Would you really support sending in SEALs or other speacial-opps and risk American lives to take him alive while invading Yemeni sovereignty (thereby possibly inciting another Pakistani situation that enrages an Arab nation) so he can have a trial?
We do give trials to traitors. But in the Civil War, the Union Army wasn't trying to arrest Confederate soldiers who were essentially traitors because they were enemies in a war. It's not an honest argument, in my opinion.
I really can't believe that some people would let him go. You all would be singing a different tune had that very next day he decapitated some American tourists or journalists. He is a traitor in a foreign land. The options were to kill him on site or let him go.
But he didn't kill anybody. Actually, I'm kind of foggy on why he was so important. He was a spiritual leader to terrorists or something? Why didn't we try to get Yemen's help to capture him? I'm not going to lose sleep over his murder, but Paul raises a good point.
They won't stop taking the job. They will just adapt. Change the methods that made them targets would be a good idea.
On September 23rd, 2010, Colombian military forces carpet-bombed the location of a the then highest leader of the FARC guerrillas, Jorge 'Mono Jojoy' Briceño. His position was succeeded by a supposedly more moderate second-in-command. That was last year. This is a list of FARC's reported activities this year.
If only killing the leaders would be a sufficient enough deterrent, al-Zawahiri and al-Awlaki would have turned in. Sadly, this is not the case.
167 soldiers and policemen killed in 2011. That down from the 460 that were killed and 2000 wounded the year before. Looks like progress on the side of the good guys to me.
Jurisdiction is commonly assigned to the location where the crime was committed. If a connection to 9/11 was appropriately established, a trial would be held in America. Extradition would grant that.
I disagree. He is not protected by the Constitution outside of the United States and its territories. They could kill him (as they did) if they wanted to and any violation of his civil rights would not apply. Furthermore, there would be no violation of international law here since U.N. Resolution 1373 basically said that they support any efforts of a nation to fight terrorism. Extradition is not necessary since the military is authorized to use (deadly) force since he was involved with the 9/11 as well as other attacks on Americans, and would be considered an enemy combatant in the war on terror.
167 soldiers and policemen killed in 2011. That down from the 460 that were killed and 2000 wounded the year before. Looks like progress on the side of the good guys to me.
Ha, like if he was the first. Colombian military forces kill top FARC leaders systematically, the biggest example being Raúl Reyes in 2008. In fact, Raúl Reyes death paved the way for a bloodier leadership by el Mono Jojoy. I guess nobody explained him the job was too dangerous.
I disagree. He is not protected by the Constitution outside of the United States and its territories. They could kill him (as they did) if they wanted to and any violation of his civil rights would not apply. Furthermore, there would be no violation of international law here since U.N. Resolution 1373 basically said that they support any efforts of a nation to fight terrorism. Extradition is not necessary since the military is authorized to use (deadly) force since he was involved with the 9/11 as well as other attacks on Americans, and would be considered an enemy combatant in the war on terror.
Listen carefully to what I'm saying. Of course he wasn't protected. Of course they could 'legally' get away with killing the man. American post-9/11 legislation allows the executive branch to make many drastic unconstitutional decisions in order to wage 'war on terror' (I wonder if you said that term so proudly in the Bush years). But his involvement in 9/11, as well as the next strikes he was plotting, were never established. The public never knew the facts, since they were withheld by the intelligence community due to 'national security' reasons. All that supported by the Law.
Besides, don't go around saying that idiotic term if you want to be taken seriously. 'War on terror' is not a war, since it targets every group or individual who engages in a tactic that can labelled as 'terrorist'. It violates the UN's standards of a just war due to its preventive and perpetual nature. This is why Obama seems to have dropped the term, being Bush's abomination, and does not use it to justify his administration's decisions.
Besides, have you even read UN R-1373? It only addresses necessary actions to prevent terrorism, taken by local sovereign states and predominantly by freezing funds, confiscating assets, denying safe haven, enforcing border control, cooperating with other states in their identification... it even grants terrorist suspects the ability to seek asylum as political refugees, as long as it falls under the provisions of international human rights standards, but states that those laws will not interfere with extradition requests (clause 3.f-g).
Operative clause 2-e) specifically exhorts to: "Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice..."
The UN doesn't even have a Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism, which means they support certain counter-terrorist instruments (none of which includes targeting suspects for physical termination) but provide no definition on what 'Terrorism' is.
In a June 2010 report to the United Nations Human Rights Council, Philip Alston, the United Nations special representative on extrajudicial executions, said that the growing use of armed drones by the United States was undermining global constraints on the use of military force, and warned that the American example would lead to a chaotic world as the new weapons technology inevitably spread.
Mr. Alston called on the United States to exercise greater restraint in its use of drones in places like Pakistan and Yemen, outside the war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, and proposed a summit meeting of "key military powers" to clarify legal limits on such killings.
Warning that the technology is making targeted killings much easier and more frequent, the report raised concerns that drone operators, based thousands of miles away from the battlefield, risk developing a 'PlayStation' mentality toward killing.
Only a week before, the military had released a report faulting military drone operators for "inaccurate and unprofessional" analysis from a remote location, leading to an airstrike that killed 23 Afghan civilians, including women and children.
The report also said that a targeted killing outside of an armed conflict "is almost never likely to be legal." In particular, it rejected "pre-emptive self-defense" as a justification for killing terrorism suspects far from combat zones.
... Lastly, the assassination is counterproductive because it feeds into the martyr mythology that makes Al Qaeda’s narrative so different from that of most other terrorist groups.
If our policy makers studied history, they would realize that Sayyid Qutb, a founder of radical Islam, while popular in his life, only achieved his legendary status after the Nasser regime in Egypt had him executed, in 1966. Instantly, his books became (and remain) best sellers. Killing people doesn’t make their ideas go away.
Mr. Awlaki was born in New Mexico in 1971 while his father was pursuing graduate studies. Though his parents returned to Yemen when he was seven, he later returned to the United States to pursue degrees in engineering and education. Eventually, he became an imam, or leader, of a mosque in California and later in Virginia. During these years, it is alleged that he met multiple times with at least three of the 9/11 hijackers. But for many American Muslims, he was only known for one thing: the telling of stories from the Koran. He lectured about the lives of the prophets of God, drawing from traditional Islamic sources (and sometimes even Biblical ones).
His captivating lecture style and copious quotations from classical sources made him extremely popular, especially among American Muslim youth. During these pre-9/11 years, these lectures, still available online, became some of the hottest-selling items at some Islamic conferences across America. At this stage, he was not publicly associated with any radical views. However, after 9/11, he adopted a more adversarial and anti-American tone, eventually moving back to Yemen. He was jailed for two years (and rumored to have been tortured).
