Islamist cleric Anwar Awlaki killed in Yemen - Page 3

TFatseas · 09-30-11, 11:33 AM

He was being targeted as an active enemy combatant of the United States, if he wanted legal protection all he had to do was turn himself in, but that is purely academic at this point.

Personally I'm glad he became a smoking hole in the ground.

Osmium Steele · 09-30-11, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TFatseas

He was being targeted as an active enemy combatant of the United States, if he wanted legal protection all he had to do was turn himself in,

Wrong! He was entitled to full legal protection due to his citizenship.

But, I'm sure the administration is counting on most people feeling otherwise.

Funny, you'd think a Harvard educated, Constitutional Law professor would have a better handle on things.

TFatseas · 09-30-11, 11:48 AM

2001 AUMF:

Quote:

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.

AVGWarhawk · 09-30-11, 11:52 AM

Tflat,

did this individual plan or attack on 9/11/01?

TFatseas · 09-30-11, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Tflat,

did this individual plan or attack on 9/11/01?

He had contact with 2 of the hijackers as a "spiritual advisor" just days before the attack. And his phone number was found in Ramzi bin al-Shibin apartment.

tater · 09-30-11, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TFatseas

He was being targeted as an active enemy combatant of the United States, if he wanted legal protection all he had to do was turn himself in, but that is purely academic at this point.

Personally I'm glad he became a smoking hole in the ground.

I'd defer to a lawyer (might see one this weekend socially and I'll ask), but intent matters. If there is a group of terrorists, and the US whacks them, and one happens to be American, then he chose his friends, etc, poorly. Tough crap.

If, OTOH, the government targets him specifically, knowing who he is, then I think there is a probably a problem. Bottom line is that anyone who was screaming for Obama to give gitmo scumbags civilian trials should be incensed right now.

Bush looked into the legality of of what the enemy was legally, and was pilloried in the press for it—"How dare they try to determine how far interrogators were allowed to go legally! Even thinking about that was unforgivable!" I fault his administration for not immediately pushing congress to redefine war to include certain non-state entities (then vote to declare such a war, explicitly). Obama, OTOH, made a big noise about legal rights, trials, etc, but bumps off people all the time (which is infinitely worse than depriving them of liberty in gitmo).

AVGWarhawk · 09-30-11, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TFatseas

He had contact with 2 of the hijackers as a "spiritual advisor" just days before the attack. And his phone number was found in Ramzi bin al-Shibin apartment.

Good enough for me brother!

AVGWarhawk · 09-30-11, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Obama, OTOH, made a big noise about legal rights, trials, etc, but bumps off people all the time (which is infinitely worse than depriving them of liberty in gitmo).

And we hear crickets about it.

nikimcbee · 09-30-11, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Even scarier. The president can order the killing of an American citizen now.

He can't help it, it's in his Southside Chicago genes.

vienna · 09-30-11, 01:33 PM

Quote:

There is a difference between a civil war and an assassination. While I shed no tears for another terrorist being turned into a smoking hole in the ground, I'm simply pointing out that this is a bad precedent and a slippery slope.

Yes, there is a difference. And there is a difference between civil war, assassination, and battlefield actions. If someone, in effect, defects to the side of an enemy force, his death in a battlefield action is no longer an assassination; it is a casualty of war. This "cleric" chose his side in a war, acted in support of an enemy "army" (whether or not it is a part of or supported by an established state), engaged in the planning and execution of military actions, and died as result of an action as part of a war. His death is not a pure assassination. He was merely another combatant killed in action. there are some who may argue, given the techological aility to pinpoint a single target on the battlefield, we are engaging in a form of selective 'assassination". The counter is, throughout the history of warfare, removing the leadeship, military or civilian, of an enemy has been a goal of military planning. Taking out enemy leadership is seen as a means of demoraliizing enemy troops, debilitating the planning capabilities of an enemy, and, perhaps, shortening the overall length of combat and the attendant losses and injuries to one's own troops (not to metion the reduction of materiel expended in support of an exteden war). As recently as WWII, with the U.S. action labelled "Operation Vengeance" in 1943, Admiral Yamamoto, the primary architect of the attack on Pearl Harbor, was specifically was specically targeted and killed. These attacks aginst Al Qaeda are no diffent than any other prior actions taken by many, many nations througout the length of history.

