The same U.S. military counterterrorism unit that got Osama bin Laden used a drone and jet strike in Yemen on Friday to kill the U.S.-born cleric suspected of inspiring or helping plan numerous attacks on the United States, including the Christmas 2009 attempt to blow up a jetliner, U.S. and Yemeni officials said.

He is also believed to be the one who inspired the Fort Hood massacre.

Rot in hell, baby. And thanks to our military for taking out the trash.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/501364/main20113732.shtml?tag=stack

I saw that this morning.... good news !!!

It is indeed good news that he's not around anymore. But is nobody troubled by the use of drones to assassinate a US citizen?

A drone is not an autonomous weapon. I was much more concerned about Waco.

When people believe in a idea so much that they make death an option, somethimes they get death.

It is indeed good news that he's not around anymore. But is nobody troubled by the use of drones to assassinate a US citizen?

Smacks of a lack of due process. I guess he should sue.

It is indeed good news that he's not around anymore. But is nobody troubled by the use of drones to assassinate a US citizen?

It may be reasonable to presume any drone discomfort felt gets tucked away in the same box many otherwise strong death penalty opponents used regarding the execution of McVeigh ... aka the 'ok, I'll give ya that one' box.

For all the pain and sorrow he brought upon others he got off easy. He probably never felt a thing.
Good riddance.

A drone is not an autonomous weapon. I was much more concerned about Waco.

When people believe in a idea so much that they make death an option, somethimes they get death.

I wasn't suggesting that a drone was autonomous. Only that we chose to kill a US citizen instead of try him.

Smacks of a lack of due process. I guess he should sue.

Indeed! I'm not really upset about him getting explodified, I'm just surprised that conservatives aren't berating the president for a perceived lack of consistency.

Smacks of a lack of due process. I guess he should sue.

Maybe he shouldn't stand where missiles are landing.

Indeed! I'm not really upset about him getting explodified, I'm just surprised that conservatives aren't berating the president for a perceived lack of consistency.

Why, did Obama take credit?

Indeed! I'm not really upset about him getting explodified, I'm just surprised that conservatives aren't berating the president for a perceived lack of consistency.

Actually, when Bush put this fella on the kill list, a lot of folks were pretty upset on both sides of the aisle. I really don't like it either. To think that the executive has the power to authorize the taking of a citizen's life without any sort of due process is pretty disturbing. It doesn't sound like there are any criteria, just that he was in some way deemed to be a threat.

He may actually have been a threat and I'm happy the guy is dead; it's just that this action shows a total disregard for the Constitution. It'd be nice if our gov't didn't think there were times when the Constitution doesn't apply.

I would think it would be common sense that if you work with Al Qaeda, you should expect something like this to happen. He was in Yemen, riding in a convoy of Al Qaeda operatives (an enemy of the US). I would compare it to an American riding in Yamato's plane when it was shot down.

He was in Yemen, riding in a convoy of Al Qaeda operatives (an enemy of the US).

Maybe we should just call it a botched rescue mission and be done with it.

I would think it would be common sense that if you work with Al Qaeda, you should expect something like this to happen. He was in Yemen, riding in a convoy of Al Qaeda operatives (an enemy of the US). I would compare it to an American riding in Yamato's plane when it was shot down.

Except that Yamato would be the target, not the American in the plane.

I have some concern about a US citizen not getting due process but this isn't a damned criminal matter. It is war. That being said, I admit that the trend concerns me and i know that is contradictory. And if someone wants to go further with the discussion, I suggest they start a new thread in the politics area. I put this in a current events secion, on purpose. Sad to say that when an enemy of this country - an American born, no less, who plotted and encouraged killing his fellow Americans - is killed it turns into a political discussion.

Why, did Obama take credit?

Given his heavy hand in the decision to do this thing this way he at least bears some responsibility.

I would think it would be common sense that if you work with Al Qaeda, you should expect something like this to happen. He was in Yemen, riding in a convoy of Al Qaeda operatives (an enemy of the US). I would compare it to an American riding in Yamato's plane when it was shot down.

Does simply being near or around an organization deemed to be terrorists give us a reason to end your life without due process? I can name a few organizations that are deemed terrorists by the fed but have done a lot of good, some of it with outside help.

Maybe we should just call it a botched rescue mission and be done with it.

lol

Smacks of a lack of due process. I guess he should sue.

I think he has already scheduled a strategy meeting with Johnny Cochran...

Given his heavy hand in the decision to do this thing this way he at least bears some responsibility.