It was only after his release that he publicly began supporting Al Qaeda and issuing messages calling for attacks upon the United States. It was alleged that he came into contact with or inspired a number of people to attempt terrorist activities: Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused in the 2009 killings in Fort Hood, Tex.; Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalib, accused of trying to set off a bomb hidden in his underwear on a 2009 flight to Detroit; and Faisal Shahzad, who tried to blow up a car in Times Square last year.
Mr. Awlaki’s ideas were dangerous. His message that one cannot be a good Muslim and an American at the same time was insulting to nearly all American Muslims. His views about the permissibility of killing Americans indiscriminately were completely at odds with those of mainstream Muslim clerics around the world. He needed to be refuted. And that is why many people, myself included, were extremely vocal in doing just that.
Mr. Awlaki needed to be challenged, not assassinated. By killing him, America has once again blurred the lines between its own tactics and the tactics of its enemies. In silencing Mr. Awlaki’s voice, not only did America fail to live up to its ideals, but it gave Mr. Awlaki’s dangerous message a life and power of its own. And these two facts make the job of refuting that message now even more difficult.
What happens when a terrorist organization becomes an actual part of government (i.e. Hamas, Hezbollah)? What happens when we target foreign mandatories (long history of doing so)? What happens when foreign governments indulge themselves into mass killing of their population (Syria)? Where's the line?
I want a coherent foreign policy that answers those questions,
It sounds like you want consistency. As in if we are in Libya we should be in Syria or neither. Or asking why don't we treat Hezbollah and Hamas like al-Qaeda, as you see them as similar and should be dealt with evenly. My point is they are not and it is impossible to have an absolutist policy about how to handle dictators, terrorist groups (particularly if they're part of a government), etc.
I would. I wasn't around here at the time but I sure wasn't happy with the way Bin Laden's death was handled. And although I was in a clear minority, I was not alone on that.
I know there were a number who questioned that operation. I know their reasons but I'll never really understand why. But I can respect your opinion.
Labelling him as an enemy combatant (something this administration never mentioned and has only been inferred in post-fact constitutional debates, as far as I know) was all too convenient.
Proclaiming oneself an enemy of a state doesn't make him/her an open target for military assassination. His freedom of expression grants him that right without peril. Again, Timothy McVeigh is a prime case, as a terrorist that happened.
Al-Qaida is not a foreign power and considering it as such is a technicality the government relies onto. Where is the required sworn allegiance to it by al-Awlaki?
Furthermore, no factual evidence was presented to prove this guy was more than a glorified propagandist, which is a messy mistake from the government.
McVeigh wasn't in Yemen riding around in a convoy in a desert. There's a difference. If he was in the US, in an area that local and federal governments can police, he would have been arrested. Instead, he was riding around with enemies of the nation in a foreign land where there are limited options of what to do.
That's what I got from your above rant. "But al-Qaeda isn't a nation that he can swear allegiance to." So? It is a terrorist group that has declared war on the United States and has murdered thousands of Americans and continues to attempt to do so again. He declared jihad on the US and refused to deny the charges. Instead, he compared himself to Bin Laden and played a role in the Times Square bombing and the underwear bomber by his own admission in his own online writings. You can say, but he may have just been taking credit and we don't really know his actual connection to those terrorists, but that is just stretching things because some think he shouldn't be treated like a terrorist hiding in Yemen because he was born in America. That's not the case.
I'm sure you're referring to other people with the 'mall' criticism because I've tried hard not to sensationalize this thing. Again, I couldn't care less about the guy's nationality. I care about the circumstances and how the government has presented the facts in a way it will receive huge political dividends without being accountable for excesses of power.
When people say that we assassinated an American or that we are no different from the Soviet Union, third world dictators, etc. I have to roll my eyes. The circumstances were not that of murdering your citizens in your country. I used the Civil War, because he had declared war on us and was essentially on what is the 21st century battlefield in a foreign land. They make it sound like the FBI executed him while he slept in his home in New Mexico. That may not be what you're saying, but to view it so bleakly just rings false to me.
If you mean that the US overreacted to 9/11 by invading two nations, one of whom was completely unrelated to al-Qaeda or 9/11 and posed no immediate threats, and forsook its values by torturing and indefinitely locking up "enemy combatants?"
I'd agree.
If you mean that going after terrorists who want to kill Americans is as silly and meaningless as busting potheads, I strongly disagree. Terrorist cells that are committed to kill Americans have proven on the US Cole, the embassy bombings and, of course, 9/11 that they are very capable of doing so. Our government in charge of securing the nation should work to make sure such organizations are dismantled or greatly marginalized. Not through nation building and occupation, but by policing, law enforcement, and (if need be) targeted, strategic and surgical strikes.
Al-Awlaki declared war on America. You may consider that a "joke," but he joined an organization that has murdered thousands of Americans and took credit in playing a role in two failed terrorist attacks on US soil. He was at war with his home country and to shrug that off is asinine, in my opinion.
"It sounds like you want consistency. As in if we are in Libya we should be in Syria or neither. Or asking why don't we treat Hezbollah and Hamas like al-Qaeda, as you see them as similar and should be dealt with evenly. My point is they are not and it is impossible to have an absolutist policy about how to handle dictators, terrorist groups (particularly if they're part of a government), etc."
I was mostly trying to poke holes at the current approach, not saying that I would want a one-size-fits-all strategy. Having said that, I get why you may have understood it so. I just want a foreign and domestic policy the government is held to, not one that allows them, through loopholes, technicalities and secrecies justified by 'national security' to let them do whatever they want. Obama is setting an unpopular precedent among Arabs in a very fragile moment for his image in the peninsula.
I know there were a number who questioned that operation. I know their reasons but I'll never really understand why. But I can respect your opinion.
I actually said there is no record of plead of allegiance from him to al-Qaeda. Yes, he was a member, but some evidence seems to point he wasn't before 9/11. Why target him then? What was the national security threat he represented? All that valuable info is still withheld from the public.
It is a terrorist group that has declared war on the United States and has murdered thousands of Americans and continues to attempt to do so again. He declared jihad on the US and refused to deny the charges. Instead, he compared himself to Bin Laden and played a role in the Times Square bombing and the underwear bomber by his own admission in his own online writings. You can say, but he may have just been taking credit and we don't really know his actual connection to those terrorists, but that is just stretching things because some think he shouldn't be treated like a terrorist hiding in Yemen because he was born in America. That's not the case.
I do think it is a stretch and not for his nationality. You don't have to be a conspiracy nut-job to admit the 9/11 Commission was in many aspects a stretch and a farce. Several lleged hijackers were reported by Western papers to be alive in several Muslim countries. It also pointing to circumstantial evidence to link people like al-Awlaki to the attacks (who just happened to run a mosque in NY, before his involvement with AQ, which was visited by one of the hijackers). All this instead of dealing with the real culprits and methods. Of course terrorist organizations take credit. That's Counter-terrorism 101.
Don't you think it's a bit naive and convenient to kill people like this cleric and be done with it?
