The Bright Lines of Cleveland

Stengah wrote:

So when will you respond to my points instead of making up hyperbolic conspiracy theories? By his own words, he was involved in the Ft. Hood shooting.

Washington Post[/url]]
In his first interview with a journalist since the Fort Hood rampage, Yemeni American cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi said that he neither ordered nor pressured Maj. Nidal M. Hasan to harm Americans, but that he considered himself a confidant of the Army psychiatrist who was given a glimpse via e-mail into Hasan's growing discomfort with the U.S. military.

....

Aulaqi described Hasan as a man who took his Muslim faith seriously, and who was eager to understand how to interpret Islamic sharia law. In the e-mails, Hasan appeared to question U.S. involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and often used "evidence from sharia that what America was doing should be confronted," the cleric told Shaea.

"So Nidal was providing evidence to Anwar, not vice versa," said Shaea. "Anwar felt, after seeing Nidal's e-mails, that [Hasan] had wide knowledge of sharia law." Shaea said he interviewed Aulaqi in his house on Saturday in Shabwa, a province in southern Yemen that has become an extremist stronghold and where al-Qaeda is seeking to create a haven.

Aulaqi told Shaea that Hasan first reached out to him in an e-mail dated Dec. 17, 2008. He described Hasan introducing himself and writing: "Do you remember me? I used to pray with you at the Virginia mosque."

Hasan sought out and contacted Awlaki. Hasan, by all reports, had been struggling with his role as a Muslim serving in the US military with a six-year long track record of poor performance evaluations and not-so-subtle concerns about his mental health.

So there actually wasn't a smoking gun of Awlaki ordering Hasan to go on his shooting rampage. All there is is an email exchange which Hasan himself started.

This is where I have a huge issue of our intelligence agencies acting essentially as judge, jury, and executioners. Given their track record of missing the big things--like the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11 itself--I have very little confidence of them getting things right for the little things, like individuals. (This is backed up by the reality of Gitmo where the vast majority of folks our government claimed were hardened terrorists out for the blood of American babies actually turned out to be people barely linked to AQ.)

Once the determination of whether or not someone should be killed by the government falls to a secret and unaccountable organization instead of a public trial we have a problem. That problem becomes worse when coupled with the bureaucratic impetus to cover your ass. Now you have an organization whose entire purpose is to view the world as being fundamentally hostile deciding who should be targeted for assassination, all backed up by the desire not to be the be the one who let's the next bin Laden get away. All that results in is a sanitized version of 'kill them all and let God sort them out.'

Stengah:

Most of what you said involves Awlaki saying things rather than committing crimes or atrocities. Would help your argument greatly if you could focus on substantiation that he has ordered attacks on Americans and planned attacks on Americans.

Yeah, even the guy everyone assumes is guilty, the father of the 16 year old killed, is guilty mostly of talking badly about the US. He had no operational role in Al Qaida that we know of. No, talking to people over email, giving advice doesn't count unless he literally issued orders to Hasan.

I can't believe how many people in this thread seem perfectly fine with America murdering people based on what their words and opinions.

War? loooooooool. This isn't and has never been "war".

So let me get this right. Just TALKING sh*t is worthy of getting murdered by a drone strike now?

What if I said, "We should kill all of those Muslims!" Would it then be okay for, say, Saudi Arabia to murder me while I drive to the grocery store because I am threatening their people?

I can't believe this is even debateable. The moment you begin murdering people over ideology you absolutely lose your right to call yourself the "land of the free". This is bullsh*t and will only cause more death. I doubt any of us are safer because of this act. QUite the opposite, I'm sure. We just keep making more martyrs.

Who is our military to decide who lives and dies? What made us the moral yardstick for the world? Why is radomly killing an American over their beliefs "terrorism" and us randomly killing a Muslim cleric over his beliefs "war"?

This is, frankly, indefensible. Human rights are not predicated by nation or religion. If you believe in human rights then you believe in them across the board. (because....y'know, we're all human) Having a double-standard when it comes to human rights is beyond hypocritical and lies at the beginning of a very dark and bloody path.

SallyNasty wrote:

I just wonder if people are really interested in having conversation or in waiving their fingers at each other and claiming moral superiority.

When one side is essentially anti-due process what more is there to discuss?

