FOX: U.S. Born Terror Boss Anwar Al-Awlaki Killed

[sacase]

So every member of Al Qeada is a legitimate target of war? Who decides who is a member of al Qeada and who isn't?

We're talking about this guy here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samir_Khan

Was he a member of Al Qeada?

Or was he friends with a guy that was a member of al Qeada?

You wanna run with members of AQ then if you get popped with them, its your own damn fault. Otherwise every AQ guy would have a willing US citizen who is just "friends" with this guy sitting next to him 24/7. Just another reason why civilians should stay off the battlefield.

[Drew_Fl]

You wanna run with members of AQ then if you get popped with them, its your own damn fault. Otherwise every AQ guy would have a willing US citizen who is just "friends" with this guy sitting next to him 24/7. Just another reason why civilians should stay off the battlefield.

The battlefield??? Do these guys have uniforms and have ranks too? You totally missed the point of the post you quoted.

[Destino]

So we should kill everybody that is the enemy of the US?

Where is the evidence supporting the rest of your statement?

During the 1950s, was every communist a legitimate war target?

Your argument is not lost on me and I acknowledge the dangerous game that this is. The assassination game has been taken to an entirely new level.

Having said that there is a significant different between a political view point, communism, and a terrorist group. Al Qaeda is a terrorist group, they have no other function other than to murder people in an effort to force them to accept their horrifying religious state views. I find it hard to sympathize with the viewpoint that they don't all have blood on their hands.

[twa]

If they would go back to simply not publicizing it there would be less flack

[PeterMP]

Your argument is not lost on me and I acknowledge the dangerous game that this is. The assassination game has been taken to an entirely new level.

Having said that there is a significant different between a political view point, communism, and a terrorist group. Al Qaeda is a terrorist group, they have no other function other than to murder people in an effort to force them to accept their horrifying religious state views. I find it hard to sympathize with the viewpoint that they don't all have blood on their hands.

Well, there was considered to be a "global struggle" between communism and capitialism in the 1950s. It was generally accepted (and I think believed by many communist) that the objective of communism was to "take over the world".

I've already said that I don't generally have an issue with what was done here. I do think that people that don't think this has raised some issues and concerns that should be taken seriously are dumb.

[twa]

But does taken seriously mean opposing it?

It is clearly justifiable action in my view(much as I would love to beat O up over it)

[Destino]

But does taken seriously mean opposing it?

It is clearly justifiable action in my view(much as I would love to beat O up over it)

We don't know much about the system in place for ordering the assassination of people. Perhaps something that said "records would be open within 10 years time for review and no immunity available for any of the participants". We have a bad habit in the US of releasing bad behavior after the players have long since died or refusing to hold anyone accountable. With something as powerful as "choose who dies" without the press having to know anything about it I think having SOMETHING in place to make sure people aren't killed for the wrong reasons may be a good idea.

[twa]

Seems a reasonable system is in place imo...especially if it is simply used in areas outside our control

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2011/10/the-kill-or-capture-list/

The process involves “going through the National Security Council, then it eventually goes to the president, but the National Security Council does the investigation, they have lawyers, they review, they look at the situation, you have input from the military, and also, we make sure that we follow international law,” Ruppersberger said.

Reuters reporter Mark Hosenball interviewed other ‘officials’ about the process for adding individuals to the list:

They said targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC “principals,” meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval. The panel of principals could have different memberships when considering different operational issues, they said.

On Obama’s role in the list:

…Obama was not required personally to approve the targeting of a person. But one official said Obama would be notified of the principals’ decision. If he objected, the decision would be nullified, the official said.

A note on Peter's killed for speech issue

U.S. officials contrast intelligence suggesting Awlaki’s involvement in specific plots with the activities of Adam Gadahn, an American citizen who became a principal English-language propagandist for the core al Qaeda network formerly led by Osama bin Laden.

While Gadahn appeared in angry videos calling for attacks on the United States, officials said he had not been specifically targeted for capture or killing by U.S. forces because he was regarded as a loudmouth not directly involved in plotting attacks.

[sacase]

The battlefield??? Do these guys have uniforms and have ranks too? You totally missed the point of the post you quoted.

We are obviously fighting an asymmetric war. The battlefield is wherever these guys are and yes they have ranks within AQ. I did not miss the point. You were talking about how we decide who is apart of AQ. Look, if dude is in the car with a known AQ senior leader, then he is probably not a good guy. Even if he was, he should use better judgment. My grandma always told me, show me who your friends are and I will show you who you are. I am sorry but he is a POS who deserved to get smoked like a cheap cigar. No tears, no apology.

[Drew_Fl]

We are obviously fighting an asymmetric war. The battlefield is wherever these guys are and yes they have ranks within AQ. I did not miss the point. You were talking about how we decide who is apart of AQ. Look, if dude is in the car with a known AQ senior leader, then he is probably not a good guy. Even if he was, he should use better judgment. My grandma always told me, show me who your friends are and I will show you who you are. I am sorry but he is a POS who deserved to get smoked like a cheap cigar. No tears, no apology.