Given the thin and convenient evidence, why is it a stretch for people to doubt it? Isn't it wrong to dismiss that uncertainty as exaggerated?
When people say that we assassinated an American or that we are no different from the Soviet Union, third world dictators, etc. I have to roll my eyes.
I don't know about others, since I don't read every post, but I repeat: I don't care about the guy's nationality. Not a single one of them relates to him being an American citizen. Sometimes I feel you come here to continue debates that started elsewhere.
If you mean that going after terrorists who want to kill Americans is as silly and meaningless as busting potheads, I strongly disagree. Terrorist cells that are committed to kill Americans have proven on the US Cole, the embassy bombings and, of course, 9/11 that they are very capable of doing so.
Equating terrorist organizations with their leaders is a bad notion.
I really liked this quote from a NYT article:
Analysts are debating how much of an operational role Mr. Awlaki might have played in the group. One view is that Mr. Awlaki was more important as a source of inspiration than as a vital facilitator for attacks: Mr. Awlaki’s words appear to have touched a chord with a series of independent freelancers like the American Army officer of Palestinian descent who opened fire at Fort Hood in 2009, or the Pakistani-American who last year attempted to set off a bomb in Times Square. Those cases helped stoke national anxieties about a new wave of homegrown militants, evidence of which still seems incidental.
Whether the interest in his words was a cause or a symptom of their motivation to violence is, of course, impossible to answer, like the related question of whether they would have acted without him. But he is not unique in his role as the American voice of Al Qaeda recruiting. United States counterterrorism officials say there are as many as 100 English-language sites offering militant Islamic views.
Samir Khan, a Saudi-born American who moved to Yemen two years ago and was killed along with Mr. Awlaki, produced Inspire magazine, a Qaeda publication aimed at English-speaking Muslims. Its issue celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks included an interview with Adam Yahiye Gadahn, an American convert and Qaeda supporter also based in Yemen.
Mr. Johnsen argued that Al Qaeda would continue to try to court potential “lone wolves” inside the United States as Mr. Awlaki did because they cost little in training or organization, for a big potential payoff in attacks. But others in the Middle East suggested a turn toward audiences in Europe and the United States seemed symptomatic of their flagging audience here.
Assassinations of top leaders have done little to diminish the pull of militant organizations like Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon — with mass constituencies, extensive charitable outreach and pervasive grassroots networks. But then Al Qaeda shares almost none of those attributes; so amorphous, it sometimes seems more a state of mind.
“It doesn’t really matter who leads Hamas,” said Mr. Shadi Hamid, director of research at the Brookings Doha Center. “The organization is much stronger than the sum of its individuals. It probably does have more of an impact with a group like Al Qaeda, which is losing support, hemorrhaging support. It needs all the leaders it can get. It needs all the members it can get to stay viable.”
Ha, like if he was the first. Colombian military forces kill top FARC leaders systematically, the biggest example being Raúl Reyes in 2008. In fact, Raúl Reyes death paved the way for a bloodier leadership by el Mono Jojoy. I guess nobody explained him the job was too dangerous.
Fewer attacks against the military and law enforcement have been committed now. Sure they have and will new leadership, but they either seem less effective or they are afraid to act against the authorities now.
Listen carefully to what I'm saying. Of course he wasn't protected. Of course they could 'legally' get away with killing the man. American post-9/11 legislation allows the executive branch to make many drastic unconstitutional decisions in order to wage 'war on terror' (I wonder if you said that term so proudly in the Bush years). But his involvement in 9/11, as well as the next strikes he was plotting, were never established. The public never knew the facts, since they were withheld by the intelligence community due to 'national security' reasons. All that supported by the Law.
Besides, don't go around saying that idiotic term if you want to be taken seriously. 'War on terror' is not a war, since it targets every group or individual who engages in a tactic that can labelled as 'terrorist'. It violates the UN's standards of a just war due to its preventive and perpetual nature. This is why Obama seems to have dropped the term, being Bush's abomination, and does not use it to justify his administration's decisions.
Besides, have you even read UN R-1373? It only addresses necessary actions to prevent terrorism, taken by local sovereign states and predominantly by freezing funds, confiscating assets, denying safe haven, enforcing border control, cooperating with other states in their identification... it even grants terrorist suspects the ability to seek asylum as political refugees, as long as it falls under the provisions of international human rights standards, but states that those laws will not interfere with extradition requests (clause 3.f-g).
Operative clause 2-e) specifically exhorts to: "Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice..."
The UN doesn't even have a Comprehensive Convention on Terrorism, which means they support certain counter-terrorist instruments (none of which includes targeting suspects for physical termination) but provide no definition on what 'Terrorism' is.
I see your words, but they are not all together true and I don't think you really know what you are you are posting. Anwar al-Awlaki was considered by the US government to be a Specially Designated National (formerly known as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, which basically makes you a treasoner if you are a U.S. citizen -- punishable by death). While still in the United States Al-Awlaki served as Vice President for the Charitable Society for Social Welfare (CSSW) in San Diego, which turned out to be a front group that would funnel money to al Qaeda (this has been established in court via FBI testimony). Al-Awlaki was arrested in 2006 by Yemen authorities on charges of kidnapping a Shi-te teenager for ransom, and involvement in an al-Qaeda plot to kidnap a U.S. military attaché. He spent 18 months in prison there and was released. Had the man not continued his work with al-Qaeda nor plotted any attacks on Americans he would have been forgotten, but no, he went on to plan the Fort Hood attack as well as the Christmas Day bomb plot among others. Al-Awlaki was tried in abstentia by Yemen authorities and was ordered by a Yemeni Judge to be caught "dead or live". Even if they had caught him, The Yemeni Constitution does not allow for extradition (i.e. you and others would may have never had the opportunity to try this man here in the U.S.). Awlaki was hiding in the mountains of Yemen and being protected by the Awlaq clan, a very powerful tribe with ties to the Yemen government officials. The U.S. (and the Yemens) had no choice but to assassinate the man, else he would have been free to inspire and/or plot further attacks.
Now, you errantly claim that what I am saying is idiotic, but it is actually the facts. The War on Terror is a campaign being helmed by the United States and the United Kingdom with help from NATO against terrorist organizations. Normally we expect to see wars being done and declared on states or nations by other state or nations, but that is not always the case (remember, war has no real rules). Religious and civil wars are not necessarily against states, but they still are considered wars. I will accept, and have always, the fact that the war on terror is a war, but my main gripe (of which I am sure you will share the same) is the fact that it is against more or less an ideology that classifies it as a perpetual war, when in actuality, there should be a definite strategy and a finite outcome (especially when you have to pay for it). Another fact is that U.N. Resolution 1373 says that a nation may do what is necessary (without being specific) to stop terrorism within the guidelines of international law. There is an international law on crimes of terror that states a country may do what is necessary to establish jurisdiction over the crimes as well as take the appropriate steps to make the crimes punishable by the appropriate penalties (although it may not assassinate heads of state). In addition, the law also says that it does not exclude internal laws to the territory and that states parties may cooperate on fighting such crimes. Once again, a Yemni judge ordered that al-Awlaki be caught dead or alive and this case the former choice prevailed.
