There is an article today in the NYT about a secret memo that states the legal case for assassinating Awlaki. While the memo hasn't been released the article gives a description of it. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/w...ade-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=1&hp The memo pretty much states what has been brought up here. That a US citizen can be assassinated if they are a member or working with an enemy that there is an authorization of force against and it is not feasible to capture them.
I don't think I disagree with that. What I find disconcerting is the idea that we just have to "believe" that evidence of such activity exists.
I agree we shouldn't and I am basing my judgement of the situation on what is known publicly about Awlaki. We know for a fact that he rhetorically supports Al Qaeda and claims allegiance to its cause if not directly to it. We know for a fact that he was hiding in Yemen with a group that claims to be an offshoot of Al Qaeda. There is also good evidence that the man who actually made the underwear bomb and other bombs targeting the US was killed in the very same convoy that Awlaki was killed in. http://news.yahoo.com/underwear-bomb-maker-believed-dead-yemen-strike-171458043.html To me that is probably a more important target than Awlaki. Given that information we know from above I think there is a very strong case that Awlaki would qualify as an enemy and be subject to the Authorization of Force against Al Qaeda. Personally I would've preferred that Awlaki be captured and brought to justice but given the facts that are known I can't practically disagree with the decision by the Admin. to kill him in a drone strike.
For what its worth Abdulmutallab, the Underwear Bomber, reportedly has said he was ordered by Awlaki to carry out the bombing. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44874278/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.TpX0znLDBko [rquoter]Prosecutors' evidence was stacked high. Abdulmutallab was badly burned in a plane full of witnesses. The government said he told FBI agents he was working for al-Qaida and directed by Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical, American-born Muslim cleric recently killed by the U.S. in Yemen. There were also photos of his scorched shorts as well as video of Abdulmutallab explaining his suicide mission before departing for the U.S. [/rquoter]
So there is a controversy regarding the kill of Awlaki going on, Abdulmutallab goes to court and surprises people by pleading guilty and does not dispute the government charges that he was ordered by Awlaki. I wonder what deal they made.
OK, I somewhat retract my criticism of the assassination. Within the current framework of the War on Terror, Al-Awlaki deserved to be killed. He ordered a laugably inept attempted terrorist attack. We just need to really re-think the War on Terror. (And by re-think, I mean declare victory and end it.)
Good article in the WP today on Obama's secret drone-enabled assassination program. Much more at the link.
I don't care about whatever definition of legal you want to use, but one was an enemy combatant actively plotting against the U.S. as a lead member of the terrorist organization that once carried out the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history. One was not.
You make Bush proud. "If you are somebody that believes the President of the United States has the power to order your fellow citizens murdered, assassinated, killed without a shred of due process … then you are really declaring yourself to be as pure of an authoritarian as it gets."
You have zero proof of any of this from his judge/jury/executioner and substantial doubts from Yemeni security experts. I find myself agreeing with Hightop - you'd make any authoritarian proud. The legal aspect may be nebulous (as I've remarked in this thread) but it's undeniable that you cede any moral or ethical highground by taking this stance. If rule of law does not matter to you (or at least a documented effort at "due process"), than you probably should not be complaining about suicide bombers either.
I understand where you are coming from. It's a moral dilemma, though - if you can be 99 % sure that if you don't take the guy out, he will be behind murders of many, many people, and it's 99 % sure that you will not have a possibility to neutralize this guy in any other way (or get him in front of a court, as it should be), when are you more guilty? If you take the guy out without due process or if you knowingly let the guy continue to operate (and murder people) by doing nothing, when you have an opportunity to take him out? A different example - let's assume the USA would have had the opportunity to take out Hitler in 1939, just before the war started. Knowing what we know now, are you saying they should not have done it because he wouldn't have gotten due process?
I tend to agree with Rhad. I don't like the idea of Obama determining which American citizen should die and who shouldn't.
