Obama Murders an American Citizen

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

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.

I actually do not think most Americans knew the name al-Awlaki before he was killed. So I don't think he was "Hitler of the Week". I also don't believe we all need a "Hitler of the Week". I am sorry that you have such a low opinion of your fellow citizens that you think most of us are blood-thirsty bigots who hate Muslims. That may be true of a small minority of people, but I do not think it is true of everyone who supports these drone attacks on Al Qaeda. Perhaps the killing of Al-Awlaki was wrong, perhaps not, I am not as certain as you are. Since I don't know everything ( I didn't get a degree from Georgetown, darn!), I still believe that the President of the US may have had more information on al-Awlaki involvement in terrorist activities and Al Qaeda than I have, so I think I will go ahead and trust his judgement on this one.

[jsteele]

TheManWithAUsername wrote: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.

In no way to I expect everyone to develop an expertise in the Middle East. Obviously, nobody had the capability of obtaining an expertise in every single topic area. That is why principles are so important. If you believe in fundamental elements of the US Constitution, such as an individual has the right to be tried before being convicted and must be convicted before punishment, then no knowledge of the details is necessary. I was specifically asked about my qualifications, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned them.

It is very frustrating that Americans who normally express considerable skepticism about their government -- and with the example of Saddam's missing WMDs so clearly illustrating how the government and the media can create a misleading picture -- will so easily accept Obama's right to kill a US citizen.

I want to thank the service member who posted earlier. It is no secret that the ranks of the military are filled with honorable people and that post illustrates the fact.

TheManWithAUsername wrote:
but it still seemed to me like you came in with a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

I have a tremendous chip on my shoulder regarding this issue. Thomas Jefferson said, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." I, for one, will not remain silent (or move to Yemen).

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote: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.

I am not decided on this issue. But a few points to address here IMO:

1. Your research comment implies that we should be evaluating the details of the case to decide whether the killing was justified. Jeff and the ACLU argue that due process is the required method by which we determine the facts.

2. Regarding the slippery slope, precedent is very powerful in determining the limits on presidential power. If we look for example at the War Powers Resolution and its constraint on the president, we have only a handful of cases to use as a guide. When someone says Obama failed to invoke war powers for Libya, historians will point to Clinton and Kosovo to say that it is not required in this type of case.

[Anonymous]

According to the Post and the NY times, the targeting of al-Awlaki was approved by the US Department of Justice.

[takoma]

I may have missed this point somewhere along the way, but does the president not have the legal power to order the death of someone, citizen or not, who he has adequate information to believe is a threat to US security?

I am not arguing either side of the issue here, just trying to determine whether we are debating if he acted on incorrect (or inadequate) information in this case, or whether the action was illegal whatever information he had.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:According to the Post and the NY times, the targeting of al-Awlaki was approved by the US Department of Justice.

and

takoma wrote:
I may have missed this point somewhere along the way, but does the president not have the legal power to order the death of someone, citizen or not, who he has adequate information to believe is a threat to US security?

Obviously, Obama believes (or at least publicly suggests -- who knows what's in his heart) that he acted legally. He also believes he acted legally in Libya despite the absence of Congressional authorization. Just to show where we are in this situation, the New York Times opinion peace that suggested the killing was legal was written by Jack Goldsmith -- the Bush administration official who authored the legal justification for warrantless wiretapping. There is a school of thought that the President can do anything he wants to do in a time of war. The Global War on Terror in which we have declared ourselves is substantially more open-ended then anything the drafters of the Constitution would have imagined. So, that school of thought puts almost no limits at all on Presidential power. Liberals opposed such interpretations when they were used by President Bush but seem to relish them when used by Obama.

The Justice Department simply drafts opinions. It does not decide legality. As a DOJ official Goldsmith said that warrantless wiretapping was legal. As a candidate Obama said it was not legal. Federal Judges agreed with candidate Obama in rulings against President Obama (who had subsequently changed his position). Likely, candidate Obama would have thought al-Awlaki's killing was illegal.

It appears that the courts are reluctant to get involved. So, there will be no opposition to the killing of American citizens by Presidential writ becoming part of our legal doctrine. The only pushback will be from citizens.

Edit: just to add, Newt Gingrich this morning: "The president signed an order to kill [Awlaki]. That was due process." Also, Dick Cheney praised the killing and demanded that Obama apologize to him for criticisms of the Bush Administration. This just shows where we are at this point.

[Anonymous]

I applaud Obama for this, but I do think the hypocrisy from the vast majority of the left is outstanding. To go bananas over G-base, Cuba and the treatment of prisoners but remain mostly silent over gunning down american citizens is really stunning to me. Can you IMAGINE the uproar if Bush had done this? wow.

[Anonymous]

I don't find the goverment-sanctioned murder of an American citizen particularly troubling, considering the fact that many many other actions the government carries out under the guise of national security are tantamount to murder. Sending thousands of American kids to die in Iraq on false pretenses is no different in my mind than murder. Ordering assassinations of democratically elected foreign leaders whose agenda does not match our ideological preferences or the corporate interests we are defending in the name of national security is essentially government-sanctioned murder and has much more terrible consequences for a whole lot of people than killing Al-Awlaki.