Fewer attacks against the military and law enforcement have been committed now. Sure they have and will new leadership, but they either seem less effective or they are afraid to act against the authorities now.
That's can only be a conclusion prior to analysing the data. FARC actions did intensify in scope and harm during the transition from Reyes to Jojoy. There is no guarantee that termination of leadership presents a deterrent for their successors.
Anwar al-Awlaki was considered by the US government to be a Specially Designated National (formerly known as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist, which basically makes you a treasoner if you are a U.S. citizen -- punishable by death).
... through due process, punishable by death through execution, which means presenting a chain of evidence to the public that never saw the light of day. There is a reason treason perpetrators are one thing and enemy combatants is another. One is tried post-fact and in front of a court of law, even a military secret one... the other is killed pre-fact to avoid damage. So far, there is no evidence even a military court worked behind closed doors to evaluate evidence.
While still in the United States Al-Awlaki served as Vice President for the Charitable Society for Social Welfare (CSSW) in San Diego, which turned out to be a front group that would funnel money to al Qaeda (this has been established in court via FBI testimony).
The witnesses' recounts were absolutely circumstantial and inconclusive, something that political pundits of both parties have agreed on. There was nothing that suggested his relationship to the hijacker's was in any way different as with the rest of the mosque' members. It should also be noted the alleged closeness to al-Awlaki by these witnesses was never established beyond FBI reports, since they never sat in court to testify.
Since you indulge yourself in a rather large bio with many certainties where it should say things like "alleged relations", "accused of", etc., I shall point you to al-Awlaki's wikipedia entry, the version of his life I am familiar with and treats government allegations as such, not as facts.
The War on Terror is a campaign being helmed by the United States and the United Kingdom with help from NATO against terrorist organizations. Normally we expect to see wars being done and declared on states or nations by other state or nations, but that is not always the case (remember, war has no real rules). Religious and civil wars are not necessarily against states, but they still are considered wars.
It may be a war according to any consensus you pick but it is not according to UN's standards. War on Terror is waged on the premise that it prevents future or potential aggressions of terrorist nations by non-governmental parties (since the term State Terrorism is rejected by the US). Its very preventive nature directly opposes it to the definition of 'just war' present in the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Convention, the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and CrimesAgainst Humanity, etc.
Also, the War on Terror violates another foundational treaty, the Rio Pact, which characterizes as necessary aggression to justify war:
a. Unprovoked armed attack by a State against the territory, the people, or the land, sea or air forces of another State;
b. Invasion, by the armed forces of a State, of the territory of an American State, through the trespassing of boundaries demarcated in accordance with a treaty, judicial decision, or arbitral award, or, in the absence of frontiers thus demarcated, invasion affecting a region which is under the effective jurisdiction of another State".
So, not only the U.S. has violated international law, including the UN Charter and the Nuremberg principles, but by waging the so-called War on Terror is guilty of committing a war of aggression, which is considered to be a war crime. Additional criticism has been raised that the United States has set a precedent, under the premise of which any nation could justify the invasion of other states. You may be fixed right now on targeted assassination, but there is still a major ongoing military occupation of a foreign state. Isn't that war on terror too?
And I just posted how last year's report by the UN Human Rights Council deemed targeted assassination, especially by drone bombing, an illegal instrument of counter-terrorism.
Another fact is that U.N. Resolution 1373 says that a nation may do what is necessary (without being specific) to stop terrorism within the guidelines of international law. There is an international law on crimes of terror that states a country may do what is necessary to establish jurisdiction over the crimes as well as take the appropriate steps to make the crimes punishable by the appropriate penalties (although it may not assassinate heads of state).
Since your link is not working, I will give you the chance to find that gem and point me where exactly says that. I will tell you what you missed.
In addition, the law also says that it does not exclude internal laws to the territory and that states parties may cooperate on fighting such crimes. Once again, a Yemni judge ordered that al-Awlaki be caught dead or alive and this case the former choice prevailed.
That it was legal is undeniable. However, you seem to avoid my main arguments every single time and I find myself repeating over and over the following:
Beyond the legality of the action, all the withheld information from the federal intelligence community (the only source of public info on the matter beyond Yemeni government spokespeople) it is obvious the Obama administration was not transparent in their handling of the kill. There are a number of reasons to
believe other courses of actions where possible, and there is no proof al-Awlaki couldn't be tracked, eventually apprehended and tried... not because he was American but because he was a valuable asset as a source of intel and a symbol for al-Qaida, more valuable alive than martyred.
There is absolutely no evidence this was the only possible way. For all we know the American government did not want to handle this differently to Osama bin Laden's death and exploited Yemeni cooperation and turmoil in the country to justify an unnecessary yet politically convenient killing.
Maybe, this time, this was comprehensible enough and you may address it.
I see your words, but they are not all together true and I don't think you really know what you are you are posting.
That's can only be a conclusion prior to analysing the data. FARC actions did intensify in scope and harm during the transition from Reyes to Jojoy. There is no guarantee that termination of leadership presents a deterrent for their successors.
The hand writing on the wall says that there were fewer deaths and injuries of the military and police in 2011 than the year prior, and common sense would tell you that eventually, if you continue to capture or kill off leaders, you will see a degradation in the management of an organization as well as a loss in knowledge base.
... through due process, punishable by death through execution, which means presenting a chain of evidence to the public that never saw the light of day. There is a reason treason perpetrators are one thing and enemy combatants is another. One is tried post-fact and in front of a court of law, even a military secret one... the other is killed pre-fact to avoid damage. So far, there is no evidence even a military court worked behind closed doors to evaluate evidence.
Both you and I know that he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial here in the United States. Aside from that, he was outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution and therefore not afforded that protection. What can be said here is that the U.S. military was authorized by Congress to use deadly force on this man following the same process expressed in the same Constitution.
The witnesses' recounts were absolutely circumstantial and inconclusive, something that political pundits of both parties have agreed on. There was nothing that suggested his relationship to the hijacker's was in any way different as with the rest of the mosque' members. It should also be noted the alleged closeness to al-Awlaki by these witnesses was never established beyond FBI reports, since they never sat in court to testify.
Since you indulge yourself in a rather large bio with many certainties where it should say things like "alleged relations", "accused of", etc., I shall point you to al-Awlaki's wikipedia entry, the version of his life I am familiar with and treats government allegations as such, not as facts.