From Wikipedia. It appears be all Obama.


The Yemeni government negotiated with tribal leaders, trying to convince them to hand al-Awlaki over.[74] Reportedly, Yemeni authorities offered guarantees they would not turn al-Awlaki over to the U.S. or let him be questioned.[74] The governor of Shabwa said in January 2010 that al-Awlaki was on the move with a group of al-Qaeda elements from Shabwa, including Fahd Mohammed Ahmed al-Quso, who is wanted in connection with the bombing of the USS Cole.[74]

In January 2010, White House lawyers considered the legality of attempting to kill al-Awlaki, given his U.S. citizenship. Reportedly, opportunities to do so "may have been missed" because of legal questions surrounding such an attack.[189] 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."[190]

"Terrorist No. 1, in terms of threat against us.”[20]

— Representative Jane Harman, (D-CA), Chairwoman of House Subcommittee on Homeland SecurityOn April 6, The New York Times also reported that President Obama had authorized the targeted killing of al-Awlaki.[20] The CIA and the U.S. military both maintain lists of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda and its affiliates who are approved for capture or killing.[20] Because he is a U.S. citizen, his inclusion on those lists was approved by the National Security Council.[20] U.S. officials said it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.[20] The New York Times reported that international law allows the use of lethal force against people who pose an imminent threat to a country, and U.S. officials said that was the standard used in adding names to the target list.[20] In addition, Congress approved the use of military force against al-Qaeda after 9/11.[20] People on the target list are considered military enemies of the U.S., and therefore not subject to a ban on political assassinations approved by former President Gerald Ford.[

Does simply being near or around an organization deemed to be terrorists give us a reason to end your life without due process? I can name a few organizations that are deemed terrorists by the fed but have done a lot of good, some of it with outside help.
We are talking about Al Qaeda here and it's not as if he was picked up as a hitchhiker by them. He was actively working with and aiding the enemy as one of them.

He had dual citizenship (US and Yemen). His Yemen side will have to explain to his US side what happened. Besides, what is the big deal? He is with his virgins isn't he?

Yeah . . . He's with his virgins . . .
But the part they don't tell you is that the virgins have to remain virgins throughout eternity.
On the bright side, there is an endless supply of young sheep and camels to which the restrictions don't apply.

He is with his virgins isn't he?

Negative, ghostrider.

The virgins are nuns with AK-47s.

Just a thought:

What if during our "war on communism" in SE Asia, we targeted all communists - everywhere? We would have had an excuse to assassinate Castro without the need for the 'covert' means that we tried. We could have just hit him in the streets of Havana and said he was a "communist operative" giving aid to Vietnam and therefore would have been a legitimate target. Hmmm... I don't think that would have played. To me, this whole thing is a slippery slope. "Operatives" is a term that can be played with pretty fast and loose.

It is indeed good news that he's not around anymore. But is nobody troubled by the use of drones to assassinate a US citizen?

Not one that declares war on the US

It is indeed good news that he's not around anymore. But is nobody troubled by the use of drones to assassinate a US citizen?

Troubled?
Not one bit.
Him meeting that drone was the best thing that ever happened to his miserable existence.

Just a thought:

What if during our "war on communism" in SE Asia, we targeted all communists - everywhere? We would have had an excuse to assassinate Castro without the need for the 'covert' means that we tried. We could have just hit him in the streets of Havana and said he was a "communist operative" giving aid to Vietnam and therefore would have been a legitimate target. Hmmm... I don't think that would have played. To me, this whole thing is a slippery slope. "Operatives" is a term that can be played with pretty fast and loose.

I'm looking forward to the "Downfall" Hitler parody on Youtube showing his--Hitler's--righteous anger at the flaunting of the Constitutional Principles of American Representative Republicanism (and democracy) involved in swatting this particular little treasonous fly speck. That and the spin that "The Onion" puts on it.

Whether or not he is/was a US citizen or not, he left the US and he actively recruited people to wage war against the US. He showed that he was able and willing to direct people to carry out mass murder against US citizens and soldiers on US soil. He hid out in a remote region of the world where the act of a US special forces mission would have united the locals to be even more against us. This was the only realistic and reasonable way to eliminate the enemy. This type of enemy wasn't even considered when the constitution was written. Perhaps it should be considered and accounted for in the law so there won't be any sense of doubt for future needs.