I don't want our policy on killing American citizens to be based on words like "probably", "should", "deserved", as well as anecdotal advice from Grandma.

edit: i do follow your point and appreciate it on a personal level, but we are talking about something on a much greater scale and magnitude here.

[twa]

I don't want our policy on killing American citizens to be based on words like "probably", "should", "deserved", as well as anecdotal advice from Grandma.

.

The govt lawyers use different terms to make it legal, if it is simply the words at issue.

[Drew_Fl]

The govt lawyers use different terms to make it legal, if it is simply the words at issue.

Who needs lawyers when you can call anyone you want a "militant" or "enemy combatant" and throw them in to Guantanamo or nail them with a $58,000 Hellfire II missile without consequence or due process? If they really play their cards right, they can maximize the kills per Hellfire if they get them in a big group without regard to who is actually in the group and really help our bottom line.

Kind of like extreme couponing on a trip to the supermarket.

[sacase]

Who needs lawyers when you can call anyone you want a "militant" or "enemy combatant" and throw them in to Guantanamo or nail them with a $58,000 Hellfire II missile without consequence or due process? If they really play their cards right, they can maximize the kills per Hellfire if they get them in a big group without regard to who is actually in the group and really help our bottom line.

Kind of like extreme couponing on a trip to the supermarket.

I honestly dont' get the problem. Its really pretty simple and we need to keep it that way. We are at war with AQ. We will kill AQ senior leaders wherever we find them and cannot exert LE resources. If you as an American choose to join AQ and run around in Yemen, Somalia or Afghanistan and you get killed, it is your own fault. The American government is under no special rules to protect you from military operations that you chose to involve yourself in.

[twa]

Yep, now if they move beyond that scope I might take issue with it.

[Drew_Fl]

I honestly dont' get the problem. Its really pretty simple and we need to keep it that way. We are at war with AQ. We will kill AQ senior leaders wherever we find them and cannot exert LE resources. If you as an American choose to join AQ and run around in Yemen, Somalia or Afghanistan and you get killed, it is your own fault. The American government is under no special rules to protect you from military operations that you chose to involve yourself in.

Yep, now if they move beyond that scope I might take issue with it.

Sacase, I would agree with your post if reality was as simple as you make it. However, I don't see how you guys can make it so simple when it is anything but. Like I've been saying all along, what level of involvement with Al-Qaeda warrants death? They don't exactly have a card-carrying membership.

Tell me what you guys think about this: You find out on the news that your brother, sister, husband, or wife was killed in some other country because they were present with known Al Qaeda members and the gov't said you were "involved". You wouldn't be the least pissed off that your loved one was killed and the gov't could provide zero evidence that your loved one did anything to harm ANY Americans at home or abroad? You're allowed to be a person who is Islamic and holds anti-American sentiment, even in this country as long as you don't harm anyone. As with Khan, the gov't has already said it has zero proof he did anything that led to any American deaths.

All I'm saying is convicted serial rapists and murderers don't even always get the death penalty in this country, yet it's ok to blast our own to pieces just based on circumstance and their beliefs.

I think it's very easy to just boil this down into a simple situation with no gray areas like Sacase did in his post with these imaginary people that you have no relation with. However, if you would truly be ok with a family member being taken out by the gov't like that, you have issues in my opinion.

[SnyderShrugged]

I had a long conversation/debate with my very neo-con Dad (whom I love dearly, despite his misguided views BTW)

I was at least able to make him think through his position with a little more thought. The tactic I used. I lied a little. (stole this tactic from another btw because it worked for him too)

When I called him, I fibbed and said that I had heard on the news that Mexico took out their most wanted cartel leader with a drone in Texas.

Dad flipped and said what a horrible thing that Mexico would dare do that on our soil.

I then admitted my fib and pointed out that we just did the same thing in yemen.

[Drew_Fl]

I had a long conversation/debate with my very neo-con Dad (whom I love dearly, despite his misguided views BTW)

I was at least able to make him think through his position with a little more thought. The tactic I used. I lied a little. (stole this tactic from another btw because it worked for him too)

When I called him, I fibbed and said that I had heard on the news that Mexico took out their most wanted cartel leader with a drone in Texas.

Dad flipped and said what a horrible thing that Mexico would dare do that on our soil.

I then admitted my fib and pointed out that we just did the same thing in yemen.

Didn't we have Yemen's cooperation though? That makes it very different then the situation you're describing.

[sacase]

Sacase, I would agree with your post if reality was as simple as you make it. However, I don't see how you guys can make it so simple when it is anything but. Like I've been saying all along, what level of involvement with Al-Qaeda warrants death? They don't exactly have a card-carrying membership.

