The title may offend some, but here at Loonwatch we do not believe in any sacred cows. By now we have all heard reports about the killing of accused terrorist and mastermind behind the “underwear bomber” and “Fort Hood shootings,” US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki. The fact that he was on a “hit list” that included other US citizens was reported back in January:
It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki.
After several unsuccessful attempts by the US government Anwar al-Awlaki is finally dead. The indefatigable Glenn Greenwald spells out the tendentious nature of the hunt for Awlaki and all the resultant shadiness:
No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki’s inclusion on President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.”
Awlaki once was a marginal figure, on the run in the mountains of Yemen, his operational role in AlQaeda was nill, now he has been transformed into a martyr with a little help from our brutal friend, the President of Yemen:
After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.). It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its. The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world. The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.
The implications for our civil liberties and checks and balances on the power of the Executive are clear:
What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists — criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.
From an authoritarian perspective, that’s the genius of America’s political culture. It not only finds way to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process). It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards.
Greenwald’s evaluation is dark because of the uncomfortable truth he relates: we are cheering the destruction of the very liberties that safeguard us from the abuses of power.
This is all being done under the guise of defending our “freedom” and “security.” In reality, as terror expert Professor Charles Kurzman points out, very few Muslims were interested in Awlaki’s message:
Given that Awlaki’s messages is sitting on the internet, easily accessible to millions of English speaking Muslims, it’s very interesting how few have taken him up on his demand that Muslims join the revolutionary movement.
It is time that US citizens stand up for their rights and say we will not allow the government to take the life of our citizens without due process. We are not going to buy the line that our civil liberties and freedoms must be bargained in the interest of “security,” especially from a threat that is overblown in the first place.
September 30th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Greenwald, while someone I do not always agree with, is very good at writing thought provoking articles.
September 30th, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Given that Awlaki’s messages is sitting on the internet, easily accessible to millions of English speaking Muslims, it’s very interesting how few have taken him up on his demand that Muslims join the revolutionary movement.
Excuse me, but his message influenced Hasan at Fort Hood to kill 13 innocent soldiers, and even though they were not successful, the Christmas Day bomber and the Seattle incident could have killed more Americans.
He was a traitor to the US, he gave up his rights the moment he was planning sedition against his country.
The vigilance we require to keep our citizens safe, will require that all those who use terrorism, domestic and abroad, will be brought to justice, dead or alive.
September 30th, 2011 at 1:02 pm
wow still mindy gets first say….me smells a sayanim. And still while i have all this fish around me. Sussana (wasnt that a name of a song?) dont you think over a billion mooselims would have KILLED you by now if they were soooooo bad. WTFU please.
September 30th, 2011 at 1:07 pm
So do you think if an American pastor says that we should nuke Mecca (like many have), and then someone starts hating Muslims and goes out and kills a Muslim (like we have seen happening before), the American pastor can be sought and shot dead on the spot by the FBI?
September 30th, 2011 at 1:12 pm
I’ll bet this is a sleazy attempt from the disgraceful, despicable dictator Ali Salah and his U.S/Saudi cheerlearders, in order to crush further the democratic movement, thus securing his dictatorship throne. He will definilely use this cheap shot to clinch to power.
September 30th, 2011 at 1:23 pm
Frankly, Obama did this right. And I believe muslim countries have every right to do whatever it takes to neutralise some idiot in another part of the world parcelling bombs or recruiting terrorists to attack a muslim country. Secondly, Awlaki and his two dozen men self declared war on America. In war, the combatants kill their enemy combatants. I don’t see any reason why Awlaki and his gang should complain of unfairness.
If theres anything to really complain, its the legality of muslim countries giving or allowing their people to get killed or taken prisoner by a foreign country. Even America does not allow their citizens to face trial in International criminal courts. Then why should muslims countries ?
September 30th, 2011 at 2:02 pm
Awlaki is no more. Good riddance.
September 30th, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Anwar al-Awlaki death’s was a good thing. I doubt it will palliate anti-Muslim bigotry (just as Bin Laden’s death actually increased anti-Muslim sentiment), but it was overall a good thing regardless of its legality. Anyways, it seems that many people generally don’t care when the rights of Muslims are violated even if they’re not extremists.