Lest we forget too soon . . .
(about the regard this [turd] had for The Constitution) . . .

dXEQgemMUe8

An Islamist agenda knows no country, constitution or borders. It only knows one thing and that anyone, no matter who you are, where you are, what religion you are or even if you are a devout Muslim, ANYONE who is not a true believer in their perverted religios sect should die. When one person is a true believer and is willing to die to be with his virgins, that one person can do great damage.

Indeed! I'm not really upset about him getting explodified, I'm just surprised that conservatives aren't berating the president for a perceived lack of consistency.

Not to worry.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/184767-ron-paul-criticizes-obama-for-drone-killing-of-awlaki

Given his heavy hand in the decision to do this thing this way he at least bears some responsibility.

Responsibility or credit? Anwar al-Awaki was a de facto enemy combatant by his own choice. C'est la guerre.

Just a thought:

What if during our "war on communism" in SE Asia, we targeted all communists - everywhere? We would have had an excuse to assassinate Castro without the need for the 'covert' means that we tried. We could have just hit him in the streets of Havana and said he was a "communist operative" giving aid to Vietnam and therefore would have been a legitimate target. Hmmm... I don't think that would have played. To me, this whole thing is a slippery slope. "Operatives" is a term that can be played with pretty fast and loose.

I think that is a slippery slope argument that misses the point that what we are talking about are whether he was an enemy combatant or a criminal defendant. I think we all can agree that war has changed from the old days but that does NOT mean we no longer have war. It is a little harder to find the edges, true. And yet, traditionally, no one thought twice about killing a soldier for the other side who might have been drafted unwillingly and that is surely no more unjust than exploding someone who has not only declared war on the United States, but who has taken concrete steps to attack her. There has always been a sharp line between criminality and war - but with the change in warfare, finding that line is a little harder, these days. But that doesn't mean we need to throw out the rules of war (generally intended to protect legitimate soldiers from brutality beyond death).

I am quite troubled, however, that this administration is okay with exploding someone but NOT okay with locking them up at Gitmo (where they may live to see another day) or enhanced interrogation methods (which have not included water boarding in quite some time and don't result in permanent injury). Not only are we losing intelligence by blowing them up, we are all aware that they don't take high profile prisoners because the only place they have to put them is Gitmo and, politically, it makes them look stupid. So they kill, instead. Which harms this country but that isn't their first concern.

Penny I don't believe they are blowing em up cause they don't want to take them alive...Believe it is just a tad bit more difficult getting to them in remote and well guarded areas...These guys move around all the time and when they don't (Bin Laden) they will send in Seals....Would have LOVED to take him in alive

Responsibility or credit? Anwar al-Awaki was a de facto enemy combatant by his own choice. C'est la guerre.

Responsibility or credit, depending on your opinion of the decision. I would be inclined to see it as a mix of the two.

Penny I don't believe they are blowing em up cause they don't want to take them alive...Believe it is just a tad bit more difficult getting to them in remote and well guarded areas...These guys move around all the time and when they don't (Bin Laden) they will send in Seals....Would have LOVED to take him in alive

I am sure that is part of it, Easy, but I never even thought of that until I read quite a few commenters some months ago discuss this concern. There is no doubt in my mind that they have adopted the strategy that a dead terrorist is less a political liability than a live one. And behave accordingly. If anything scares me, it is that mindset. I understand military utility and approve of it. Political expediency is a whole other thing and it should scare anyone. Most of us just say, "Good - glad he's dead - say hi to the virginis," and that is the end of our interest. I think they count on that, regardless of whether it is a military or a political strategy.

Out of curiosity, I wonder how many people have been captured since Obama took office. And where they are.

It is indeed good news that he's not around anymore. But is nobody troubled by the use of drones to assassinate a US citizen?


He is far from the first and almost certainly not the last US citizen to be killed by the US when serving with an a wartime opponent.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/

Food for thought:


The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans
By Conor Friedersdorf
The Department of Justice produced it prior to the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. But they won't release it.



Outside the U.S. government, President Obama's order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. "The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials," the newspaper reported. "The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said."

Isn't that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It's secret. Classified. Information that the public isn't permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they're asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn't a military secret. It isn't an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress' post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."

Obama hasn't just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It's time for the president who promised to create "a White House that's more transparent and accountable than anything we've seen before" to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, "The legal questions are far from clearcut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion." And then there's the fact that "a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department -- rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example -- had gone out the door along with the Bush administration," he adds. "But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution's restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers' arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine." What doesn't he want to get out?

Image credit: Reuters

This article available online at:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/