I am not one to question a sworn testimony by law enforcement in a court of law. Sure, the eveidence was circumstantial relative to the case (which was not about al-Awlaki, but about Ali al-Timimi, who was being tried on conspiracy charges). The funny think is that the U.N. and other nations drew the same conclusion about al-Awlaki and his ties to al-Qeada.
It may be a war according to any consensus you pick but it is not according to UN's standards. War on Terror is waged on the premise that it prevents future or potential aggressions of terrorist nations by non-governmental parties (since the term State Terrorism is rejected by the US). Its very preventive nature directly opposes it to the definition of 'just war' present in the Hague Conventions, the Geneva Convention, the Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity, etc.
Also, the War on Terror violates another foundational treaty, the Rio Pact, which characterizes as necessary aggression to justify war:
a. Unprovoked armed attack by a State against the territory, the people, or the land, sea or air forces of another State;
b. Invasion, by the armed forces of a State, of the territory of an American State, through the trespassing of boundaries demarcated in accordance with a treaty, judicial decision, or arbitral award, or, in the absence of frontiers thus demarcated, invasion affecting a region which is under the effective jurisdiction of another State".
So, not only the U.S. has violated international law, including the UN Charter and the Nuremberg principles, but by waging the so-called War on Terror is guilty of committing a war of aggression, which is considered to be a war crime. Additional criticism has been raised that the United States has set a precedent, under the premise of which any nation could justify the invasion of other states. You may be fixed right now on targeted assassination, but there is still a major ongoing military occupation of a foreign state. Isn't that war on terror too?
And I just posted how last year's report by the UN Human Rights Council deemed targeted assassination, especially by drone bombing, an illegal instrument of counter-terrorism.
You've got to be careful about the things you've just cited. The Rio Pact only applies among the nations within the western hemisphere. The War on Terror (as far as combat operations) is taking palace outside of that region for the most part. Furthermore, The Human Rights Council Report on Extrajudicial Summary or Arbitrary executions is based on alleged reports of such cases (many of them not proven to be unjust) and the United States does not respond to any inquiries regarding such matters. Furthermore, that report only expressed concerns that matters would escalate and not that there were any violations. Furthermore, there is a definite disconnect with many nations and the Human Rights Council.
That it was legal is undeniable. However, you seem to avoid my main arguments every single time and I find myself repeating over and over the following:
Beyond the legality of the action, all the withheld information from the federal intelligence community (the only source of public info on the matter beyond Yemeni government spokespeople) it is obvious the Obama administration was not transparent in their handling of the kill. There are a number of reasons to
believe other courses of actions where possible, and there is no proof al-Awlaki couldn't be tracked, eventually apprehended and tried... not because he was American but because he was a valuable asset as a source of intel and a symbol for al-Qaida, more valuable alive than martyred.
There is absolutely no evidence this was the only possible way. For all we know the American government did not want to handle this differently to Osama bin Laden's death and exploited Yemeni cooperation and turmoil in the country to justify an unnecessary yet politically convenient killing.
Maybe, this time, this was comprehensible enough and you may address it.
All along, you and others have been insisting that the Obama Administration has violated or broken some law, be it constitutional or international. I have be showing where what was done was perfectly legal under the laws of the United States and according to resolutions produced by the United Nations. Now you are trying to look past the legality and insinuate conspiracy due to the reluctance to tell all. Look no one is obligated to offer up everything they know to either gain capture a criminal suspect, gain a conviction, or even kill an enemy combatant in warfare. Suffice it to say that al-Awlaki was already a convicted criminal and a wanted man who blatantly solicited people to commit crimes of terror using various forms of media. His death is no more than a circumstance of war and the United States had the legal backing to take this man out without a trial.
The hand writing on the wall says that there were fewer deaths and injuries of the military and police in 2011 than the year prior, and common sense would tell you that eventually, if you continue to capture or kill off leaders, you will see a degradation in the management of an organization as well as a loss in knowledge base.
Raúl Reyes and his successor, Iván Ríos, were killed in March, 2008. Before that the reported attacks from FARC were two on '06 and three on '07, with a total of 26 dead and 52 injured. After Reyes death, the number of attacks raised. Sure, in '08 and '09 there were only seven attacks, with 38 dead and 49 injured... but in 2010 the FARC killed at least 460 members of the security forces, while wounding more than 2,000.
I don't understand how can you say that was an improvement in any way.
'Common sense' based on simplified and limited knowledge is not common sense at all. Insurgency leadership and recruitment in highly unstable areas cannot be bombed away easily. With so many different factors in play, more counter-intuitive approaches may be more helpful.
Both you and I know that he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial here in the United States.
Fairer than getting killed before the US government decided to withhold evidence that could make a case against him
Aside from that, he was outside of the jurisdiction of the U.S. Constitution and therefore not afforded that protection. What can be said here is that the U.S. military was authorized by Congress to use deadly force on this man following the same process expressed in the same Constitution.
Ugh, this is getting tiresome... American jurisdiction is not territorial. The US army is bound by American law no matter where the troops are. Besides, there is something called 'extradition laws' that were an option and, if you think he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial in the US, there are a number of international courts with jurisdiction to process him. The federal ruling that dismissed the ACLU's claim said the courts have no authority to override a decision made by the executive branch involved in an armed conflict... which is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling.
Congress is, first and foremost, bound by a Constitution that states no American citizen, even those living abroad, can be executed without prior court-mandated charges and judicial process. The government has not demonstrated how al-Awlaki's threat to American lives was in any way concrete, specific and imminent. The only thing they could demonstrate was 'incitement to violence', and propaganda never leads to military targeting or assassination.
I am not one to question a sworn testimony by law enforcement in a court of law. Sure, the eveidence was circumstantial relative to the case (which was not about al-Awlaki, but about Ali al-Timimi, who was being tried on conspiracy charges). The funny think is that the U.N. and other nations drew the same conclusion about al-Awlaki and his ties to al-Qeada.
His ties to al-Qaeda were there in plain sight. His involvement in the violent crimes for which the US government was charging him... that was not demonstrated.
Jack Hunter digs back the chillingly similar case of Richard Jewell, a man who was a suspect by the FBI of terrorism, wrongfully targeted due to bogus testimonies and flawed investigation.
Nice try. Point me where there is a resolution or treaty that grants states the power to kill suspects of terrorism extra-judicially and in contravention to their national laws.
All along, you and others have been insisting that the Obama Administration has violated or broken some law, be it constitutional or international.
There is no 'me and others'. Right now, you are talking exclusively to me. Until this point, I have never said that. You are more than welcome to point it to me, of course. I even said most of the legal provisions for Obama to act like that exist since 9/11. There are numerous loopholes and expansions of the powers of the military and the executive order. My point is that it's a damn can of worms and the President is abusing the powers of his office by not disclosing the details around the kill of an American suspect overseas.
Yes, currently the President has the legal authority to assassinate American citizens if he’s declared them an enemy combatant in the War on Terror. No, he should not do it and the provisions that allow the WH to do must be abolished on the ground of unconstitutionality.
