From CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/09/30/501364/main20113732.shtml
Anwar al-Awlaki killed in Yemen
Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born radical Islamic preacher who rose to the highest level of al Qaeda's franchise in Yemen, has been killed.
Al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico, has been linked to al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula's (AQAP) attempted bombing of a U.S. passenger jet over Detroit on Christmas day, 2009, and was thought to be a leader of the group.
A U.S. government official confirms to CBS News senior security correspondent David Martin that al-Awlaki was killed. Yemen's Defense Ministry was first to tell CBS News of the strike, but given previous reports which turned out to be erroneous, the relatively rapid U.S. confirmation is crucial, and bolsters witness accounts that it was a U.S. drone strike that killed the al Qaeda figure.
A statement from Yemen's foreign press office said the al Qaeda suspect "was targeted and killed 8 KM (about 5 miles) from the town of Khashef in the Province of Jawf, 140KM (about 80 miles) east of the Capital Sana'a."
Al-Arabiya television network cited local tribal sources as saying suspected U.S. drone aircraft - which are known to operate in Yemen - fired two missiles Friday at a convoy of vehicles believed to be carrying al-Awlaki and his guards.
Yemen has risen in recent years to the top of the threat list for U.S. security officials - with AQAP seen as the most active branch of the global terror network in planning attacks against the U.S. homeland.
Al-Awlaki was believed to be a prominent member of the group, taking some role in the planning of actual terror plots, in addition to his role as a religious adviser and powerful recruiting officer. His clear English, American roots, and powerful speaking skills are believed to have attracted many young Muslims from within the U.S. to the cause of jihad.
He reportedly met directly with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the 19-year-old Nigerian who attempted to blow up the flight to Detroit in 2009, when the young man traveled for training to Yemen.
Al-Awlaki's voluminous online preaching, in both video and print form, is also thought to have inspired Ft. Hood shooter Nidal Hasan, who made email contact with the preacher before carrying out his attack.
His death will deal AQAP a serious blow, but Ben Venzke, who heads intelligence contracting group IntelCenter in the Washington area, says it does not seriously diminish the threat posed by the al Qaeda franchise.
"AQAP remains one of the most dangerous al Qaeda regional arms both in its region and for the direct threat it poses to the U.S. following three recent failed attacks," said Venzke, who monitors jihadi propaganda for myriad U.S. government agencies. "AQAP leader Nasir al-Wuhayshi, who is responsible for expanding the group's focus to conduct attacks on U.S. soil, remains in charge of the group and further attempts to conduct attacks in the U.S. are expected."
are you happy about this? Despite my kidding opener I really do want to know. I could see you being opposed to an undeclared drone war in Yemen, or Obama ordering a "hit" on an American citizen abroad. So please clarify.
Personally, I'm happy about it. This guy was the single most visible and charismatic Al Queda leader in the world. Since the death of Bin Laden, the AQAP was the most active and effective branch of that operation and was using the instability of Yemen to threaten the government there and build a new version of pre-911 Afghanistan.
I just hope the other two terrorists killed with Al-Awlaki were bigwigs, too, and that the operation there has been crippled, at least for a while.
PS: I love you. Please zip a brick at me.
Yours Truly,
Officer Pup
After bin Laden was taken out, Bill Maher said, "my favorite new government program is sneaking up on religious zealots and shooting them in the face. Sorry Head Start, you're number two."
I agree. I just wish we could do the same thing to Christian religious fundies too. 
In all seriousness, there's a lot of things I don't like about Barack Obama, and I wish we would hurry up and get the fuck out of Iraq and Afghanistan, but overall, his foreign policy seems to be damn effective, and if this report is accurate, it shows the effectiveness of using drones, much to Mari's chagrin. It's a hell of a lot more cost effective than occupying a nation with boots on the ground, that's for damn sure.
Oh, I love you too, Nicky. Seriously.
-- Modified on 9/30/2011 6:59:19 AM
Thank's for the love. And for the clarification. Glad there are occasional things we can agree on. I hope Al-Awlaki and Bin Laden are occupying adjoining skewers as they roast in the fires of hell. Of course, I don't believe in hell or any of the other god-crap, but you get the picture.
The first, obvious point that getting these guys where they live is a great thing that should be cause for at least a mild celebration. The other is my only somewhat jokingly wish that a few drones would find their way into the lairs of some Christian Fundies as well. Then the two opposing fairy tale believers can fight over which version of hell is worse while roasting on those skewers you mention, and leave the rest of us the fuck alone.
Ok, pass me another brick please. lol
And what's so creepy about saying you love someone? In my view, this world could use a little more love, and not less.
Does it cause a little cognitive dissonance in expressing love while celebrating the assassination of religious zealots? Sure, but fuck it.
Oh, and Saint...I love you too. ::::Hugs!!!::::
Don't worry, Officer Pup loves you, too. I have more than enough bricks to keep you and GaGa winging them at Krazy Kat for a long time.
