US approves killing US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

US approves killing US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

news.bbc.co.uk

The US government has authorised the capture or killing of radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, currently based in Yemen, officials have confirmed.

The cleric, who is a US citizen, is being targeted for his involvement in planning attacks on the US.

Mr Awlaki was linked to the attempted bombing of an airliner bound for the US and a shooting on a US Army base.

US officials have warned that Yemen is becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda militants.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Al-Awlaki certainly sounds like a dangerous man; if everything this article says about him is true it's hardly surprising the US govt has taken this stance. The main question has to be: should a US citizen be able to expect a fair trial rather than assassination by his government security forces? It could be argued the current approach is trial by media (in the absence of the accused).



news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

So this is sort of a resurgence of the old "Wanted: Dead or Alive" days of the American old West.

Why not plop a bounty on their heads... you know that organized military corporations like Blackwater.. oops Xe, and others will be out there in the world playing out the Hollywood script.

Too bad really, I preferred the days when the government wanted to bring people to justice above all, not just kill them.

Change we will be forced to believe in!

Muslims are being used as the door opening govt. sponsorded murder without a trial to american citizens.

And so it starts!

reply to post by pause4thought


If he wants a trial, there's an easy way to get one: surrender. If he wants to resist capture by hiding amongst a bunch of militants in a foreign land, I suppose that my sympathy is rather limited. Its his choice to make and most anyone would realize the potential consequences of choosing the latter option.

reply to post by vor78


I think you put your case very well. Are you entirely satisfied the accused would receive a fair trial were he to give himself up — especially in the light of this kind of announcement?

Security forces have been known to get things wrong (—dodgy dossiers & WMD show the potential for bungled intelligence, for starters).

reply to post by pause4thought


Personally, I doubt he'd receive a fair trial, regardless of whether this order had been made public or not.

That being said, the question is whether or not he should receive a trial and in reality, if he wants a trial, he can get one if he surrenders. Can I guarantee that the fix won't be in? Nope, but I can't guarantee that even in a domestic petty crime trial.

I find myself unmoved on his behalf.

You # with the bull you get the horns.

He's the same one that Hasan listened to before he massacred the soldiers at Ft Hood. I say kill him if you can. Anyone who wants to murder Americans and start Jihad War against them aren't true Americans IMO.

reply to post by vor78


Good point. Of course we're going on the assumption he denies the charges.

Here's a starting point to trying and get to the facts:

l-Awlaki's father, Nasser, proclaimed his son's innocence in an interview with CNN's Paula Newton, saying: "I am now afraid of what they will do with my son. He's not Osama bin Laden, they want to make something out of him that he's not." As to his son's whereabouts, responding to a Yemeni officials' claims that he was hiding in in the southern mountains of Yemen with al-Qaeda to elude the manhunt for him, Nasser said: "He's dead wrong. What do you expect my son to do? There are missiles raining down on the village. He has to hide. But he is not hiding with al-Qaeda; our tribe is protecting him right now."

The Awlaq tribe is large and powerful, with a number of connections to the Yemeni government. "He has been wrongly accused, it's unbelievable. He lived his life in America; he's an all-American boy", said his father.

The Yemeni government is negotiating with tribal leaders, trying to convince them to hand al-Awlaki over. Reportedly, Yemeni authorities offered guarantees they would not turn al-Awlaki over to the U.S. or let it question him if he surrenders. Shabwa's governor, Ali al-Ahmadi, said in January 2010 that al-Awlaki was on the move with a group of al-Qaida elements from Shabwa, including Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso, who is wanted in connection with the October 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, which killed 17 American sailors off the coast of Yemen.

Meanwhile, in January 2010 White House lawyers were reportedly considering the legality of proposed attempts to kill al-Awlaki, since he is an American citizen; opportunities to do so "may have been missed" because of legal questions surrounding such an attack. But on February 4, 2010, The New York Daily News reported that al-Awlaki "is now on a targeting list signed off on by the Obama administration." On April 6, 2010, the New York Times reported that President Obama had ordered the assassination of al-Awlaki.

The United States has an active "dead or alive" bounty on al-Awlaki.

Source

Judging by his reported writings† he's the real deal. But the question still remains: can we happily accept someone's death on the back of trial-by-media?



†

Written works

44 Ways to Support Jihad—Essay (January 2009)—Writes: "The hatred of kuffar [those who reject Islam] is a central element of our military creed," and asserts that all Muslims must participate in Jihad in person, by funding it, or by writing. Says all Muslims must remain physically fit, and train with firearms "to be ready for the battlefield."

Al-Awlaki has also written for Jihad Recollections, an English language online publication published by Al-Fursan Media, an apparent collaboration of online terrorist sympathizers.