I just wonder if people are really interested in having conversation or in waving their fingers at each other and claiming moral superiority.

I just think that it is remarkable that we have so many constitutional scholars here at GWJ, who can with such authority speak about the what is and what is not legal.

SallyNasty wrote:

I just wonder if people are really interested in having conversation or in waiving their fingers at each other and claiming moral superiority.

To me this has nothing to do with morality. It's about whether we're a country were everyone is governed by (and has to obey) the same laws or not. Right now we've tipped into a bit of an Animal Farm situation where only some of the laws apply to some of the people some of the time. This is a dangerous situation considering that all of our rights as citizens stem from the idea that all laws apply equally to everyone all the time.

SallyNasty wrote:

I just think that it is remarkable that we have so many constitutional scholars here at GWJ, who can with such authority speak about the what is and what is not legal.

Snark aside, it doesn't require a constitutional scholar to know unconstitutional extraconstitutional actions are being taken.

OG_slinger wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I just wonder if people are really interested in having conversation or in waiving their fingers at each other and claiming moral superiority.

To me this has nothing to do with morality. It's about whether we're a country where everyone is governed by (and has to obey) the same laws or not. Right now we've tipped into a bit of an Animal Farm situation where only some of the laws apply to some of the people some of the time. This is a dangerous situation considering that all of our rights as citizens stem from the idea that all laws apply equally to everyone all the time.

and that's the whole problem, and where the moralizing comes in. It *should* be about whether this constitutes an unequal application of the law or not. If one side starts with the assumption that the other side disagrees because they don't care about equality before the law as opposed to that disagreement being over whether this is actually equality before the law or not, well, that's when it winds up just being moralizing.

DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I just think that it is remarkable that we have so many constitutional scholars here at GWJ, who can with such authority speak about the what is and what is not legal.

Snark aside, it doesn't require a constitutional scholar to know unconstitutional extraconstitutional actions are being taken.

Honestly and respectfully, I disagree. There are lawyers whose entire career is interpreting the constitution. It is not as straightforward as you might think - especially for a layman. I think it is dangerous to personify the constitution (as seems to happen WAY too frequently in America of late), as just because you *feel* like you understand what the document is and what it says, doesn't mean that you actually do.

SallyNasty wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I just think that it is remarkable that we have so many constitutional scholars here at GWJ, who can with such authority speak about the what is and what is not legal.

Snark aside, it doesn't require a constitutional scholar to know unconstitutional extraconstitutional actions are being taken.

Honestly and respectfully, I disagree. There are lawyers whose entire career is interpreting the constitution. It is not as straightforward as you might think - especially for a layman. I think it is dangerous to personify the constitution (as seems to happen WAY too frequently in America of late), as just because you *feel* like you understand what the document is and what it says, doesn't mean that you actually do.

First off, due process is pretty clear. The president not liking you and sending a drone strike to kill you is in no way due-process. That's why the thread here started talking about bright lines. Because it seems pretty obvious that if someone has been given no trial, no official war has been declared, there is no distinct enemy that we're in definite legal grey area *at best*.

Secondly, what many of us are calling for, in fact, is to allow the lawyers and judges to handle these things. I think this is the most important point. So important I bolded it.

Those of us who are frustrated by the actions of the executive branch of the US the last 10 years are frustrated because taking these actions means no due-process has occurred. No trial. Not even evidence in most cases. The US is a strong enough nation to take a risk with our security in exchange for having transparent and legal mechanisms used for bringing to justice those who wrong us. That's the bottom line.

Fair enough:)

SallyNasty wrote:

Honestly and respectfully, I disagree. There are lawyers whose entire career is interpreting the constitution. It is not as straightforward as you might think - especially for a layman. I think it is dangerous to personify the constitution (as seems to happen WAY too frequently in America of late), as just because you *feel* like you understand what the document is and what it says, doesn't mean that you actually do.

That's about where I fall at this point. I don't see a difference between these strikes and any number of similar actions we've taken over the past 20-30 years(e.g., Clinton's cruise missiles targeting OBL).

Kraint wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

Honestly and respectfully, I disagree. There are lawyers whose entire career is interpreting the constitution. It is not as straightforward as you might think - especially for a layman. I think it is dangerous to personify the constitution (as seems to happen WAY too frequently in America of late), as just because you *feel* like you understand what the document is and what it says, doesn't mean that you actually do.

