Obama Murders an American Citizen

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly think it's great that we're discussing the legality of kill. However, I guess I would be worried about it more if this was happening on a larger scale.
.

do not be naive
Once upon a time America forced people into what later became called 'internment camps'
Historians make sure that every school child who learns about them is told that they were Japanese Americans. That way everyon will know they were not real Americans.

What you are talking about has happened in a larger scale in the not too distant past.
And Master Bush legalized waterboarding i.e. torture etc
Guantanamo bay is there to remind the world that international treaties on prisoners of war do not always apply. With the detainees, the international laws of fishing apply. After all, they are dressed in orange and therefore like crabs

[Anonymous]

Jeff, I am sure that he got a little FedEx letter telling him about a warrant for his arrest. You know, to turn himself in. He must have ignored it.

[Anonymous]

Japanese Americans. That way everyon will know they were not real Americans.

WTF! Are you suggesting that groups that classify themselves as XXX Americans (insert, African, Asian, etc) are doing so to show that they are not real Americans? When teaching history the term Japanese American because it is the current PC term to use not to imply that they are not real Americans.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:Jeff, I am sure that he got a little FedEx letter telling him about a warrant for his arrest. You know, to turn himself in. He must have ignored it.

I am sure he did not get such a letter because there was not an indictment, let alone a warrant. Do you always trust your government about everything, or only when a Muslim's life has been scarified? I am so happy that the tea baggers that don't trust Obama to tell the truth about his place of birth will willingly allow him to order Americans killed. As for the liberals who are cheering the assassination, you are no different then the Republicans we criticized for cheering Perry's 300 executions. Worse, actually. Perry actually followed the law.

[Anonymous]

I am a service member and as I cannot honestly say I am sad he is gone, I also think al-Alwaki's death was unjust. When I read the headlines yesterday, I didn't even think about the fact that he was an American citizen - but he is, and, in my mind, unless he was in a war zone/a combatant (not even gonna argue that he was doing 'cyber' war), deserves due process. I may be think about this in simple terms, but that's how it works out for me.

This is by far the most disappointing thing Obama has done in his administration in my mind, and I will not vote for him next election.

I would not be surprised at all if Obama ends up in the international courts 20 years from now for this, and I would not argue against it either.

And I would have voted for him again, and I don't think he's done a bad job of things lately. This is truly awful and goes against everything I fight for as a service member.

[Anonymous]

not just the Japanese:

http://www.italianhistorical.org/page19a.html

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly think it's great that we're discussing the legality of kill. However, I guess I would be worried about it more if this was happening on a larger scale.
.

do not be naive
Once upon a time America forced people into what later became called 'internment camps'
Historians make sure that every school child who learns about them is told that they were Japanese Americans. That way everyon will know they were not real Americans.

What you are talking about has happened in a larger scale in the not too distant past.
And Master Bush legalized waterboarding i.e. torture etc
Guantanamo bay is there to remind the world that international treaties on prisoners of war do not always apply. With the detainees, the international laws of fishing apply. After all, they are dressed in orange and therefore like crabs

[Anonymous]

Funny that you mentioned the Internments. I was going to throw that in my original post as an example of something on a larger scale than what Obama just authorized. With respect to Bush's 'enhanced' interrogation techniques - I'm not sure that applies. Have we done this to US Citizens as yet? (Other than CIA agents in training?)
I can't believe I'm about to write this, but...
I can understand some of the logic behind having Gitmo. I think there was a fear that those folks would have been released back into the open to possibly cause us more harm. If it was so easy to close it, Obama should've done something by now.

I would only be worried about what happened to Al-Awlaki if I were doing something similar. I can understand, to some extent, discussing the legal/Constituional aspects of it. I'm just not seeing how it affects a lot of us.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly think it's great that we're discussing the legality of kill. However, I guess I would be worried about it more if this was happening on a larger scale.
.

do not be naive
Once upon a time America forced people into what later became called 'internment camps'
Historians make sure that every school child who learns about them is told that they were Japanese Americans. That way everyon will know they were not real Americans.