Now you are trying to look past the legality and insinuate conspiracy due to the reluctance to tell all.
I am not insinuating anything, I am outright saying it. There is no denying there was a cover-up, a communication disaster on the part of the WH. Trials could have been held behind closed doors, harmless data could have been provided... but they chose to do neither. They looked back at all the mistakes during the disclosure of Bin Laden's ludicrous killing and decided to withhold information from the American press corps. It is a flagrant abuse of power that an office from the federal intelligence community can target you an me as terrorists and have us killed with nothing more than presidential authorization and not even disclose any relevant evidence of the alleged national security threat. I'm sorry, but what amount of partisanship can justify this?
Suffice it to say that al-Awlaki was already a convicted criminal
I know. They also have the legal backing to deem political opponents and foreign political enemies as suspects of terrorism and be justified by their unconstitutional military initiative (that you like to call 'war') to take them out without even proving such claims to the public.
It's a great day to be American.
In early 2010, the director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, told a congressional hearing that the U.S. was prepared to kill Americans affiliated with al-Qaida, without mentioning al-Awlaki by name.
"If we think that direct action will involve killing an American, we get specific permission to do that," by which he meant authority from the executive branch, not the courts.
Blair said the military and intelligence agencies had authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad who were engaged in terrorism if their activities threatened Americans. Since then, U.S. officials have said that al-Awlaki's role in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had shifted from propagandist to operational tactician and strategist.
If you mean that the US overreacted to 9/11 by invading two nations, one of whom was completely unrelated to al-Qaeda or 9/11 and posed no immediate threats, and forsook its values by torturing and indefinitely locking up "enemy combatants?"
I'd agree.
If you mean that going after terrorists who want to kill Americans is as silly and meaningless as busting potheads, I strongly disagree. Terrorist cells that are committed to kill Americans have proven on the US Cole, the embassy bombings and, of course, 9/11 that they are very capable of doing so. Our government in charge of securing the nation should work to make sure such organizations are dismantled or greatly marginalized. Not through nation building and occupation, but by policing, law enforcement, and (if need be) targeted, strategic and surgical strikes.
Al-Awlaki declared war on America. You may consider that a "joke," but he joined an organization that has murdered thousands of Americans and took credit in playing a role in two failed terrorist attacks on US soil. He was at war with his home country and to shrug that off is asinine, in my opinion.
The war on drugs is more than just busting potheads. I'm not shrugging off anything. We should be keeping track of terrorists. The war on terror is a joke because of the way it's handled. In that video Arya posted, the Administration has "proof" but isn't going to show us. That sounds alot like we had proof Iraq had WMDs, but we're not going to show anybody. I thought Obama was going to have a more transparent administration. We shouldn't shrug off al-Awlaki's death as he's just a terrorist and a traitor. This is something we should question.
Raúl Reyes and his successor, Iván Ríos, were killed in March, 2008. Before that the reported attacks from FARC were two on '06 and three on '07, with a total of 26 dead and 52 injured. After Reyes death, the number of attacks raised. Sure, in '08 and '09 there were only seven attacks, with 38 dead and 49 injured... but in 2010 the FARC killed at least 460 members of the security forces, while wounding more than 2,000.
I don't understand how can you say that was an improvement in any way.
'Common sense' based on simplified and limited knowledge is not common sense at all. Insurgency leadership and recruitment in highly unstable areas cannot be bombed away easily. With so many different factors in play, more counter-intuitive approaches may be more helpful.
I am not very well versed on this issue, but I can say that there was a treaty and peace negotiations up until 2005. The period between 2002 and 2005, though, FARC was supposedly in strategic withdraw. Attacks did occur, but on a smaller scale than in 2010. In addition, there may have been some aid/training of the rebels by bordering nation, Venezuela. The attacks did not peak until 2010, when Colombian authorities engaged the FARC rebels. It is not even certain that the high number of casualties can even be attributed to retaliation by the rebels as a result of the deaths of their leaders. I think you have created a straw-man argument here. Yes, common sense will tell you that if you don't place rules for your self, and you have the capability, you can bomb your opponent to the stone age
He wouldn't have received a fair trial since his hatred for America is public knowledge (he's published it everywhere he could), he is a Muslim, and he already had the media against him. The U.S. was authorized to take him out and a Yemen judged wanted him dead or alive. The two nations worked together to perform the former.
Ugh, this is getting tiresome... American jurisdiction is not territorial. The US army is bound by American law no matter where the troops are. Besides, there is something called 'extradition laws' that were an option and, if you think he wouldn't have gotten a fair trial in the US, there are a number of international courts with jurisdiction to process him. The federal ruling that dismissed the ACLU's claim said the courts have no authority to override a decision made by the executive branch involved in an armed conflict... which is a blatantly unconstitutional ruling.
Congress is, first and foremost, bound by a Constitution that states no American citizen, even those living abroad, can be executed without prior court-mandated charges and judicial process. The government has not demonstrated how al-Awlaki's threat to American lives was in any way concrete, specific and imminent. The only thing they could demonstrate was 'incitement to violence', and propaganda never leads to military targeting or assassination.
His ties to al-Qaeda were there in plain sight. His involvement in the violent crimes for which the US government was charging him... that was not demonstrated.
Wrong. The U.S. constitution and laws do not apply to a person (or for that matter a U.S. person) in another nation. To say that it does goes against the sovereignty of that nation and is nonsense. There have been court cases that has said as such.
Jack Hunter digs back the chillingly similar case of Richard Jewell, a man who was a suspect by the FBI of terrorism, wrongfully targeted due to bogus testimonies and flawed investigation.
Nice try. Point me where there is a resolution or treaty that grants states the power to kill suspects of terrorism extra-judicially and in contravention to their national laws.
I already did. U.N. Resolution 1373 says that a state may do what is necessary to fight terrorism. That does not exclude war. Now what they can not do is kill a head of state.
There is no 'me and others'. Right now, you are talking exclusively to me. Until this point, I have never said that. You are more than welcome to point it to me, of course. I even said most of the legal provisions for Obama to act like that exist since 9/11. There are numerous loopholes and expansions of the powers of the military and the executive order. My point is that it's a damn can of worms and the President is abusing the powers of his office by not disclosing the details around the kill of an American suspect overseas.
Yes, currently the President has the legal authority to assassinate American citizens if hes declared them an enemy combatant in the War on Terror. No, he should not do it and the provisions that allow the WH to do must be abolished on the ground of unconstitutionality.
Well, then there is not need to further debate this since you already agree, and yes, there are others who share the opinion that he broke international law.