As far as his being an American citizen and denial of due process is concerned, again, if someone defects to an enemy force, he has chosen his side and it can not be expected he should be shielded by expectations of "rights" he has renounced, from a country he has renounced (and denounced) and has actively sought to destroy...

mookiemookie · 09-30-11, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vienna

As far as his being an American citizen and denial of due process is concerned, again, if someone defects to an enemy force, he has chosen his side and it can not be expected he should be shielded by expectations of "rights" he has renounced, from a country he has renounced (and denounced) and has actively sought to destroy...

That's why we put people on trial for treason. And those accused of treason are given the constitutional right of due process. You don't get to withhold a citizen's rights based on their crime.

AVGWarhawk · 09-30-11, 02:27 PM

Quote:

That's why we put people on trial for treason. And those accused of treason are given the constitutional right of due process.

I think he got his due process. He certainly did not deny the allegation(I think he raised his hand and said he was involved), nor turn himself in to clear up his "good name" as it were. Looks ok to me sir. Send in the drone.

Osmium Steele · 09-30-11, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TFatseas

2001 AUMF:

And I stand happily corrected. Thank you, sir.

vienna · 09-30-11, 02:59 PM

Quote:

I think he got his due process. He certainly did not deny the allegation(I think he raised his hand and said he was involved), nor turn himself in to clear up his "good name" as it were. Looks ok to me sir. Send in the drone.

Agreed. Think of it this way: Suppose you were in a city in the U.S. and there was a known armed and dangerous felon gang member holed up someplace and the police located him. He is still heavily armed and capable of inflicting severe injury and/or death to innocent citizens in the area. He has already demonstrated he has no hesitation in using deadly force indiscriminately and has already fatally injured several other people and attempted to injure others in the execution of his gang's activities. The police contact him via phone or bullhorn and offer him a chance to surrender into custody and take his chances in a court of law. Instead, he continues to fire at the officers and place the general public at risk. The police make more offers for a peaceful end to the stand off but the felon ignores their offers. At some point, the safety of the general public outways the rights of the felon and a decision must be made. The Chief tells his officers to go in and get him out or neutralize his ability to be a continued lethal risk. Basically, this is a dead or alive situation. The most expedient method with the least risk to the officers and other citizens is to have a SWAT sniper get a clear view and take the shot. The sniper does and kills the felon. Unnecessary loss of life or injury is avoided and the situation ends. The felon could have had his day in court and his due process and any other sundry rights and/or privileges he could have been afforded, but, thropugh hia own actions, he declined to avail himself of these. The situation with the "cleric" is similar: he abdicated his rights and the shot was taken. He had the opportunities and lost them through his own will and actions...

MH · 09-30-11, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

That's why we put people on trial for treason. And those accused of treason are given the constitutional right of due process. You don't get to withhold a citizen's rights based on their crime.

It was be one of those mind exercises my guess.

I cant really believe you are serious.

He was a member of international terror organisation of many nationalities.
He was killed as a hostile combatant in that organisation.
Is the fact that he is American makes him special in this case?
If he was just some american jihadist foot solder, not so famous would it matter?

09-30-11, 11:52 AM	#34
AVGWarhawk Lucky Jack Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: In a 1954 Buick. Posts: 28,286 Downloads: 90 Uploads: 0	Tflat, did this individual plan or attack on 9/11/01? __________________ “You're painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture.” ― Richard Yates, Revolutionary Road

09-30-11, 11:33 AM	#31
TFatseas Medic Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 166 Downloads: 2 Uploads: 0	He was being targeted as an active enemy combatant of the United States, if he wanted legal protection all he had to do was turn himself in, but that is purely academic at this point. Personally I'm glad he became a smoking hole in the ground.