All kidding aside, agree with Willy 100%. Hopefully next time out, predator drone will take out motherfucker Ayman Al Zwahiri, Al Qaeda's new # 1. Preferably on Jewish holiday to demonstrate "wrath of God" against this vile "enemy of my people". After that, maybe use a drone against certain board "anti-semite"------------
------LMAO !
evil as Awlaki or Bin Laden and sends a drone or hit squad to take Willy out? You okay with that?
...but you didn't need to be so snotty about it. Well, looks like it's hugs for you too!
I have a problem with the US not administering Due Process here, particularly since this guy was a US citizen. They could and should have tried him in absentia first.
soil so he got due process before he got croaked. Awlaki's name and look made him seem like a foreigner and apparently it's okay to bomb an American's ass if he's on foreign soil.
I can just see Obama doing a cover of "Damn, it Feels Good to be a Gangsta."
Really, I don't mean to be flip, so here's my real answer. I think you've over-simplified it when you imply Obama (or any other President) "unilaterally decides." Yes, he makes the final decision. But he also gets a range of advice, including legal, from his circle of advisors. If he has smart and honest advisors they'll tell him about the legalities. In this case I don't doubt a discussion was had when Al Awlaki was put on the death list. Does that make them right? Not necessarily. In this case, I'm comfortable with the decision because the target had basically declared war on his own country and was tied to the underwear bomber, Maj. Hassan's killing spree in Texas and another group that was caught before it was able to do anything. Thus he was a clear and present danger.
Of course, it depends on the target. If Obama decided Krazy Kat was a clear and present danger and popped a drone in his ass I would object. Krazy Kat is only a danger to himself and gambler's blood pressure.
Thus giving up his "due process" rights.
I sincerely hope he's currently frying in hell.
Lastly, pic below is NOT Of Krazy Kat's "Ignatz Mouse"--------
-- Modified on 9/30/2011 2:57:47 PM
Q: Do you know the last thing on al-Awlaki’s mind when that Hellfire struck?
.
.
.
.
.
.
A: his rectum
I'd hate to compare him to Al-Awlaki with mouska-ears. Annette Funicello's tits? Maybe. I mean when they were nice, young, perky tits. lol!
I'm sorry, you're wrong on this. Awlawi was a real jackass, and certainly deserved his fate, but the Rosenbergs were (supposedly) traitors too, but they still got a trial. Hell, we even tried the Nazis.
The only thing that protects any US citizen from a state official acting as judge, jury, and executioner is Due Process. That right is sacrosanct.
First of all, the Rosenbergs were here in the US so there was no need for the Al-Awlaki solution. With the Nazis we'd already captured the ones we put on trial. There was no realistic chance we could capture Al-Awlaki. I agree the right to due process is extremely important and am not totally comfortable with what has been done. But Al-Awlaki was a clear and present danger to the US and its citizens. We had a legitimate right of self defense in going after an avowed enemy in the field who was plotting further acts against us.
I guess the problem is that, in this new "shadow war" with stateless terrorists the old definitions are hard to apply.
He made Benedict Arnold look like a piker. Not Ethel, however. She had very little to do with giving A-bomb secrets to the Reds. Miscarriage of justice.
Authorization for Use of Military Force
September 18, 2001
Quote :
GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/terrorism/sjres23.es.html
-- Modified on 10/1/2011 3:38:20 PM
involving the Al-Awlaki killing:
There had been an intense debate among lawyers in the months before the Obama administration decided to put Mr. Awlaki on a target list in early 2010, and officials said that Mr. Khan was never on the list. The decision to make Mr. Awlaki a priority to be sought and killed was controversial, given his American citizenship. The American Civil Liberties Union, which fought unsuccessfully in the American court system to challenge the decision to target Mr. Awlaki, condemned the killing.
So, agree or disagree, there was a legal process involved. I agree with what was done because he clearly had an involvement with the Underwear Bomber, Maj. Hassan, the Times Square bomb plot and others. The only thing that can be argued about these is, should we believe the evidence the gov't. presented re these ties. I do. If you don't then there's nothing more to discuss.
whether this guy received any legal process at all - he did not - with whether the lawyers deemed it was "legal" to assassinate him in this manner.
Just like Bush deemed it was legal to torture detainees because he had a memo from John Yoo defining torture so extremely that only a near death experience would qualify, the Justice Dept lawyers determined it was legal to kill this guy in "self defense."
As one official is being quoted, Awlaki received the "due process of war." This is another way of saying that he received no legal process at all - they just decided to kill him and the Justice Dept said it was legal.
once again you are putting words in my mouth. I did not say Al-Awlaki himself "received any legal process" let alone "due process." I simply said there was "a" legal process by which the President made a determination that it was OK to kill him. I also didn't say it was a process without defect, just that there was a process, and it was not simply the President deciding to have him killed with no advice, debate or discussion from his legal advisors. Isn't it screamingly obvious that Al-
Awlaki didn't get his "day in court?" In this case it seems like you are arguing simply for the sake of argument and making unwarranted assumptions. Just like real lawyer.
