Legitimate Terror Target or Assassination?

[Azred]

Anwar al-Awlaki (or Aulaqi, alternatively) was killed in Yemen by a drone attack. He was a known figure in Al Queda in that region and has been actively giving inflammatory speeches online, often advocating violence. He was apparently instrumental in organizing the Christmas Day bomb plot from 2009; it also appears that he was "chief of external operations" for Al Queda based in Yemen (commonly referred to as AQAP).

He was also an American citizen who was born in New Mexico.

Clearly he was involved with terrorists, both encouraging them through words and, presumably, through actions both directly and indirectly. Nevertheless, as an American citizen shouldn't the military have tried to capture him and bring him back to stand trial?

Do we second-guess the military people who were present and who reacted to a potentially imminent threat?

Should the government have a "hit list" of targets it would like to eliminate as part of a larger War on Terror (a struggle that can never actually be won)?

Are the die-hard protesters such as Code Pink--who never pass up an opportunity to reitereate their claim that Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney should be brought to trial for war crimes--going to push to have Obama put on trial for the murder of an American citizen?

Other than the fact that they are distinct individuals, how is Obama any different than Bush?

Should terrorists be dealt with by any means necessary, even if that means remote drone hits? Don't they simply deserve whatever happens to them?

If the government doesn't mind killing Americans involved in terrorist activity in Yemen, why wouldn't they kill Americans involved in terrorist activity here in the United States? This guy's actions in AQ aren't too far removed from what some members of ALF or Aryan Nation do.

[robertthebard]

I think the clear distinction is that he's actively pursuing his terrorist career on forieign soil, surrounded by who knows how many terrorists ready to die at the drop of a hat. The loss of life of American soldiers, or the risk of such, attempting to capture him was probably a consideration to send an unmanned drone to do the deed.

I don't disagree with your assessment of the overall situation, however, and would be willing to bet that people along the lines of Code Pink, if asked, would probably applaud Obama, it's a familiar pattern, to me. If the opposite side of the aisle does something, it's a crime, if "my" side does it, it was a necessary step to prevent (insert problem here).

[ElfBane]

I agree, we should repeal the Patriot Act. (what a misnomer!)

[Felix The Assassin]

The media has presented a very delectable article, and most Americans have swallowed the shenanigan, hook, line and sinker!!!

If it were me, my question to the administration would be: Why does the US have drones flying 'armed' operational missions in Yemen, yet another Islamic sovereign nation? Who authorized the firing? Which policy was the mission approved under? Lastly, where was the POTUS?

Working directly with Veterans, their families, and the ones left behind is beginning to slowly change my overall outlook. As far as the idiots in charge, I'm leaning back towards a conscript service for "ALL" who wish to enter public service, "MUST" serve, and not as an officer in the Reserve. As an enlisted Soldier in the trenches, one can select Army or Marines, no pansy-assed airfield duty and no mediterranean cruises.

[ElfBane]

Originally Posted by Felix The Assassin Working directly with Veterans, their families, and the ones left behind is beginning to slowly change my overall outlook. As far as the idiots in charge, I'm leaning back towards a conscript service for "ALL" who wish to enter public service, "MUST" serve, and not as an officer in the Reserve. As an enlisted Soldier in the trenches, one can select Army or Marines, no pansy-assed airfield duty and no mediterranean cruises.

You Bastard. How dare you denigrate my service?!?

If you miss it so much, why not become a merc... I hear Haliburton is hiring.... maybe even Ross Perot still has a private army.

ElfBane AT1(NAC) USN, Ret.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally Posted by ElfBane You Bastard. How dare you denigrate my service?!?

Not yours! Well yes, I guess that was your service branch, but not "your" service.

If you miss it so much, why not become a merc... I hear Haliburton is hiring.... maybe even Ross Perot still has a private army.

You have missed a connection between pin J3 and plug H8R.