Allah Is Preparing Us for Victory - a short book written by Al-Awlaki, 2009.

(Source as above)

Got no sympathy for him. As one said he can turn himself in, but I have seen some of his videos denouncing westerners and saying that Allah has chosen to purge all western culture. Pay attention Britain, they are all in your country. Religious radical through and through. Really would prefer them to pull out of these countries and start retaliating if something was to happen. Really and honestly, if they would put out bounties on these guys heads and the governments of these countries could collect them, I wouldn't be against it at all. It would be alot better than the current bomb everything, see who we killed later approach we have been doing.

but...but...he is an American...all Americans are holy...

just goes to show you that the bit of land you were plopped out on matters not, its what form of mental illness you choose to identify with that truely counts.

reply to post by pause4thought


In all seriousness I do not see a white flag likely.
Lets look at the mans own recent calls to violence...

The American-born Muslim cleric who may have inspired the gunman in the Fort Hood massacre has a message for other American Muslims: turn against your country.

In a 12-minute audio message obtained by CNN, Anwar Al-Awlaki of Yemen calls his former country "evil" and praised Army Maj. Nidal Hasan, who has been charged with gunning down 13 people in Fort Hood last year.

"To the Muslims in America, I have this to say: How can your conscience allow you to live in peaceful co-existence with a nation that is responsible for the tyranny and crimes committed against your own brother and sisters?" Al-Awlaki says in the message, according to CNN.

www.nydailynews.com...

Pause, thanks for the OP
S&F








[edit on 7-4-2010 by burntheships]

I think it is strange that they act like this is new. Two days before the underwear bomber tryed to blow himself up on a plane they did a drone attack on Anwar al-Awlaki and the government declared him dead only for him to popup shortly after the underwear bomber got caught and said he was still alive and helped train the underwear bomber.

pibillwarner.wordpress.com... they-worked-on-suicide-vests-merry-christmas-usa/

I would like to see a Grand Jury Indictment based on solid evidence before ANY operation to capture this man goes forward. It is the American way. If he resists capture then what ever happens, happens. This way we're not opening the door to assassinate American Citizens.

Without the proper procedures the following violations of the Constitution will have taken place:

Violation of Trial by Jury.
Depravation of life under the conditions set forth in the 4th Amendment.
Violation of the Cruel and Unusual clause.
Violation of the right to proper representation.
Violation of the right to face his accuser and/or see evidence held against him.
And a whole number of Federal Statutes.

There is a right and wrong way to get the same job done. If you believe in the Constitution then none of this should be a problem for you.

However, the Constitution still permits the issue of letters of marque. Which this is.

Not that this doesn't happen anyway, he's just being more honest about it than most presidents.

Now I'll be the first to admit I don't know the whole story... none of us know anything more than we can find on the internet BUT if you declare or participate in a war (jihad) on someone, are they not allowed to kill you back?

If he is what they say he is then # him. The US government has had no problem killing American citizen criminals for much less. If you are wanted and resist you get dead, works the same if it's the feds after you or the local sheriff.

reply to post by Bedlam


Wiki

Article 1 of the United States Constitution lists issuing letters of marque and reprisal in Section 8 as one of the enumerated powers of Congress, alongside the power to "declare War," and because the United States has not renounced privateering by treaty, in theory it could still issue Letters of Marque. However, the only vessel to operate under a letter of marque issued by the United States Congress since the War of 1812 was the airship Resolute, operated by civilians to patrol the seas for submarines during the Second World War (see Airship, § World_War_II).[25]


The issue of marque and reprisal was raised before Congress after the September 11, 2001 attacks[26] and again on July 21, 2007, by Congressman Ron Paul. The attacks were defined as acts of "air piracy", and the Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001 was introduced, which would have granted the president the authority to use letters of marque and reprisal against the specific terrorists, instead of warring against a foreign state. The terrorists were compared to pirates in that they are difficult to fight by traditional military means.[27] Congressman Paul also advocated the use of letters of marque to address the issue of Somali pirates operating in the Gulf of Aden on April 15, 2009. However, the bills Congressman Paul introduced were not enacted into law.

reply to post by ventian

Got no sympathy for him.

Nobody in their right mind has.

But just stop & think for a moment. What separates the US from the vile regimes of this world that hold their citizens without charge or murder them as they see fit? It's worth thinking about. The right to a fair trial ought to be sacrosanct.

...Without it you create just the kind of society the jihadists are pushing for.

I guess the question is - can the President issue a letter of marque with a PD or EO? The Congress could deny it after the fact, but I'm not sure that he can't do it.

Other sitting presidents have issued PDs to do all sorts of things, including things quite like this. You just don't hear about it because the juicier ones are classified, but when you hear about SF teams going into Pakistan to whack specific people, it's under a PD.