The only apt thing in your entire post was to compare it to the John Yoo memo's argument about the use of torture.
a killing without legal process. You said “there was a legal process involved” and mentioned the discussion of the lawyers. So I did think you were treating this “discussion” as a form of process afforded the victim.
If you meant something other than you said- great. But it sounds like you agree with me and Ron Paul – the victim, an American citizen, received no legal process at all. They just decided to kill him based on purely hearsay evidence.
Simply saying "there was a legal process involved" and mentioning lawyers says only what it says: the legalities were discussed prior to the decision. It does not imply any "process" was afforded the victim. You read that in, and I do agree the "victim" received no legal process at all. I never said I thought he did. I also differ with Ron Paul in believing we were right to expunge this guy, legalities or not. And I'd say the evidence is more than mere "hearsay." In fact, Al-Awlaki was a self-admitted anti-American terrorist with blood on his hands. Personally, his confessions are all I need.
But, just to clarify, I am opposed to torture, including waterboarding. And not on legal or moral grounds, simply because it does not produce good intelligence despite Dick Cheney's retroactive claims to the contrary re the info that helped catch Bin Laden.
But, just to clarify, I am opposed to torture, including waterboarding. And not on legal or moral grounds, simply because it does not produce good intelligence despite Dick Cheney's retroactive claims to the contrary re the info that helped catch Bin Laden.
Quote :
Second, does the attack show that the U.S. government believes that al-Awlaki had no Fifth Amendment right to due process in this situation, such that deadly force could be used against him anywhere? I don’t know what government lawyers may have thought about this, but I’m very doubtful this is the case. Rather, I suspect that their view was that deadly force was only compatible with the 5th Amendment in this setting because al-Awlaki was located, purposefully, in a place where neither the host-state government nor the United States had a plausible opportunity to capture him (combined with his asserted operational role and the resultant premise that he posed an imminent threat to life).
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/09/al-awlaki-as-an-operational-leader-located-in-a-place-where-capture-was-not-possible/
Quote :
Remember, this is a person who:
1.is believed to be “part of” enemy forces within the meaning of the AUMF;
2.has been on notice for a lengthy period of time that he is regarded as such, is clearly aware of that, and has not only not denied it but actively taunted U.S. forces about their inability to get him;
3.has not made any attempt to surrender;
4.is believed to be playing an active, operational role in attacks against the United States; and
5.is camped out in a country that is unable to exercise civilian authority in the region in which he is located.
To insist that due process in such circumstances requires arrest and prosecution is to insist that due process requires tolerance of Al Aulaqi’s belligerency against us. Congress might, of course, attempt to create some alternative process to create oversight and judicial supervision of such targeting, but it has not done so. In the absence of any statutory framework, I am not uncomfortable with the notion that rigorous internal review of targeting decisions within the executive branch provides all of the process that is due. As I have argued before, Al Aulaqi had a option that would have removed him from the targeting list. He could have surrendered.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/09/what-process-is-due/
Quote :
I conclude that the threshold of armed conflict has been crossed in two relevant respects. First, it has been crossed in Yemen itself as between AQAP on one hand and the U.S. and Yemeni governments on the other. Second, it has been crossed as well with respect to the United States and the larger al Qaeda network – and not only within the geopolitical borders of Afghanistan. Building from these premises, I then proceed to consider whether al-Awlaki could be targeted consistent with IHL’s principle of distinction. I conclude that he can be if he is in fact an operational leader within AQAP, as this role would render him a functional combatant in an organized armed group.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1754223
-- Modified on 10/1/2011 3:41:18 PM
And even as a supposed "board liberal" it makes sense to me. The alternative would be a meaningless trial "in absentia," or to do nothing and let the guy plot to kill us and incite others to do so. What law would possibly force us to do that?
"treason" as levying war against the United States or giving aid to its enemies - which is exactly what this guy did- and then provides that one cannot be convicted of treason without confession of two witnesses in open court, and then provides that Congress has the power to declare punishment for treason.
Last time I looked, Congress had not declared that lawyers from the Executive Branch could decide to execute someone accused of treason. So while Congress has declared that the death penalty may be imposed on those "guilty" of treason, that guilt must be proved, not assumed as happened in this case.
The trial may be "meaningless" in your view but it is no more "meaningless" than the trial of any actual killer. The Constitution protects the guilty just like the innocent. Time for you to turn in your "board liberal" credentials.
Apparently not. But please explain, given the situation in Yemen, how the US was supposed to capture and try Al-Awlaki? The modern world, and the evolution of terrorism has changed things a lot from when the Constitution was written. The government's first obligation is to protect its citizens.
As for my liberal credentials, I didn't realize you'd appointed yourself the arbiter of who's allowed to keep them. But please let me know how I should turn mine in.
Bin Laden was the enemy , this "F"-head was a traitor !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