That's about where I fall at this point. I don't see a difference between these strikes and any number of similar actions we've taken over the past 20-30 years(e.g., Clinton's cruise missiles targeting OBL).

At the time those happened, ironically, Clinton was criticized by the Republican party. My how things have changed.

DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I just think that it is remarkable that we have so many constitutional scholars here at GWJ, who can with such authority speak about the what is and what is not legal.

Snark aside, it doesn't require a constitutional scholar to know unconstitutional extraconstitutional actions are being taken.

Honestly and respectfully, I disagree. There are lawyers whose entire career is interpreting the constitution. It is not as straightforward as you might think - especially for a layman. I think it is dangerous to personify the constitution (as seems to happen WAY too frequently in America of late), as just because you *feel* like you understand what the document is and what it says, doesn't mean that you actually do.

First off, due process is pretty clear. The president not liking you and sending a drone strike to kill you is in no way due-process.

Neither is the president putting a wiretap on you because you plan to meet people with funny sounding names while you travel abroad. No one, for all the speeches about the Constitution and the war dead and Orwell seems to want to have that conversation, though.

Don't you guys think it's a bit strange to keep bringing up 1984 while ignoring Big Brother?

CheezePavilion wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

I just think that it is remarkable that we have so many constitutional scholars here at GWJ, who can with such authority speak about the what is and what is not legal.

Snark aside, it doesn't require a constitutional scholar to know unconstitutional extraconstitutional actions are being taken.

Honestly and respectfully, I disagree. There are lawyers whose entire career is interpreting the constitution. It is not as straightforward as you might think - especially for a layman. I think it is dangerous to personify the constitution (as seems to happen WAY too frequently in America of late), as just because you *feel* like you understand what the document is and what it says, doesn't mean that you actually do.

First off, due process is pretty clear. The president not liking you and sending a drone strike to kill you is in no way due-process.

Neither is the president putting a wiretap on you because you plan to meet people with funny sounding names while you travel abroad. No one, for all the speeches about the Constitution and the war dead and Orwell seems to want to have that conversation, though.

Don't you guys think it's a bit strange to keep bringing up 1984 while ignoring Big Brother?

Huh? I've brought that up numerous times? In recent threads, in fact. In a comment you replied to.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/110089?page=1#comment-2008180

me wrote:

- We now wiretap all civilians without warrant. These citizens can be taken into custody, often without notifying family or allowing the citizen access to an attorney.

Me criticizing the Patriot Act 4 years ago.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/30834?#comment-595012

Me starting a whole thread about due process and the government stomping on the Bill of Rights 5 years ago.

http://www.gamerswithjobs.com/node/27465

There are more. Much more. I'm sure Malor has GBs of the same criticism on this message board alone.

Illegal Wiretaps were just the first step on the slippery slope and make no mistake, I've been criticizing these actions from the beginning.

DSGamer wrote:

Huh? I've brought that up numerous times? In recent threads, in fact. In a comment you replied to.

Yeah, and where are the solutions? If we're going to go with this model people are talking about as far as these drone strikes that the government and its agents are bound by Constitutional restrictions on criminal investigations outside the US the same as inside of it, we're going to have to rethink a heck of a lot of what our country does as far as intelligence gathering.

And hey--maybe we should. Maybe the espionage services should be bound by the same rules in investigating terrorist organizations as the FBI is bound by in investigating criminal organizations. Let's not kid ourselves, though, that we're talking about major changes, like *all* wiretapping and other invasions of privacy having to go through at least FISA.

Which...I'm not even sure would be Constitutional if we're talking about the kind of "bright line" restrictions on presidential power you guys are talking about in supporting your arguments. If the president has no more powers than the Cop-in-Chief outside the battlefield of a declared war, well then a whole lot needs to change when it comes to how everything we do overseas operates.

Again, maybe your response will be "that's what I call a win-win situation" but let's be clear these arguments about due process being tossed around go a lot farther than just dirty tricks and drone strikes.

CheezePavilion wrote:
DSGamer wrote:

Huh? I've brought that up numerous times? In recent threads, in fact. In a comment you replied to.