I am not insinuating anything, I am outright saying it. There is no denying there was a cover-up, a communication disaster on the part of the WH. Trials could have been held behind closed doors, harmless data could have been provided... but they chose to do neither. They looked back at all the mistakes during the disclosure of Bin Laden's ludicrous killing and decided to withhold information from the American press corps. It is a flagrant abuse of power that an office from the federal intelligence community can target you an me as terrorists and have us killed with nothing more than presidential authorization and not even disclose any relevant evidence of the alleged national security threat. I'm sorry, but what amount of partisanship can justify this?
There actually is no conspiracy since they came out and said that they killed him. They don't have to declare anyone a combatant to take them out on the (proverbial) battlefield.
The U.S. government trusted them enough to go into their airspace and take this guy out. I seriously doubt they were untrustworthy. That's a matter of unfounded opinion.
I know. They also have the legal backing to deem political opponents and foreign political enemies as suspects of terrorism and be justified by their unconstitutional military initiative (that you like to call 'war') to take them out without even proving such claims to the public.
It's a great day to be American.
I think you have created a straw-man argument here. Yes, common sense will tell you that if you don't place rules for your self, and you have the capability, you can bomb your opponent to the stone age.
Of course you can bomb anyone if you are legally and materially allowed, but that wasn't your argument. Your argument is that it yields results, which I totally contest. I happen to be somewhat familiar with Latin America and the US has been helping governments to target rebel leaders there for most of the 20th Century. They did it with the FARC, with the Sandinistas (the Contra scandal). It didn't help. Yes, it is a setback for any rebel group but on longer terms the merits of this strategy are disputed by a great number of specialists, especially in the Middle East where martyrdom is so revered among radicals.
He wouldn't have received a fair trial since his hatred for America is public knowledge (he's published it everywhere he could), he is a Muslim, and he already had the media against him. The U.S. was authorized to take him out and a Yemen judged wanted him dead or alive. The two nations worked together to perform the former.
Kudos, you succeeded in avoiding the question once more. It would have been fairer than getting killed by collaborating governments. It would have been fairer than getting terminated without any public evidence. Other posters have noted this, why don't you?
Even if the Yemeni government collaborated, that didn't stop the killing of Bin Laden without consultation of the Pakistani government.
Wrong. The U.S. constitution and laws do not apply to a person (or for that matter a U.S. person) in another nation. To say that it does goes against the sovereignty of that nation and is nonsense. There have been court cases that has said as such.
No, you are wrong and making baseless statements. Jurisdiction depends on several variables, like fundamental rights, and goes beyond the territory of the state. You could be right about lack of jurisdiction if Yemen was the sole author of the operation, but the US was a party, and the US must operate, no matter where, according to the its Constitution and those parts of international law that does not conflict with it, like treaties ratified by the US.
The US government cannot break a principle of the Constitution through a loophole that enables the President to target American citizens (anywhere!) without proof. The Constitution not only protects a US citizen, but also binds the Government's actions. The Fifth Amendment says in part: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentmen*t or indictment of a Grand Jury…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…”. It doesn't say "no citizen", it says "no person".
By your logic, anyone on vacation, anyone in the military overseas, or otherwise working overseas have all renounced their citizenshi*p. Because if you do not have constituti*onal rights, you are not a citizen. So I guess we do not need our passports. Foreign government*s can also do as they please to any American overseas since they are no longer protected Americans with rights.
Obama has set an ultra-dangerous precedent that can that may be used by a roguish president. Imagine a future repetition of G.W. Bush... would you feel safe outside the United States?
Al-Awlaki's case is not the same as Richard Jewel's. Not at all.
It is a Security Council Resolution and you are misquoting it, since it says: "by all means, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations". Furthermore, the part you are referring to is a preambulatory clause that has a not-binding nature. The binding part comes after the Decides to, in the operative clauses, which say:
1. Decides that all States shall:
“(a) Prevent and suppress the financing of terrorist acts;
“(b) Criminalize the wilful provision or collection, by any means, directly or indirectly, of funds by their nationals or in their territories with the intention that the funds should be used, or in the knowledge that they are to be used, in order to carry out terrorist acts;
“(c) Freeze without delay funds and other financial assets or economic resources of persons who commit, or attempt to commit, terrorist acts or participate in or facilitate the commission of terrorist acts; of entities owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons; and of persons and entities acting on behalf of, or at the direction of such persons and entities, including funds derived or generated from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly by such persons and associated persons and entities;
“(d) Prohibit their nationals or any persons and entities within their territories from making any funds, financial assets or economic resources or financial or other related services available, directly or indirectly, for the benefit of persons who commit or attempt to commit or facilitate or participate in the commission of terrorist acts, of entities owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by such persons and of persons and entities acting on behalf of or at the direction of such persons;
“2. Decides also that all States shall:
“(a) Refrain from providing any form of support, active or passive, to entities or persons involved in terrorist acts, including by suppressing recruitment of members of terrorist groups and eliminating the supply of weapons to terrorists;
“(b) Take the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts, including by provision of early warning to other States by exchange of information;
“(c) Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support, or commit terrorist acts, or provide safe havens;
“(d) Prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other States or their citizens;
“(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;
“(f) Afford one another the greatest measure of assistance in connection with criminal investigations or criminal proceedings relating to the financing or support of terrorist acts, including assistance in obtaining evidence in their possession necessary for the proceedings;
“(g) Prevent the movement of terrorists or terrorist groups by effective border controls and controls on issuance of identity papers and travel documents, and through measures for preventing counterfeiting, forgery or fraudulent use of identity papers and travel documents;
“3. Calls upon all States to:
“(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;
“(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;
“(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;
“(d) Become parties as soon as possible to the relevant international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism, including the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism of 9 December 1999;
“(e) Increase cooperation and fully implement the relevant international conventions and protocols relating to terrorism and Security Council resolutions 1269 (1999) and 1368 (2001);
“(f) Take appropriate measures in conformity with the relevant provisions of national and international law, including international standards of human rights, before granting refugee status, for the purpose of ensuring that the asylum seeker has not planned, facilitated or participated in the commission of terrorist acts;
“(g) Ensure, in conformity with international law, that refugee status is not abused by the perpetrators, organizers or facilitators of terrorist acts, and that claims of political motivation are not recognized as grounds for refusing requests for the extradition of alleged terrorists;
“4. Notes with concern the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security;
“5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations;
“6. Decides to establish, in accordance with rule 28 of its provisional rules of procedure, a Committee of the Security Council, consisting of all the members of the Council, to monitor implementation of this resolution, with the assistance of appropriate expertise, and calls upon all States to report to the Committee, no later than 90 days from the date of adoption of this resolution and thereafter according to a timetable to be proposed by the Committee, on the steps they have taken to implement this resolution;
“7. Directs the Committee to delineate its tasks, submit a work programme within 30 days of the adoption of this resolution, and to consider the support it requires, in consultation with the Secretary-General;
“8. Expresses its determination to take all necessary steps in order to ensure the full implementation of this resolution, in accordance with its responsibilities under the Charter;
“9. Decides to remain seized of this matter.”