What you are talking about has happened in a larger scale in the not too distant past.
And Master Bush legalized waterboarding i.e. torture etc
Guantanamo bay is there to remind the world that international treaties on prisoners of war do not always apply. With the detainees, the international laws of fishing apply. After all, they are dressed in orange and therefore like crabs

[Anonymous]

This was a military targeting of a member of the enemy leadership. I don't know the process and mostly likely you do not know it either, but it is highly unlikely Obama is compiling lists and selecting who is targeted to be killed. I can see the president giving a general order like, eliminate the terrorist group. The military and intelligence operations draw up plans to do it. They will come up with a leadership structure of the group and target it in a few ways, killing, turning, discrediting and the rest. These actions will be float by lawyers. The decision involves hundreds of peoples and it is very bureaucratic. It comes down to one question, is it a military operation?( are we at war with this group?) If so, it is legal, as far a killing can be legal. It's war. It is not as you have constructed, the president pulling names out of thin air.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:That is a headline that you should -- but probably won't -- see coming from our usual Obama haters. As I discussed in this thread:

http://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/100601.page

Obama placed Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen, on a list of people who could be captured or killed (essentially authorizing his assassination). Today, a US drone carried out the act. Of course everyone will immediately respond that al-Awlaki is a terrorist and has attacked America and so on. But, if there is so much evidence of al-Awlaki's guilt, why has there been no criminal indictment? Even bin Laden had been indicted. Think about that. Bin Laden received more due process than this American citizen. Yes, yes, our CIA knows everything. If they say he is guilty, he is guilty. Just like Saddam had WMDs just like the CIA said he did. Let's just accept that the CIA is infallible. In fact, why don't we just do away with our entire justice system and allow Obama and the CIA to run the entire thing? Also, while we are at it, let's criticize a few more foreign leaders for killing their political opponents.

It is a government's duty is to uphold the law, but its prime duty is to protect its citizens. It is rare that the two conflict but when they do, the law must take second place to protection. This was such a case. Al-Awlaki had declared war on the US through the Internet. On his website, he called on Muslims to kill American soldiers anywhere in the world; he said it was an Islamic duty. In e-mails he encouraged US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, to kill US soldiers; Hasan gunned down 13 at Ft. Hood in November 2009. The list of those with those for whom he was a spiritual guide and who carried out attacks is long. Last year he called on American Muslims to attack the US. Al-Awlaki's target was not only Americans who, he said, had to be killed “without hesitation.: Do you think we should send out a warrant for his arrest and wait for him to turn himself in? Do you have family members in the line of fire? Your quote that I highlighted above is childish and ridiculous. Killing al-Awlaki is hardly akin to " doing away with our entire justice system". Stop being a drama queen and face the reality of the world.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:This was a military targeting of a member of the enemy leadership. I don't know the process and mostly likely you do not know it either, but it is highly unlikely Obama is compiling lists and selecting who is targeted to be killed. I can see the president giving a general order like, eliminate the terrorist group. The military and intelligence operations draw up plans to do it. They will come up with a leadership structure of the group and target it in a few ways, killing, turning, discrediting and the rest. These actions will be float by lawyers. The decision involves hundreds of peoples and it is very bureaucratic. It comes down to one question, is it a military operation?( are we at war with this group?) If so, it is legal, as far a killing can be legal. It's war. It is not as you have constructed, the president pulling names out of thin air.

Anwar al-Awlaki's name was specifically put on a list with Obama's approval. The list apparently contains the names of other Americans (though those individuals have not been identified). There is a lot of dispute about al-Awlaki's role in AQAP. Over and over again, posters in this thread make statements that suggest al-Awlaki's guilt is common knowledge. How many of you have done independent research on this question? How many of you have watched his videos or read his papers? Also, how many of you felt equally strongly that Saddam had WMDs?

Incidentally, there was news today about the identity of a third individual killed in the attack. The Guardian reports that it may have been Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri. If so, that is much more important news than al-Awlaki (in terms of weakening AQAP, al-Awlaki is more important as a US legal issue). It will be interesting to see if this information is confirmed.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
It is a government's duty is to uphold the law, but its prime duty is to protect its citizens. It is rare that the two conflict but when they do, the law must take second place to protection. This was such a case. Al-Awlaki had declared war on the US through the Internet. On his website, he called on Muslims to kill American soldiers anywhere in the world; he said it was an Islamic duty. In e-mails he encouraged US Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, to kill US soldiers; Hasan gunned down 13 at Ft. Hood in November 2009. The list of those with those for whom he was a spiritual guide and who carried out attacks is long. Last year he called on American Muslims to attack the US. Al-Awlaki's target was not only Americans who, he said, had to be killed “without hesitation.: Do you think we should send out a warrant for his arrest and wait for him to turn himself in? Do you have family members in the line of fire? Your quote that I highlighted above is childish and ridiculous. Killing al-Awlaki is hardly akin to " doing away with our entire justice system". Stop being a drama queen and face the reality of the world.