I'd almost say that in the end we have no one to blame but ourselves for getting the government we deserve, but there is no valid reason other countries should have to endure the consequences of our decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I applaud Obama for this, but I do think the hypocrisy from the vast majority of the left is outstanding. To go bananas over G-base, Cuba and the treatment of prisoners but remain mostly silent over gunning down american citizens is really stunning to me. Can you IMAGINE the uproar if Bush had done this? wow.

Mostly silent???

Is this thread not evidence of lack of silence? The front page stories in the paper speculating about its legality? The ACLU? Exactly what do you think goes on when liberals are unhappy?

[Anonymous]

TheManWithAUsername wrote:
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.


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

exactly. so why not just say that the internment camps were for Americans?
As for war mongering liars. The whole Iraq war was started by a google search that turned out to be false information

[Anonymous]

exactly. so why not just say that the internment camps were for Americans?

...because it is necessary to show that a specific group of American's were targeted specifically because of their race. How else is this point to be made?

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:I am not decided on this issue. But a few points to address here IMO:

1. Your research comment implies that we should be evaluating the details of the case to decide whether the killing was justified. Jeff and the ACLU argue that due process is the required method by which we determine the facts.

Actually, I meant that in part and something more fundamental. I realize that Jeff reviewed his credentials in response to a hostile question about them. More fundamentally, I meant researching enough to know anything at all about this.

Personally, I follow almost nothing about the day-to-day of the wars and, frankly, about individual guys with Middle-Eastern-sounding names being killed overseas. There are so many terrible things going on now - i.e., terrible things to which our government has been contributing for several years - that a few individual deaths really don't get my attention until a very big deal is made about it.

These don't grab my attention b/c of the number of possible victims but also b/c, yes, I do trust the executive - even one like Bush - a bit more with that specific decision. I am less inclined to believe that decision making in that area (individual assassination of someone involved with terrorism in some way) is corrupt, though it may still be wrong.

I realize how screwy it is to essentially write something like that off, but again, I just don't have it in me to worry about every possible injustice. And I think the left too often gets caught up in mostly symbolic issues, or issues primarily of principle. E.g., the number of wrongly convicted people executed last year - whatever it is - is incomparably smaller than the number of lives ruined by our internal economic policies.

On the finer point of research - researching whether an individual had it coming, I agree that this is illegal - as I said, even had there been an indictment. I think the government has screwed up by not filling this legal gap (or maybe they realized something I haven't thought of about why it would actually make it more awkward for them). But in the absence of that, yeah, I do think it makes a difference whether we know that he's doing something really terrible. In some cases, I'm OK with the executive having him killed, then, ideally, immediately publicly airing the facts and acting to fill the legal hole for next time.

I'll emphasize, though, that my opinions are far from firm on this. I think these are tough questions.

Anonymous wrote:2. Regarding the slippery slope, precedent is very powerful in determining the limits on presidential power. If we look for example at the War Powers Resolution and its constraint on the president, we have only a handful of cases to use as a guide. When someone says Obama failed to invoke war powers for Libya, historians will point to Clinton and Kosovo to say that it is not required in this type of case.

I'm not saying there's no theoretical slippery slope; I think Jeff's statement that our president has unilaterally decided which American citizens can be murdered is correct, and is an appropriate comment. I mentioned the history because the fact is that this kind of thing doesn't seem to be increasing in frequency, and they don't seem to be seeking increasingly broad powers (to my uneducated eye).

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I applaud Obama for this, but I do think the hypocrisy from the vast majority of the left is outstanding. To go bananas over G-base, Cuba and the treatment of prisoners but remain mostly silent over gunning down american citizens is really stunning to me. Can you IMAGINE the uproar if Bush had done this? wow.

Mostly silent???

Is this thread not evidence of lack of silence? The front page stories in the paper speculating about its legality? The ACLU? Exactly what do you think goes on when liberals are unhappy?

March in the streets, I guess, but a lot of us were already busy doing that over another issue we're pissed at Obama about.

Just like the way the TPers marched in funny hats over the Bush deficits.

[TheManWithAUsername]

Anonymous wrote:

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

exactly. so why not just say that the internment camps were for Americans?

This is pretty silly. Tell someone who hasn't heard about it, without mentioning ethnicity. I imagine it would go something like this:

"The U.S. government put a bunch of American citizens in camps during the war."
"Why?"
"Ostensibly because they thought they were a danger of being spies or saboteurs."
"Why did they think that?"
"Because...they were...they had...certain characteristics...in common with some of our enemies."
"What were those characteristics?"

Etc.

When you talk about the Holocaust, do you discuss it as the murder of millions of "Europeans?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

TheManWithAUsername wrote:
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.


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

exactly. so why not just say that the internment camps were for Americans?
As for war mongering liars. The whole Iraq war was started by a google search that turned out to be false information

Uh, because ethnicity was the thing that got them thrown into the internment camp. So saying which ethnicity is pretty relevant.