Pal, I already cleared this up for you in a previous post. I said:
"Have you even read UN R-1373? It only addresses necessary actions to prevent terrorism, taken by local sovereign states and predominantly by freezing funds, confiscating assets, denying safe haven, enforcing border control, cooperating with other states in their identification... it even grants terrorist suspects the ability to seek asylum as political refugees (with certain limitations), as long as it falls under the provisions of international human rights standards, but states that those laws will not interfere with extradition requests (clause 3.f-g).
Operative clause 2-e) specifically exhorts to: "Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice..." "
So, you can quit ignoring me and actually read what I say.
There actually is no conspiracy since they came out and said that they killed him. They don't have to declare anyone a combatant to take them out on the (proverbial) battlefield.
The main reason of why the US opposes an international war crimes court.
The conspiracy is that the evidence that branded a US citizen as an 'enemy combatant' was never disclosed. Maybe it didn't exist. It is too much of a coincidence that as soon as the US government declared the killing of Americans legal if they were proved to participate in violent terrorist actions, the government changed al-Awlaki's classification from 'propagandist' to 'operational tactician and strategist'. Even my 5-year old nephew could see that switcheroo, and you are telling me there is no conspiracy??
The U.S. government trusted them enough to go into their airspace and take this guy out. I seriously doubt they were untrustworthy. That's a matter of unfounded opinion.
One thing has nothing to do with another. Augusto Pinochet, Somoza, the Shah of Iran, Mubarak, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia... Here you have a list of dictators the US could rely on to operate in their countries, but incarcerated innocent people by the thousands.
But they can't kill heads of state. That would be in violation of international law.
Clearly you jest. International law has never stopped us. The CIA has a long and documented track record of head-of-state assasination plots, both successful and not. The US has denied involvement in this and it still eventually comes to light. Yamamoto, Castro, you name it.
On April, the US tried to kill Muammar Gaddafi, using bombs. According to the government, the airstrike was legal because American law makes it allows to kill the innocent when bombs miss, so long as no named individual was targeted. They rejected the idea of targetting Ghaddafi and went along with it.
It was not the first time Gaddafi had been targeted by a bomb. Reagan authorized another on during operation 'El Dorado Canyon'.
The problem of legality is that US law is not without contradictions. Political assassination is criminal in the US. In 1976, president Ford issued Executive Order 12333, banning the CIA from political assassination... but then came G.W. Bush and relaxed it with an executive order of his own.
Nowadays, the problem is that targeted killings in self-defense have been authoritatively determined by the federal government (and several federal judges) to fall outside the assassination prohibition. But when you withhold evidence from the courts proving the targets indeed represented imminent threat to the US... well, it violates due process and it does become illegal.
* The US trained, armed and funded islamic militants in Afghanistan in the 80′s to draw them into a proxy war with the USSR. Osama Bin Laden was among those militants.
* Osama was also trained in the US.
* Many US officials in high places have close personal and business relationships with the Bin Laden family, and have had for decades.
* The US has an extremely appeasing, strategically imperative and profitable relationship with the Islamic dictatorship of Saudi Arabia.
* The CIA and ISI shared an extremely close relationship in the creation of the Afghan Mujaheddin, and the handling of their asset Bin Laden.
* The ONLY publicly known account of Al Queda as a functioning organization, it’s structure and even it’s name before 9/11 is the testimony of a so called Al Queda operative who turned himself in after the Kenya US embassy bombings and who is widely regarded as having given false information to help clasify Al Queda as an organization to fit with current RICO laws for prosecuting international criminal syndicates. He is also known to have recieved a lot of money for his testimony.
* The only evidence actually linking Bin Laden to 9/11 in any way is a video confession which surfaced many years after 2001, was not confirmed by ‘Al Queda’ and is widely suspected of being a fraud. That, and the testimony of a Gtmo. inmate tortured for years and thus completely unreliable.
* The US has used ‘Terrorism’ as a trigger for military presence and actions in the Middle East and Central Asia, an area Obama’s top advisor Zbigniew Brezinski writes in his book as being of pivotal importance to the continuity of US power.
* The US has used ‘Terrorism’ as a trigger for the privatization of defense infrastructure at home and abroad (i.e. Blackwater Security, Aegis Defence Services, all with ongoing contracts during the Obama administration)
* The US has used ‘Terrorism’ as an excuse to strangle civil liberties and democratic freedoms. (i.e. the Patriot Act, renewed during the Obama administration)
* The US installed the Karzai ‘government’ at a time of it’s choosing.
* Under US occupation Afghanistan now supplies over 90% of the world’s heroin. The world’s most dangerous and addictive narcotic. The Taliban had outlawed and eradicated production. Post-taliban rise of opiates smuggling led the US to start the expensive and ineffective Operation Containment. Obama fed further the drug trade with his Afghanistan troop surge in 2009.
* The US is now known to have manipulated evidence and the public on a grand scale (WMDs) as a pretext for an unconstitutional invasion of a country for strategic purposes, causing civil war and immense casualties. President Obama failed to withdraw all US forces from Iraq and even ordered a surge in Afghanistan.
* The Obama administration refuse to show Osama bin Laden's body and retreated back step by step with their official story of what happened in the Pakistan raid. (first there was an intense gun battle, then we knew the enemies didn’t fire a single shot... first Osama used his wife as a human shield and fired on his attackers... then it turned out she tried to protect him and he was executed unarmed.)
* Obama's director of national intelligence, Dennis Blair, told a congressional hearing in 2010 that the U.S. was prepared to kill Americans affiliated with al-Qaida, without mentioning al-Awlaki by name, if their activities threatened Americans. Since then, U.S. officials have said that al-Awlaki's role in al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) had shifted from propagandist to operational tactician and strategist. Convenient coincidence.
* Anwar al-Awlaki is killed without any of the mistakes in the Osama kill. This time the administration cooperated with the local government, refused to talk to the press to avoid mistakes, and showed no evidence of the accusations pinned on al-Awlaki. Every legal concern surrounding his American citizenship was said to be solved by presidential authority with no consultation with an American or international court.
But no, there are no grounds for suspecting foul play. Bush and Obama covered their ***** legally and that is all that matters. We should all forget it and sleep quietly.
What both these reporters fail to admit is that Nidal Hassan was within the United States and is subject to the U.S. Constitution until it is proven that he either performed an act of treason or not. If proven so, he would be subject to the law of war. The nuance with Awlaqi, is that he is considered an expatriate under section 349 Immigration and Naturalization Act since he inspired persons to perform acts of terror against Americans, against the American government, and recruited members into Al Qaeda. These actions indicated that he voluntarily forfeited his U.S. citizenship and became an enemy combatant in the war on terror, which made him fair game to be taken out.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