Isn't this just another version of the Jack Nicholson speech that was previously quoted? I'm just a drama queen that can't handle the truth? Here is what you claim al-Awlaki did: declared war; called on Muslims to kill soldiers; encouraged Nidal Malik Hasan; was a spiritual guide; and called on American Muslims to attack the US. Here are things that are not on your list: ordering an attack; planning an attack; participating in an attack; even knowing about an attack before the fact. This is not even to get to the point that you rightfully need to include the word "alleged" before most of your charges (some of which I dispute). Even by your own account, al-Awlaki is nothing but a propagandist -- someone who does nothing but talk and write. Does that make him someone I admire? No, not even close. But, he does not present a clear and present danger to US security.

Can any of you who support this killing explain what limitations you believe exist on Obama regarding such killings? For instance, can Obama kill anyone who posts a message on the Internet saying that the killing of Americans by Muslims is justified? Or, can Obama kill anyone he simply doesn't like? Since you all seem so comfortable with this type of extra-judicial killing of an American citizen, what do you believe are the limitations on the program?

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This was a military targeting of a member of the enemy leadership. I don't know the process and mostly likely you do not know it either, but it is highly unlikely Obama is compiling lists and selecting who is targeted to be killed. I can see the president giving a general order like, eliminate the terrorist group. The military and intelligence operations draw up plans to do it. They will come up with a leadership structure of the group and target it in a few ways, killing, turning, discrediting and the rest. These actions will be float by lawyers. The decision involves hundreds of peoples and it is very bureaucratic. It comes down to one question, is it a military operation?( are we at war with this group?) If so, it is legal, as far a killing can be legal. It's war. It is not as you have constructed, the president pulling names out of thin air.

Anwar al-Awlaki's name was specifically put on a list with Obama's approval. The list apparently contains the names of other Americans (though those individuals have not been identified). There is a lot of dispute about al-Awlaki's role in AQAP. Over and over again, posters in this thread make statements that suggest al-Awlaki's guilt is common knowledge. How many of you have done independent research on this question? How many of you have watched his videos or read his papers? Also, how many of you felt equally strongly that Saddam had WMDs?

Incidentally, there was news today about the identity of a third individual killed in the attack. The Guardian reports that it may have been Ibrahim Hassan al-Asiri. If so, that is much more important news than al-Awlaki (in terms of weakening AQAP, al-Awlaki is more important as a US legal issue). It will be interesting to see if this information is confirmed.

Have you done "independent research" on this? What" library" did you go to for this research? How does one go about doing independent research on an issue such as this? I am not saying anyone should have blind faith in the government, but you seem to have none. Should we not give any benefit of the doubt to the people who are trying to protect us? What motive does Obama have to kill Al-Awlaki if he is innocent? You are in the easy position of being critical of tough decisions without any responsibility of the consequences should you be wrong. I voted for Obama and I am not a Bush fan by any means, but I do feel Bush wanted to do the right thing in terms of protecting American citizens, and I feel the same about Obama. I guess your independent research and knowledge on these matters gives you a greater understanding of the situation than President Obama or the CIA has. Oh well, I think I will go ahead and continue to naively trust that the President of the United States has more valid information and judgment to make the right call on this rather than listen to the webmaster of a Mommy gossip site. Call me crazy.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
Have you done "independent research" on this? What" library" did you go to for this research? How does one go about doing independent research on an issue such as this? I am not saying anyone should have blind faith in the government, but you seem to have none. Should we not give any benefit of the doubt to the people who are trying to protect us? What motive does Obama have to kill Al-Awlaki if he is innocent? You are in the easy position of being critical of tough decisions without any responsibility of the consequences should you be wrong. I voted for Obama and I am not a Bush fan by any means, but I do feel Bush wanted to do the right thing in terms of protecting American citizens, and I feel the same about Obama. I guess your independent research and knowledge on these matters gives you a greater understanding of the situation than President Obama or the CIA has. Oh well, I think I will go ahead and continue to naively trust that the President of the United States has more valid information and judgment to make the right call on this rather than listen to the webmaster of a Mommy gossip site. Call me crazy.