Yeah, and where are the solutions? If we're going to go with this model people are talking about as far as these drone strikes that the government and its agents are bound by Constitutional restrictions on criminal investigations outside the US the same as inside of it, we're going to have to rethink a heck of a lot of what our country does as far as intelligence gathering.

And hey--maybe we should. Maybe the espionage services should be bound by the same rules in investigating terrorist organizations as the FBI is bound by in investigating criminal organizations. Let's not kid ourselves, though, that we're talking about major changes, like *all* wiretapping and other invasions of privacy having to go through at least FISA.

Which...I'm not even sure would be Constitutional if we're talking about the kind of "bright line" restrictions on presidential power you guys are talking about in supporting your arguments. If the president has no more powers than the Cop-in-Chief outside the battlefield of a declared war, well then a whole lot needs to change when it comes to how everything we do overseas operates.

Again, maybe your response will be "that's what I call a win-win situation" but let's be clear these arguments about due process being tossed around go a lot farther than just dirty tricks and drone strikes.

Right. That's why the rule of law is important. The US overthrew a king because they realized that the right to a trial, freedom from illegal searches, etc. were the only way to guarantee a modicum of freedom. I would like to go back to that, yes. So when you see my disgust at issues like this you can just know that I'm also in favor of a rollback of the Patriot Act, the Military Commisions Act, closing Guantanamo Bay and prosecuting members of the Bush and Obama administration.

Without the rule of law we're just another banana republic.

DSGamer wrote:

Right. That's why the rule of law is important. The US overthrew a king because they realized that the right to a trial, freedom from illegal searches, etc. were the only way to guarantee a modicum of freedom. I would like to go back to that, yes. So when you see my disgust at issues like this you can just know that I'm also in favor of a rollback of the Patriot Act, the Military Commisions Act, closing Guantanamo Bay and prosecuting members of the Bush and Obama administration.

Without the rule of law we're just another banana republic.

Yeah, it's going to go way, way further than just those things you listed. I really have no idea where it ends until there's no distinction between espionage and criminal investigation.

Again, maybe that's a feature not a bug, but we're kinda pretending this is a smaller matter than it really is.

It's not small. I agree with you. It's fraking huge and not just an issue of how we wage war but also what our domestic policies are.

I think as a country we NEED to have a discussion like this. I think we need to evaluate what our ideals are as a country and then ACT in a way that enforces these ideals.

We are moving towards a totalitarian state and eventually if things continue on like this we will lose the ability to even have that conversation lest we be treated as an enemy of the state and killed while we're driving down the street.

THIS is but a symptom of a far greater illness, I definitely agree with you on that CHeeze.

Stengah, it's not this guy that matters, it's the next guy. And the next, and the next, and the next, and the next, and the next....

OG_slinger wrote:

Washington Post[/url]]
In his first interview with a journalist since the Fort Hood rampage, Yemeni American cleric Anwar al-Aulaqi said that he neither ordered nor pressured Maj. Nidal M. Hasan to harm Americans, but that he considered himself a confidant of the Army psychiatrist who was given a glimpse via e-mail into Hasan's growing discomfort with the U.S. military.

Hasan sought out and contacted Awlaki. Hasan, by all reports, had been struggling with his role as a Muslim serving in the US military with a six-year long track record of poor performance evaluations and not-so-subtle concerns about his mental health.

So there actually wasn't a smoking gun of Awlaki ordering Hasan to go on his shooting rampage. All there is is an email exchange which Hasan himself started.

This is where I have a huge issue of our intelligence agencies acting essentially as judge, jury, and executioners. Given their track record of missing the big things--like the fall of the Soviet Union and 9/11 itself--I have very little confidence of them getting things right for the little things, like individuals. (This is backed up by the reality of Gitmo where the vast majority of folks our government claimed were hardened terrorists out for the blood of American babies actually turned out to be people barely linked to AQ.)

Once the determination of whether or not someone should be killed by the government falls to a secret and unaccountable organization instead of a public trial we have a problem. That problem becomes worse when coupled with the bureaucratic impetus to cover your ass. Now you have an organization whose entire purpose is to view the world as being fundamentally hostile deciding who should be targeted for assassination, all backed up by the desire not to be the be the one who let's the next bin Laden get away. All that results in is a sanitized version of 'kill them all and let God sort them out.'

