The Cellar - Anwar al-Awlaki & Samir Khan

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Current Events (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Anwar al-Awlaki & Samir Khan (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=26008)

Anwar al-Awlaki & Samir Khan

So earlier today we set the precedent of bombing American citizens if they're terroristy enough. They weren't in a war zone. There was no trial. It wasn't an accident. WTF?

Awlaki, I dunno, I guess you can make the case that he deserved it (fingers in all the recent not-successful bomb attempts, etc). But Samir Khan?

Quote:

The one-time North Carolina resident, who U.S. and Yemeni officials say was killed with Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone strike Friday morning, used his knowledge of computers to help produce a glossy, Western-style magazine called Inspire that touted the edicts of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP.

(CNN editorial)

That sounds like freedom of the press to me.

If we can only win by fighting dirty, I dunno if it's worth it to win.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gvidas (Post 759898)

If we can only win by fighting dirty, I dunno if it's worth it to win.

how do you think we won the Revolution way back when?

Guerilla tactics. The Brits were appalled - we fought "dirty" and we won. That is, historically, how you win a war.

Surprise the enemy.

Quote:

They weren't in a war zone.

The war zone is the entire planet.

I've read this Inspire - the edition printed after they used a color laser printer to attempt to blow up a UPS plane flying to Chicago. They bragged that the operation only cost $4200 and caused billions in additional security efforts. They said it could be done again. They took credit for an earlier UPS plane explosion in Dubai.

We must kill them because capturing them is too messy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gvidas (Post 759898)

That sounds like freedom of the press to me.

If we can only win by fighting dirty, I dunno if it's worth it to win.

He was doing much more than using his freedom of speech and press.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...fer_for_n.html

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...than_a_feeling

To my mind, Obama has made the worst decision of his presidency by approving this "targeted killing".

Historicially, I believe Obama will be known as the first Black President
and the President that publicly approved assassination of an American
citizen without trial.

Such extra-legal killings are totally different than attempts to capture and imprison.
Despite who is the target and what he may/may not have done against the US,
there is such a thing as a slippery slope and Obama has stepped on it with both feet.
There will be more killings to come, and justifications will be less and less,
while pride and respect for the American system of justice will deteriorate more and more.

Imma side up with Lamplighter and Ron Paul on this one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lamplighter (Post 760054)

.....pride and respect for the American system of justice....

Bwahahahahahaha. Only by people who read about it in books, not anyone who's had to deal with it.

In the bit above about "fighting dirty", what I meant was that if we have to compromise our system of justice and politics in order to 'win the war on terrorism', then we can't really win it at all. Maybe that's a stock line.

But, to quote Adam Serwer:

Quote:

Awlaki's killing can't be viewed as a one-off situation; what we're talking about is the establishment of a precedent by which a US president can secretly order the death of an American citizen unchecked by any outside process. Rules that get established on the basis that they only apply to the "bad guys" tend to be ripe for abuse, particularly when they're secret.

[...]

Uncritically endorsing the administration's authority to kill Awlaki on the basis that he was likely guilty, or an obviously terrible human being, is short-sighted. Because what we're talking about here is not whether Awlaki in particular deserved to die. What we're talking about is trusting the president with the authority to decide, with the minor bureaucratic burden of asking "specific permission," whether an American citizen is or isn't a terrorist and then quietly rendering a lethal sanction against them.

Refresh my memory of an instance where we dialed back extreme policies -- something to stand as counterpoint to the TSA, the PATRIOT Act, drone strikes, 'enhanced interrogations.'

It seems to me that this is the root tragedy of American policy on terrorism today: you can never turn it off. Any slight shift towards a more relaxed stance on terrorism is "weakness."

Maybe I'm paranoid, maybe I'm cynical, maybe this is all just an unwarranted vomiting of knee-jerk bleeding heart liberalism. I hope it is. But, to my eyes, our recent history is mostly an ever-lengthening list of terrifying things which American citizens are absolutely okay with having done in their names.

America had become a sworn enemy to these men. Effectively making them traitors aligned with terrorists who wish harm on every American, and in essence informally renouncing their citizenship. I highly doubt they had any intention of coming back into the fold of regular, law abiding citizens. Their citizenship on paper had become irrelevant.

If you want this to be in the Constitution permanently, just say so. There will be no shortage of state legislatures more than happy to define planning terrorism against Americans (or their interests) as constituting treason punishable by death.

He denounced his citizenship. He admitted taking part in and planning acts of terror against the US... He declared was against us and lost. I hear the slippery slope argument, but in this instance - nah.

Martin McGuinness is running for Irish Presidency.
Murderer.

Gerry Adams shook President Clinton's hand.
Murderer.

I wouldn't cry if either of them were taken out. Fair means or foul.

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 760224)

He denounced his citizenship. He admitted taking part in and planning acts of terror against the US... He declared was against us and lost. I hear the slippery slope argument, but in this instance - nah.

Classic, I'm doubting this bit about denouncing his citizenship because
the US Dept of Justice has just prepared a memo to justify his killing,
and it appears from news articles they consider him to still be a US citizen. (Can you cite a source ?)

Just saying you denounce your citizenship is not enough, to wit:

Quote:

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3. sign an oath of renunciation

Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect.
Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5),
Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail,
through an agent, or while in the United States.
In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship
to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.

Nope, no source. He did it verbally. Perhaps he didn't do it formally. If I were him I wouldn't have either.

I agree... further down in that source it speaks to the renounciation of citizenship as being irrevocable. No Oooops allowed.

As part of my surfing this, I read something somewhere (???) that even if the person were to follow the rules, the US could decide that it's in the interest of the US to disallow the person to renounce their own citizenship. This struck me as heads I win, tails I win.