I have a Masters of Arts in Arab Studies (MAAS) degree from Georgetown University. I assume that sets me apart from most webmasters of mommy sites. I have lived in and travelled to the Middle East. At one time, I was fluent in Arabic. For many years, I studied the region intensely. Even after that, I have paid more attention than most people to the Middle East. The "library" I used for my independent research was something called the "Internet". You may have heard of it. Al-Awlaki at one time had a website. It was in English. Even after it was taken down, many of the articles could still be found. It was a shame that the website was taken down because the comments on al-Awlaki's articles were fascinating. More often than not, he was attacked for being too moderate. I've watched al-Awlaki's videos. I've followed the writings of people who study Yemen intently. This blog: http://bigthink.com/blogs/waq-al-waq is not that active, but the author has a very good handle on Yemen. He reads multiple Yemeni newspapers daily and frequently translates articles or paraphrases what they said. If you did nothing more that research the organization known as AQAP, you would find that it is extremely complicated. Nothing like you would expect. I have gained an understanding of that history. I have the last two issues of Insight -- the English language publication of AQAP, the editor of which was killed with al-Awlaki -- on my hard drive. I haven't had the chance to read the most recent.

I don't know why Obama was so bent on killing al-Awlaki. I do think that Americans like to have an enemy -- the "Hitler of the Week". After bin Laden was killed, I fully expected that al-Awlaki would fill that role despite the suggestion being a cruel joke (it's like comparing a high school varsity football player to a Heisman Trophy winner). The Yemeni president was nearly killed some time ago and has been in Saudi Arabia receiving medical treatment. He was not expected to return to Yemen. But, all of a sudden he returned to Yemen with no notice whatsoever. Then, within a couple of days, al-Awlaki was killed. The US went from calling for Salih's resignation to praising him. I don't believe in those types of coincidences. I can see how it benefits Salih, I'm just not sure of the benefit to Obama. But, maybe killing Muslims is good for someone with Obama's approval ratings.

When Collin Powell gave his famous speech to the UN about Saddam's WMDs, I was involved in an Internet discussion similar to this. Someone asked me, "Any Questions?" My reply was that I didn't have any questions but that I was entirely sure that nearly every statement that Powell had made would ultimately prove to be false. I was right and Powell was wrong. I was not even a webmaster of a mommy site back then. How did I know more than the Secretary of State? Sometimes you don't know things because you don't want to know them. If Powell wanted to remain Secretary of State, he could not allow himself to know that his speech was totally false.

You are wrong about whether I have to live with the consequences of my decisions. I, probably like most of the DCUM users, really am one bad decision away from losing nearly everything. Presidents, on the other hand, can invade entire countries on false pretenses and, not only win re-election, but gain the respect of people like you.

[Anonymous]

I think it is so hypocritical that conservatives are silent when Obama has been killing Al Qaeda members left and right. If Bush did it, they would be celebrating.

Whenever I see threads like this I can't help but visualize Super Obama swooping in wearing his caped super hero costume...

Disagree that conservatives are silent. Perhaps what you meant to say is that they are not praising Obama enough although I have seen plenty of postings giving Obama credit for this and for Bin Laden as well.

Personally, I think that most of the credit should go to SOCOM and the ODA and seal teams that are over there as well as some credit to Gen. McCrystal who helped turn SOCOM into the the organization that it is today.

[TheManWithAUsername]

This is a very interesting discussion. Thanks for starting it, Jeff, and for providing your perspective.

I think you are being a bit harsh on people. We don't have degrees in this field, and each of us only has so much time for independent research.* Personally, this story never would have gotten my attention - I'm much more concerned about the harm done millions of U.S. citizens through our economic policies.

I'm skeptical that the assassination slope is that slippery. Roughly the same policies have been in place now for several years, and for the majority of those they were administered by war-mongering liars. If there's been escalation, it hasn't been significant as far as I can tell. I say that as someone very cognizant of the interment camps,** the imprisonment of Eugene Debs, and other outrages committed against U.S. citizens in the name of security.

I'm not saying that this was OK, or even that well-intentioned. (I don't feel equipped to form an opinion yet, which is why I'm enjoying the discussion.)

*I understand that some were pretty harsh back (or first), but it still seemed to me like you came in with a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

**BTW, I don't think more specifically identifying the victims is racist. I gives context, specifically the racist nature of the interment itself.