Recall Rumpsfeld and his insensible BRAC of 2005? Well the Armor School left Ft. Knox and went to Ft. Benning where they had 0 (zero) tank ranges, zero tracked vehicle maneuver areas, and everything was within double time distance of 30 minutes or less. So, we downsized the Armor School from 2006 - 2011, while they could build/ramp up the maneuver center of excellence, while we retooled and ramped up The Army's Human Resources Center of Excellence from all over the US. AND the Mid-West Reserve Center of Excellence, moving the Reserve HQ out of Ft. McCoy WI, the 95th IDK from where, and the 70th out of Arkansas, and collocating them here. AND, here's 8 million more, renovate Custer Street and build the NEW HQ for the Cadet Command.

Now we train hundreds of Reservist' to deploy from our Power Projection Platform and still support the 101st and 5th group out of Ft Campbell. As well as some 'folks' from a special place around Crane, IN.-> All the while taking care of 'all' Soldier's HR functions worldwide, and lastly, don't forget, we still house the US Army Recruiting Command.

The only thing I'm missing is the way traffic 'used to be'. Take out 4,500 permanent party, and 5,000 annually TDY for school Soldiers and replace them with 5,500 civilians of which 4,500 work at one building, and 3500 light fighters with inadequate housing, and BAM!

With that, I'll be triple dipping in a few years.

ElfBane AT1(NAC) USN, Ret.

Three of the four services have straight forward ranks, except the Navy, they 'need' to have titles? What is that; Automatic Transmission? Autonomous Tracking? Avionics Tech? Aerial Topography?

Felix Drew MSG USA (R).

I present to you, the LTG Timothy J. Maude Complex:

http://maps.google.com/maps?q=fort+k...0.019,44.993,0

[Azred]

This isn't about military service, gentlemen. This is about the government having a hit list that includes American citizens.

It doesn't matter what actions a citizen performs, if they are an American citizen they are supposed to be under the auspices of the Constitution. I agree that an American citizen who has joined some group who is shooting at military people deserves to be shot as a legitimate enemy combatant, but this Mr. Al-Aulaqi was not a combatant; rather, he only encouraged combatants. One person he encouraged (either directly or indirectly) was Major Nadal, the Ft. Hood shooter...who gets his day in front of a tribunal, not a drone.

I also have to admit that I enjoy the irony. Obama's detractors in the Republican Party cannot come out against the drone policy because to do so would be seen as support for letting members of Al Queda live.

I was listening to the Tavis Smiley/Cornell West show Friday morning--I listen to shows like theirs and DemocracyNow to get a different perspective and see how the other side thinks--and their guest was a founder of Code Pink (her name escapes me at the moment). She was definitely against the drone attack and she feels "burned" by Obama.

[Felix The Assassin]

Originally Posted by Azred This isn't about military service, gentlemen. This is about the government having a hit list that includes American citizens. It doesn't matter what actions a citizen performs, if they are an American citizen they are supposed to be under the auspices of the Constitution. I agree that an American citizen who has joined some group who is shooting at military people deserves to be shot as a legitimate enemy combatant, but this Mr. Al-Aulaqi was not a combatant; rather, he only encouraged combatants. One person he encouraged (either directly or indirectly) was Major Nadal, the Ft. Hood shooter...who gets his day in front of a tribunal, not a drone. I also have to admit that I enjoy the irony. Obama's detractors in the Republican Party cannot come out against the drone policy because to do so would be seen as support for letting members of Al Queda live. I was listening to the Tavis Smiley/Cornell West show Friday morning--I listen to shows like theirs and DemocracyNow to get a different perspective and see how the other side thinks--and their guest was a founder of Code Pink (her name escapes me at the moment). She was definitely against the drone attack and she feels "burned" by Obama.

We got onto military service as 'some' of us feel that our politicians need that service. The underlying reason is simple, if one has never served, how they 'feel' the effects of their policies? Simple really, at age 18 they serve two years then return to their chosen ivy league school.

My point is "why" do we have drones in Yemen. FYI: Drones are pilot-less, however, a human (service member) flies it remotely, and is the one who "pulls" the trigger, upon order of usually the POTUS in situations like these. Bush 43 was very reserved in drone attacks, and very rarely gave the order, BHO on the other hand, has given more in almost 3 years as W did it 7.

Killing a US citizen? Well I'll tell ya!

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

foreign and domestic is not a grey area, its rather clear!

That goes back to "why", because the guy giving the order is the POTUS!