Tell me what you guys think about this: You find out on the news that your brother, sister, husband, or wife was killed in some other country because they were present with known Al Qaeda members and the gov't said you were "involved". You wouldn't be the least pissed off that your loved one was killed and the gov't could provide zero evidence that your loved one did anything to harm ANY Americans at home or abroad? You're allowed to be a person who is Islamic and holds anti-American sentiment, even in this country as long as you don't harm anyone. As with Khan, the gov't has already said it has zero proof he did anything that led to any American deaths.

All I'm saying is convicted serial rapists and murderers don't even always get the death penalty in this country, yet it's ok to blast our own to pieces just based on circumstance and their beliefs.

I think it's very easy to just boil this down into a simple situation with no gray areas like Sacase did in his post with these imaginary people that you have no relation with. However, if you would truly be ok with a family member being taken out by the gov't like that, you have issues in my opinion.

If one of my brothers was paling around with AAA, he would cease to be my brother and deserved whatever fate he got. It would be a disgrace to our family considering we have a very long military tradition as there has been at least one male serving every generation since Before WWI. It really is that simple, you are the one complicating it. Fact of the matter is the US Govt is not going to spend a lot of time doing the analysis or send a predator after someone who is a bit player. They are going after a key leader. You are not going to get next to those guys unless you are trusted. If you get popped with them, then oh well.

[SnyderShrugged]

Didn't we have Yemen's cooperation though? That makes it very different then the situation you're describing.

Right, so as long as Mexico has US "cooperation" all would be cool for a drone killing their most wanted then?

[twa]

Being actively involved in targeting Americans seems to be the bar from my earlier link.

Doing so is not a simple difference of opinion,nor a matter of free speech/religion

I don't waste tears on those working to kill Americans (that don't need killing)

[Drew_Fl]

Right, so as long as Mexico has US "cooperation" all would be cool for a drone killing their most wanted then?

Regardless of my opinion on the situation, all i was saying is that you conveniently left that fact out when you explained it to your father. Or at least you left it out when you posted it on here. Obviously it wouldn't be ok if we weren't involved at all.

[PeterMP]

Being actively involved in targeting Americans seems to be the bar from my earlier link.

Doing so is not a simple difference of opinion,nor a matter of free speech/religion

I don't waste tears on those working to kill Americans (that don't need killing)

As determined by the executive branch of the federal government.

You've heard of this idea of checks and balances, right?

[Drew_Fl]

If one of my brothers was paling around with AAA, he would cease to be my brother and deserved whatever fate he got. It would be a disgrace to our family considering we have a very long military tradition as there has been at least one male serving every generation since Before WWI. It really is that simple, you are the one complicating it. Fact of the matter is the US Govt is not going to spend a lot of time doing the analysis or send a predator after someone who is a bit player. They are going after a key leader. You are not going to get next to those guys unless you are trusted. If you get popped with them, then oh well.

Being actively involved in targeting Americans seems to be the bar from my earlier link.

Doing so is not a simple difference of opinion,nor a matter of free speech/religion

I don't waste tears on those working to kill Americans (that don't need killing)

That's fine i respect your opinions. I am making it complicated b/c it really is a complicated situation to me. At least, when we are talking about assassinating our own people, I really hope it's complicated b/c that should never be very simple accept in situations where this is hard evidence of serious wrongdoing, which I don't believe we have in this case. If you think we have enough to kill someone, it's ok we just disagree.

I've seen firsthand that not every "militant" we imprison in the AOR is guilty of anything at all. I've seen our indifference to the situation also. It's even scarier to think that our own citizens can suffer a worse fate than false imprisonment. Maybe you can understand why I'm a little "uncomfortable" with how I perceive the situation to have played out. I really hope there is a lot more than some unaccountable panel with no public records going on behind the scenes to prevent unjust killings.

[twa]

As determined by the executive branch of the federal government.

You've heard of this idea of checks and balances, right?

I've heard of the Constitution granting the Executive discretion in foreign policy and defense

Check that part out

If Congress removes or limits the AUMF it becomes a higher bar,but one he can easily clear under the present guidelines.

I can promise you SCOTUS ain't gonna overrule the other two branches in such a matter

[sacase]

That's fine i respect your opinions. I am making it complicated b/c it really is a complicated situation to me. At least, when we are talking about assassinating our own people, I really hope it's complicated b/c that should never be very simple accept in situations where this is hard evidence of serious wrongdoing, which I don't believe we have in this case. If you think we have enough to kill someone, it's ok we just disagree.

I've seen firsthand that not every "militant" we imprison in the AOR is guilty of anything at all. I've seen our indifference to the situation also. It's even scarier to think that our own citizens can suffer a worse fate than false imprisonment. Maybe you can understand why I'm a little "uncomfortable" with how I perceive the situation to have played out. I really hope there is a lot more than some unaccountable panel with no public records going on behind the scenes to prevent unjust killings.

Let's try this a different way since we are throwing scenarios our. Ok say one of our best generals decides he wants to turn traitor and becomes a general in the Chinese army. We are at war with china. Would it be an assassination if we knew where that general was and bombed his bunker killing him? Would you be opposed to that?