World Analysis's Transcription[/url] of al-Awlaki's "Call to Jihad" video]Obama has promised that his administration will be one of transparency but he has not fulfilled his promise. His administration tried to portray the operation of brother Nidal Hasan as an individual act of violence from an estranged individual. The administration practiced to control on the leak of information concerning the operation in order to cushion the reaction of the American public.

Until this moment the administration is refusing to release the e-mails exchanged between myself and Nidal. And after the operation of our brother Umar Farouk the initial comments coming from the administration were looking the same another attempt at covering up the truth. But Al-Qaeda cut off Obama from deceiving the world again by issuing their statement claiming responsibility for the operation.

(I don't have any idea as to the reliability of World Analysis, but the only other transcript of the video was from Fox News).

Public Intelligence's transcription[/url] of an Al-Malahem Media interview with al-Awlaki]Nidal Hasan is a student of mine, and I am proud of this. I am proud that there are people like Nidal Hasan among my students. What he did was a heroic act, a wonderful operation. I ask Allah to make him steadfast, to protect him, and to free him. I support what he did, and I call upon anyone who calls himself a Muslim, and serves in the US army, to follow in the footsteps of Nidal Hasan. Good deeds erase bad ones. In addition, I call upon [all] Muslims to follow in his footsteps, and to wage Jihad by speech or by action. Nidal Hasan set a wonderful example, and I ask Allah to make it a beginning, and that many other Muslims will follow in his footsteps.
...
Interviewer: Do you support such operations, even though they target what the media calls “innocent civilians”?

Anwar Al-Awlaki: Yes. With regard to the issue of “civilians,” this term has become prevalent these days, but I prefer to use the terms employed by our jurisprudents. They classify people as either combatants or non-combatants. A combatant is someone who bears arms – even if this is a woman. Non-combatants are people who do not take part in the war. The American people in its entirety takes part in the war, because they elected this administration, and they finance this war. In the recent elections, and in the previous ones, the American people had other options, and could have elected people who did not want war. Nevertheless, these candidates got nothing but a handful of votes. We should examine this issue from the perspective of Islamic law, and this settles the issue – is it permitted or forbidden? If the heroic mujahid brother Umar Farouk could have targeted hundreds of soldiers, that would have been wonderful. But we are talking about the realities of war.
...
There were negotiations in the past with the Yemeni government about turning myself in, but I categorically rejected this, because I am not accused of anything, to begin with. What am I accused of? That I call to the truth? That I call to Jihad for the sake of Allah, and in defense of the Islamic nation’s causes?

...

The same goes for the Americans. I have no intention of turning myself in to them. If they want me, let them search for me.

Both of these are more recent than the Washington Post article (from November 2009) where it's said he denies being involved (the first one is from March of 2010, the second from May of 2010). In the first one he skillfully dances around admitting that he helped Hasan plan his attack. In the second one he makes an explicit call for Muslims to make attempts to kill Americans. He also says he knows that he is accused of crimes but refuses to turn himself in, and dares the government to come and get him. In my layman's opinion, he was not targeted for his opinions, but for his actions. There's a big difference between someone saying "We should kill all of those Muslims!" and a cleric giving multiple sermons about how it's every Muslim's duty to murder Americans. For one, the cleric is in a position of authority. When a person in a position of authority outright tells those following them that it is their duty to do a crime, are they immune to persecution when the followers commit those crimes? (probably not such a great point when I think about all the times the answer has been "yes" when applied to our military/government )

I fully agree that the government was wrong to not seek judicial approval of his targeting, but I do not fault them for targeting him. I support the ends, but not the means that got us there, and fully support that something be done to prevent these means from being used again. I think many people who are (rightly) focusing on the improper procedure of the targeting are forgetting that the target was a valid one (the insistence that he was targeted simply for holding an opinion the government didn't like). As I said in the other thread about his son, I have no idea if his son was a valid target (though I'm inclined to believe that he wasn't the primary target of the attack that killed him, which makes his validity as a target rather irrelevant).

