending the memory of a traitorous and vile person?
Hey Slaggy, think you meant that for 93. I’m with you. 😉
@96 If there ever has been a bromide used reflexively and so often to justify criminal acts of the State, it’s:
“We’re at WAR!”
“He’s a Terrarist! He is one with the Evil Other.”
“Why defend the rights of Traitors*?”
*Even though that term has a strict legal definition that Awlaki didn’t come close to…but nevermind the Constitution THIS TIME, not when I need a trial…only when evil guys do crime!
I know I am a terrarist lover. That’ll be the new “nigger lover” in our fascist state. I should just love the big bad robots that set destruction on all the actual non-criminals we kill too.
“We don’t know that he was an Al Qaeda terrorist.”
Yeah, we do. His videos on Youtube.
“The Rosenbergs were idealists, not murderers.”
Yeah, they were worse. They passed nuclear secrets to the Russians, enabling them to develop the capability to kill millions of us, more than any murderer could hope to accomplish, and that power enabled them to ruthlessly oppress a continent for decades.
“Even though that term has a strict legal definition that Awlaki didn’t come close to.”
The strict legal definition of treason is as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.” What in the everloving fuck do you think this guy was doing? He was doing ALL THREE.
That’s actually two definitions, not three, but the point stands.
LJM:
How do you know Al-Awlaki wasn’t in a hostile region surrounded by heavily armed folks?
If there is evidence sufficient to support the determination by people at the highest levels of government that this guy is an active threat, and not just a “cheerleader”, do they have to wait to do something until they can convince you and dirac that taking the guy out is appropriate? I voted for Obama because I wanted him and his people to making these decisions, not the GOP. I have not seen anything yet to suggest to me that they are killing people who are not active in terrorist operations.
How do you suggest we conduct a trial? You can’t have a trial without a defendant, and he wasn’t volunteering to turn himself in. If you think we needed to send a bunch of troops into Yemen to arrest him, I am glad you aren’t making the decisions. And if he successfully conducts a terrorist attack, while we wait until a trial can be conducted, would you say oh well, that’s just the way the system works?
If you want to be so cynical that you think everything the government tells you is a lie, that’s your problem. I have no problem with what was done here, and I disagree that it was inconsistent with a free society. It was self-defense.
I appreciate your resolve, but that doesn’t change the fact that we are at war and he had joined with the enemy.
When was war declared on Al Qaeda?
Why are you defending the memory of a traitorous and vile person?
You shouldn’t misrepresent what people are saying. Nobody is defending al-Awlaki. People are criticizing the methods used to end what he was doing. People are criticizing the rather un-American idea that the government can target whoever they want without presenting any evidence against them and assassinate them.
@ #98 – That is a fairly repugnant post. Why make up quotes? Why the offensive use of the N-word? Why are you defending this man? Why the constant subterfuge?
@87
A quick clarification. The Rosenbergs were indeed executed as spies:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/comm…
Turns out, even their sons believe they were spies.
“the government can target whoever they want without presenting any evidence against them and assassinate them.”
Good thing this isn’t what happened here then!