FYI:
It was a warm Spring day. It was the 7th of May 1999. A platoon of RANGERs were in a country that most Americans did not know or care about at that time. They were on a man hunt. They were hunting a man who went rogue. That man was equipped by Pakistan, through, you guessed it, The USA. He assisted the Afghans in repelling the Soviets in late 79 and the early 1980's. About 2000 meters from the 'suspected' location of their target, a sniper team equipped with a Barrett SASR had the target in scope and reticle. The current POTUS stalled on every conceivable account possible without ever giving the order, and it worked. The target eventually went back into his cave, out of sight! Today both that POTUS and that sniper team live with the fact that 9/11 occurred. I'm sure one plays it off as it would have happened regardless. Because another would have stepped in. The other two contemplate where they would be today it there had been an "accidental" discharge that morning.

I commend the POTUS on OBL, and Anwar al-Awlaki. However, I question the location. For a guy who is suppose to end the wars and bring our troops home, he has in fact added to the wars, and is increasing our troop deployments into different countries. You can fly a drone from a secure facility, but you can't fly it from thousands of miles away!

[Micah Foehammer]

Who May Be Killed? Anwar al-Awlaki as a Case Study in the International Legal Regulation of Lethal Force

Robert Chesney
University of Texas School of Law

Free PDF download

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1754223

Great overview of the legal issues involved


from page 51:

In a brief submitted in the lawsuit filed by al-Awlaki‘s father, the government explicitly asserted that an attack on al-Awlaki would be justified under domestic law by the September 18, 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force statute (AUMF), which authorized the use of ―all necessary and appropriate force against those entities determined by the President to have been responsible for the 9/11 attacks. As the brief explained, the AUMF would apply in al-Awlaki‘s case because (i) al-Awlaki has become an operational leader of AQAP and (ii) ―AQAP is an organized armed group that is either part of al Qaeda, or is an associated force, or co-belligerent, of al-Qaeda . . .

fromt the AUMF:

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. (a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

@Azred - I think his actions DO matter.

Another view:

It is typical, though, of American society that there should now be anguish as to whether Al-Awlaki, as an American citizen, should have been targeted and killed. The American Civil Liberties Union says the killing violates the US and international law and condemns it because there had been no due judicial process. A government's duty is to uphold the law, but its prime duty is to protect its citizens. It is rare that the two conflict but when they do, the law must take second place to protection. This was such a case. Al-Awlaki had declared war on the US through the Internet. On his website, he called on Muslims to kill American soldiers anywhere in the world; he said it was an Islamic duty. In e-mails he encouraged US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan to kill US soldiers; Hasan gunned down 13 at Ft. Hood in November 2009. The list of those for whom he was a spiritual guide and who carried out attacks is long. Last year he called on American Muslims to attack the US. Al-Awlaki's target was not only Americans who, he said, had to be killed “without hesitation.” He targeted Arab governments as well. In such rare cases, the demand for due judicial process by the likes of the ACLU is morally vacuous. Someone who plots to kill has to be stopped. Otherwise he will succeed. In such circumstances, those who insist that nothing be done until his criminal plans are proven in court are complicit in his crimes. They effectively enable him to proceed. They care more about legalities, not about saving lives. It was perfectly legitimate to target Al-Awlaki.

http://arabnews.com/opinion/editorial/article509786.ece

[Azred]

So far we have what I was looking for--discussion of the issues at hand.

Most rational people will agree that this guy needed to be taken out--he was advocating violence against innocent civilians, wherever they may be found.

Felix, I am aware of the oath that military personnel take. The $64,000 question, though, is this: what happens if the President of the United States is acting against the Constitution? Does he qualify as a domestic enemy? I'm not talking about Obama, per se, but any person who is President who acts against that which he, also, swore to uphold. Even Bush. Also, who decides when/if the President is acting against the Constitution?

Now...what if this guy had been doing this sort of stuff here instead of in Yemen? Would it be acceptable to drone-kill him here? (We can substitute snipers for drones, if you prefer, because the effect is the same.)

On a side topic, I prefer the use of drones because it keeps boots off the ground and doesn't unnecessarily endanger soldiers. I also prefer heavy use of sniper teams--take out the leaders of an enemy combatant force until no one steps up to lead it anymore.