Stengah wrote:

Both of these are more recent than the Washington Post article (from November 2009) where it's said he denies being involved (the first one is from March of 2010, the second from May of 2010). In the first one he skillfully dances around admitting that he helped Hasan plan his attack. In the second one he makes an explicit call for Muslims to make attempts to kill Americans. He also says he knows that he is accused of crimes but refuses to turn himself in, and dares the government to come and get him. In my layman's opinion, he was not targeted for his opinions, but for his actions. There's a big difference between someone saying "We should kill all of those Muslims!" and a cleric giving multiple sermons about how it's every Muslim's duty to murder Americans. For one, the cleric is in a position of authority. When a person in a position of authority outright tells those following them that it is their duty to do a crime, are they immune to persecution when the followers commit those crimes? (probably not such a great point when I think about all the times the answer has been "yes" when applied to our military/government )

I fully agree that the government was wrong to not seek judicial approval of his targeting, but I do not fault them for targeting him. I support the ends, but not the means that got us there, and fully support that something be done to prevent these means from being used again. I think many people who are (rightly) focusing on the improper procedure of the targeting are forgetting that the target was a valid one (the insistence that he was targeted simply for holding an opinion the government didn't like). As I said in the other thread about his son, I have no idea if his son was a valid target (though I'm inclined to believe that he wasn't the primary target of the attack that killed him, which makes his validity as a target rather irrelevant).

I'm sorry, but I don't read the first one as him skillfully dancing around admitting he helped Hasan plan his attack.

Nidal Hasan was not recruited by Al-Qaeda. Nidal Hasan was recruited by American crimes and this is what America refuses to admit. America refuses to admit that its foreign policies are the reason behind the man like Nidal Hasan born and raised in the U.S. turning his guns against American soldiers. And the more crimes America commits the more mujahedeen will be recruited to fight against it. The operation of our brother Umar Farouk was in retaliation to American cruise missiles and cluster bombs that killed the women and children in Yemen.

Hasan had been disillusioned for years and deeply uncomfortable with his role of being a Muslim serviceman considering what our government was doing to in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trying to claim that Awlaki turned Hasan from a loyal apple pie and baseball American into an AQ killing machine is a bit much.

As far as Awlaki's claims that he was accused of crimes that was simply false and that's an important point to make. The federal government had not officially accused him of any crimes. There were no active arrest warrants for him. And the government made no attempt to extradite him. So how do you go from not officially being accused of any crimes to such a threat that the only solution is to kill you and everyone around you (sans a trial, of course).

I simply disagree with your position that Awlaki wasn't killed for his opinions. There really isn't any difference between the thousands of Americans who called for the deaths of all Muslims after 9/11 and some random cleric saying Americans should be killed. For one, it wasn't just random hillbillies that called for the death of Muslims. It was at all levels of our government, including our then born-again President who called for our overwhelmingly Christian military to wage a "crusade". And yet you don't see the US government using drones to kill members of the previous administrators, Fox News commentators, and conservative radio hosts who have all used their positions of authority to encourage violence against Muslims.

I find it very interesting that you feel that killing Awlaki will somehow "prevent those means from being used again." All our policy of drone strikes is doing is creating more and more people who will be willing to take up arms against us in the future. There were what, seven other people killed in the drone strike that got Awlaki? That's seven families and groups of friends who now have a personal blood feud with America. I mean we've been killing "senior AQ officials" for like five years and yet there always seems to be more so I would have to say that we're doing very little to prevent those means from being used again.

OG_slinger wrote:

Hasan had been disillusioned for years and deeply uncomfortable with his role of being a Muslim serviceman considering what our government was doing to in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trying to claim that Awlaki turned Hasan from a loyal apple pie and baseball American into an AQ killing machine is a bit much.

I never claimed that Hasan was turned into anything by al-Awlaki, just that (by my reading of what he's said on the matter) he helped Hasan plan his attack, and encouraged him to do it.

As far as Awlaki's claims that he was accused of crimes that was simply false and that's an important point to make. The federal government had not officially accused him of any crimes. There were no active arrest warrants for him. And the government made no attempt to extradite him. So how do you go from not officially being accused of any crimes to such a threat that the only solution is to kill you and everyone around you (sans a trial, of course).

The accusations he was talking about were from the Yemen government. By my quick read of the situation, Yemen asked the US to help them with a group of Al-Qaeda that was operating within their borders, one of whom was al-Awlaki (according to Yemen), and we obliged. I agree that there should have been some form of trial (with al-Awlaki tried in absentia, and the interview where he says he refuses to turn himself in and dares the government to come and get him as his voluntary waiver of his right to be present) where his validity as a target was officially determined.

