« op-ed by Major Lujan, US Army | Main | "Dr. Ron Paul's 11-Point Plan" by Laura Trice »

30 September 2011

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

turcopolier

All

Good! One less. People like Awlaki are unreconcilable and dangerous. The question will arise of his American citizenship and that of others in his car. some will say that argeting American citizens is objectionable. I think that is spurious as an argument. IMO, if an American joins an armed force that is planning to carry out or carrying out lethal operations againt the US than that person is an "enemy combatant" just as an American who joined the German, Japanese or Italian forces during WW2 would have been a legitimate target. pl

J

Colonel,

Concur. Have a good weekend.

Remember that wherever in the world an armed 'loaded-to-the-gills' drone is operating, 'it's PARTY TIME'. Get out the Millers (I prefer Pabst, but Millers will do in a pinch). Again, have a good weekend.

Mike Martin, Yorktown, VA

As I understand it, his death was reported by the Yemeni government. Is the GoY a credible source?

turcopolier

Mike Martin

he was their enemy as well. AQ is a Sunni movement. the armed forces of Yemen are predominately Zeidi shia. AQ has no appeal for them. pl

Arun

Question: was Al-Awlaki an enemy combatant or at worst an enemy propagandist? Not clear to me.

YT

Col. sir,

"unreconcilable"

Since when were these muthaf**king S.O.B.s on negotiable terms with anyone?

God**** threat to everyone sane (or otherwise).

Good f**king riddance, all better off DEAD.

If we get to rejoice seeing every single one of them deep-6ed, I'd open a crate of the choicest beers.

Anyone who feels sad for these sh*ts will get whoopa$$ from yours truly personally.

William R. Cumming

There should be a rapid procedure adopted [probably by statute] wherein USA citizenship automatically or almost automatically revoked permanently when someone non-resident to US declares openly their hostility and willingness to engage in violence against the US government, its people and their property. This is not something that should be postponed. In the meantime I would argue justified and legal killing of this guy by the USA. Under either US or International law. Others may differ. I have problems however with the targeting and firing of drones outside of designated combat zones and believe this needs further study. Recently a model airplane threat against DC was discovered. We (US) don't have exclusive rights to drones.

jr786

I beg to differ. Whatever else he might have been, he was an American. If it weren't for that, I would applaud his death without reservation. But he was an American, and he was summarily executed without anything remotely resembling due process.

Weren't some members of the British Frei Corps given courts martial? Were AMerican pow collaborators summarily executed? Why not?

Honestly, I find all this troublesome. I mean, who is exempt from Imperial proscription - where are the protocols, the decision-making processes?

turcopolier

jr786

We would have been glad to put him on trial, an easy conviction for treason. he wasn't available. so the US government should not kill US citizens? What about Confederate deaths in the WBS? Their crime was that they did not want to be citizens of the US anymore. pl

New Orleans

I'm with the colonel on this, glad to see Alwaki gone. Now, perhaps somebody can help me resolve a dilemma:

I was highly critical of the Israelis when several years ago they were actively assassinating Palestinian operatives in Gaza. The practice struck me as immoral and probably illegal. But then, I didn't anticipate U.S. drone attacks against terrorists in Pakistan and Yemen.

Are the two situations really different? Or am I just being anti-Israel?

jr786

Fair questions. I just don't see the difference between lists made by Obama and Sulla's proscriptions. If Americans are going to be sentenced to death without trial, I'd like to see the protocols involved, the procedures that have to be followed in order to demonstrate that there really was no other way. And those protocols could be decided by the elected representatives of the country - approved or not by the Supreme Court. As far as I know, this decision was imperial diktat - as un-American a thing as I can imagine.

FWIW, I think the Confederacy had the right to withdraw from the Union. In my eyes, they were not traitors.

par4

I thought soldiers took an oath to protect and defend the constitution? Anyone remember the fifth ammendment. The part about life and property and due process?

Ael

This was not an encounter on a battlefield, unless the battlefield also includes everyone's kitchen table.

What is the *legal* difference between what happened Awlaki and the president declaring you an enemy combatant and blowing up you and yours in your house?

Is a Presidential declaration sufficient "due process"?

walrus

Precedent has been set. Anyone the Government doesn't like can be declared a "terrorist" and killed out of hand.

What about a drone strike on Julian Assange?

turcopolier

ael

I think this was a battlefield in a war in which the enemy acts by stealth and hides as best he can until enabled to strike a lethal blow. i think that the bush Administration made a mistake in not asking for a declaration of war in 2001-2 against AQ and associated movements. This would not be an issue if they had done that. I will ask again would a US citizen or Canadian subject of the crown who joined enemy forces in WW2 have been protected by constitutional quarantees of due process? pl

Fred

jr786,

Sulla's proscriptions were against those with political power within the Roman state. He killed his political enemies, confiscated their wealth and spread that amongst his supporters. That's a far cry from Awlaki being killed when he was effectively in rebellion against the US Government and whose supporters have killed Americans and continue to try to do so. Obama hasn't rounded up any US Senators, Congressmen or others by the hundreds.

taras

the constitution is not a suicide pact, right?
i like how you added the "non-resident" part, cause if you do all those things inside the country, where it's actually easier to accomplish those things, you're protected, but instead, outside the country, where it's more difficult... sorry, i lost my train of thought.

Anna-Marina

Just a reminder that the “freedom fighters” of Al Qaida have been the creature of the US foreign policy in Afghanistan. I agree with Walrus that throwing out the judicial procedures are much more harmful to the democracy than any propaganda; actually, the extra-judicial killings by the US are propaganda against the western values which define a civilized society.
It is really sad that the US has been adopting the Cheney-esque unlawfulness instead of rejecting his and Rove’s “everything goes.”

William R. Cumming

NYTimes reporting a second American citizen killed. Editor of an AQ newsletter!

Grimgrin

Yes, they were.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_Nazi_collaborators

William R. Cumming

PL if memory serves and probably does not there once was automatic loss of citizenship for US Citizens joining the armed forces of an enemy subject to declaration of war.

turcopolier

grimgrin

your citation is nonsense. it has to do with people who were not directly engaged in combat against the US as Awlaki was. pl

turcopolier

anna-marina

Ah yes, a rehash of the mythological US roots of AQ. Once more, AQ is descended from the mujahid group led by Sayyaf and funded from the Gulf, not from the groups supported by the US. pl

New Orleans

I am absolutely dedicated to protecting the constitutional rights of every U.S. citizen, but I fail to understand any concern for Awlaki.

Yes, Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, but he gave his allegiance to al-Qaeda.

Al-Qaeda has declared war on and is waging war against America.

Al-Qaeda has made the entire world its battlefield.

Awlaki proselytized and openly recruited on behalf of al-Qaeda. I believe he was involved in the planning of at least two bomb attacks against the United States.

If we just misunderstood, Awlaki could have surrendered to any U.S. embassy or consulate in order to correct the record. He chose not to do so and, therefore, was rightfully regarded as a combatant on the battlefield.

Would I have preferred Awlaki to stand trial? Absolutely. I would want every last member of al-Qaeda to stand trial, and I would hold every trial at Ground Zero so the world could see justice served.

But Awlaki gambled on war; he forfeited his rights and lost.

turcopolier

walrus

Come on! Is Assange (creep that he is) in arms against the US? The answer is no. pl

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
Blog powered by Typepad