I simply disagree with your position that Awlaki wasn't killed for his opinions. There really isn't any difference between the thousands of Americans who called for the deaths of all Muslims after 9/11 and some random cleric saying Americans should be killed. For one, it wasn't just random hillbillies that called for the death of Muslims. It was at all levels of our government, including our then born-again President who called for our overwhelmingly Christian military to wage a "crusade". And yet you don't see the US government using drones to kill members of the previous administrators, Fox News commentators, and conservative radio hosts who have all used their positions of authority to encourage violence against Muslims.

The main difference I see is that no conservative radio hosts or Fox News commentators claimed to have helped plan any attacks on Muslims. If you want to hold the previous administration responsible for their "crusade" I'm all for it.

I find it very interesting that you feel that killing Awlaki will somehow "prevent those means from being used again." All our policy of drone strikes is doing is creating more and more people who will be willing to take up arms against us in the future. There were what, seven other people killed in the drone strike that got Awlaki? That's seven families and groups of friends who now have a personal blood feud with America. I mean we've been killing "senior AQ officials" for like five years and yet there always seems to be more so I would have to say that we're doing very little to prevent those means from being used again.

I find it interesting too, because I never said that. What I did say was that I fully support that something be done to make sure that those means (not going through the proper procedure when declaring al-Awlaki a valid target) don't get used again.

Stengah wrote:

I never claimed that Hasan was turned into anything by al-Awlaki, just that (by my reading of what he's said on the matter) he helped Hasan plan his attack, and encouraged him to do it.

So without seeing the actual emails you're entirely comfortable saying that Awlaki helped Hasan plan his attack? That he's guilty until proven innocent?

Stengah wrote:

The accusations he was talking about were from the Yemen government. By my quick read of the situation, Yemen asked the US to help them with a group of Al-Qaeda that was operating within their borders, one of whom was al-Awlaki (according to Yemen), and we obliged. I agree that there should have been some form of trial (with al-Awlaki tried in absentia, and the interview where he says he refuses to turn himself in and dares the government to come and get him as his voluntary waiver of his right to be present) where his validity as a target was officially determined.

And all of that has nothing to do with America. It sounds likes an internal Yemeni police matter that doesn't require the US to launch a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone against one of its own citizens inside Yemen. You can dress it up all you want, but this wasn't a simple matter of Yemen asking for our help tracking down a supposed fugitive.

Stengah wrote:

The main difference I see is that no conservative radio hosts or Fox News commentators claimed to have helped plan any attacks on Muslims. If you want to hold the previous administration responsible for their "crusade" I'm all for it.

But that's not the point you made. You said:

There's a big difference between someone saying "We should kill all of those Muslims!" and a cleric giving multiple sermons about how it's every Muslim's duty to murder Americans. For one, the cleric is in a position of authority.

You seem to be all for getting a Muslim cleric who says "Death to Americans" but then seem to be applying a different standard to conservative media: they have to actually help plan an attack to be as guilty. I simply view their 24/7 chants about "radical Islam", the manufacturing of completely bullsh*t "controversies" about Muslims like the Trade Center Mosque, and many, many other things as much, much worse than what a Muslim cleric might say during Friday prayers. At the very least the conservative media have one hell of a bigger loudspeaker.

Stengah wrote:

I find it interesting too, because I never said that. What I did say was that I fully support that something be done to make sure that those means (not going through the proper procedure when declaring al-Awlaki a valid target) don't get used again.

Ah, my mistake. I thought you were talking about killing Alwaki to make sure another Hasan doesn't happen.

I fully agree that the government was wrong to not seek judicial approval of his targeting, but I do not fault them for targeting him.

Actually, it's been reported that the President *did* seek (and get) legal approval for the targeting. Whether we agree with the fact that that was done in secret - I think it should be released now that we're after the fact - it's incorrect to state that the killing was extrajudicial.

I'm amazed that by the standards proposed here, if an American citizen traveled overseas to join, say, Hezbollah, and proceeded to plan operations (in secret), issue calls for US citizens to rise up against the government, provided aid and comfort to terrorists, but didn't actually pull a trigger, we'd have no recourse. We could not charge him with any crime in this interpretation, nor could we target him for capture or killing, nor could we put him on trial. He'd be entirely excused from treason because the First Amendment is held to a standard that does not exist in the courts. How does this help us stop terror organizations, which by their nature are secretive and actively *hide* their actions and deliberations from the public?

No one wants to discuss how we deal with secret evidence, or why it's secret in the first place. And yet it exists.

Al-Awlaki went overseas to join Al Quaeda, an organization actively attacking Americans. By his own account, he did so and became an important part of their operations, in propaganda and planning of attacks. Is this not treason? I mean, what more does he have to do?

And again, the fear that this practice will extend into the persecution of ordinary citizens in the US is completely unsupported. Heck, in just the last few weeks we've had several arrests of people planning terror acts in the US, none of which were extra-judicially killed. So how in the world can anyone claim that we're on a slippery slope, in the face of hard evidence that the system here in the US has not changed?

There's no connection between what happened to Al-Awlaki and his son, and the normal prosecution of crimes, even terror crimes, committed by US citizens in the US. Unless you can show us *how* this will happen, rather than just express fear that it will, in the face of solid evidence that it's *not* happening, I don't buy it.

OG_slinger wrote:

So without seeing the actual emails you're entirely comfortable saying that Awlaki helped Hasan plan his attack? That he's guilty until proven innocent?

No, I'm saying I think he's most likely guilty based on his statements about how Hasan was not a lone gunman like the government claims, and heavily implying that the reason the government hasn't released his emails is because they prove that he helped plan them. I don't get to decide if he's guilty or not. I can only say that to me, he seems guilty. I'm also upset that they didn't go through the proper procedure and prove that he was guilty. The main difference (that I can see) is that I think he would have been found guilty if he had a fair trial. You and Malor appear to think that he would not have been.

And all of that has nothing to do with America. It sounds likes an internal Yemeni police matter that doesn't require the US to launch a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone against one of its own citizens inside Yemen. You can dress it up all you want, but this wasn't a simple matter of Yemen asking for our help tracking down a supposed fugitive.

Indeed it isn't that simple a matter, because the fugitive they wanted help tracking down was an American citizen and an influential member of Al-Qaeda (though it hasn't been explicitly proven) who uses the power of his tribe to evade authorities and aid other Al-Qaeda members.

Stengah wrote:

The main difference I see is that no conservative radio hosts or Fox News commentators claimed to have helped plan any attacks on Muslims. If you want to hold the previous administration responsible for their "crusade" I'm all for it.

But that's not the point you made. You said:

There's a big difference between someone saying "We should kill all of those Muslims!" and a cleric giving multiple sermons about how it's every Muslim's duty to murder Americans. For one, the cleric is in a position of authority.

You seem to be all for getting a Muslim cleric who says "Death to Americans" but then seem to be applying a different standard to conservative media: they have to actually help plan an attack to be as guilty. I simply view their 24/7 chants about "radical Islam", the manufacturing of completely bullsh*t "controversies" about Muslims like the Trade Center Mosque, and many, many other things as much, much worse than what a Muslim cleric might say during Friday prayers. At the very least the conservative media have one hell of a bigger loudspeaker.

It wasn't him saying "Death to Americans" that makes me okay with his being targeted, it was him also helping out those that listened to him plan their attacks. There are other Muslim clerics who say "Death to Americans" as much as al-Alwaki did, and I'm not for "getting" them.

Stengah wrote:

I find it interesting too, because I never said that. What I did say was that I fully support that something be done to make sure that those means (not going through the proper procedure when declaring al-Awlaki a valid target) don't get used again.

Ah, my mistake. I thought you were talking about killing Alwaki to make sure another Hasan doesn't happen.[/quote]
No, if it were up to me, al-Alwaki wouldn't be dead, just in prison, and then only after actually having a trial. My stance on it is not as simple as "He hates America so I want him dead."

People continue to gloss over that when American troops approached a town where he was hiding his supporters opened fire on them and spirited him away. If your posse opening fire on American troops doesn't sign your death warrant, I don't know what does.

bandit0013 wrote:

People continue to gloss over that when American troops approached a town where he was hiding his supporters opened fire on them and spirited him away. If your posse opening fire on American troops doesn't sign your death warrant, I don't know what does.

Seriously. He was just lucky that they didn't call in a F/A18 to drop a 1000 pound JDAM on them right then and there.

That's how Paleocon sees it.