September 30th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
In the US, the ACCUSED is innocent until proven guilty and he or she has a right to a fair trial. Usually people get around that by saying the accused was not a US citizen, but Awlaki was born in New Mexico, USA!
Why does everyone think this is great? Did you read the part about no actual EVIDENCE? What were the charges? Inspiring and planning stuff…maybe??
It’s “a good thing”? If the government declares someone with a name like “Nassir” guilty, everyone will assume it’s true, no evidence required.
This is not about whether we have warm fuzzy feelings toward Awlaki. It is about the rule of law, which almost no one seems to think matters anymore. Bizarre.
September 30th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
Maybe I am in the minority here but I think its a good sign that Obama is getting ridding of all the so-called “Muslim radicals” such as Awlaki or OBL used for a long time to induce fear and paranoia about Muslims.
September 30th, 2011 at 4:33 pm
Exactly Talisman, this is not about our “feelings” for Awlaki or the ideology he espoused. For sure Awlaki’s beliefs were retrograde. That is not in dispute!
The point is we are supposed to have a justice system in this country last I checked, US citizens have a right to due process. This is not a partisan point.
This is a principle on which our nation was founded. That is why you have sincere individuals who cut across political lines/parties who have spoken out against this seemingly extra-judicial privilege that we are granting carte blanche to the Executive.
September 30th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I am surprised at some of the comments here.
this is not about defending Awlaki or not, it’s whether vigilante justice is justified.
Regardless of Awlakis crimes, he has a right to a fair trial. Even if it ends in the death sentence. That is the right of every criminal.
This is little more than vigilante justice. Yet more proof, why the USA is a rogue state. According to this logic, Iraq’s President or leader has the right then to send men to kill those who institgated the Iraq war. Dick Cheney for example. Would Obama approve of that?
THat said, the right wing extremists are probably in a tizzy, because they can no longer say Obama is soft on terrorism, or use his “Muslimness” against him.
Killing Bin Laden and Awlaki is quite a feat. Though I don’t approve of vigilante justice, the fact remains Obama has shamed his right wing critics on terrorism.
September 30th, 2011 at 4:56 pm
If Anwar Awlaki wanted to be treated like a US citizen than he shouldn’t have hidden with tribes planning decisive terrorist operations against civilians and hiding behind his Yemeni citizenship in what is essentially a war zone.
September 30th, 2011 at 5:02 pm
I’m surprised at how many people here think this is a good thing. This is not about supporting Awlaki. While many of us, including the U.S. government may disagree with his words, what actual physical crimes did he commit? While his *words* may have inspired the fort hood shooter and others, what did he actually *do*? If there was evidence of a crime, why not bring it up in a trial?
So today the executive branch of the U.S. extra-judicially targetted and killed a citizen who’s views they disagreed with. Today it happened to be a Muslim. Twenty, fifty, or a hundred years from now, who will the executive disagree with then? Maybe they’ll be drone striking the tea party? Sounds ridiculous, but the precedent this act sets should be quite disturbing to everyone regardless of political persuasion.
September 30th, 2011 at 5:53 pm
I have mixed feelings about this like many of you. I want to believe that his death is a positive and just move on. But the legality of it just keeps itching away. Regardless, even questioning his killing will probably brand you a terrorist sympathizer.
September 30th, 2011 at 5:56 pm
i am glad he is dead, a trial will only serve to fan the flames of all the islamophobes and the media. Just let all of these scum die and lets move on from this.
September 30th, 2011 at 6:36 pm
A lot of people sound peeved off by the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki (on Salon that is).
September 30th, 2011 at 7:10 pm
Dirtbag killers, no matter whether they are Christian or Muslim or whatever, should have due process of law.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
Last I checked, we’re in America where everyone including loons like Awlaki deserve a fair trial. sounds like a political move from Obama.
September 30th, 2011 at 8:56 pm
@NassirH, @IbnAbuTalib: You do realise that you are cheering on the cold-blooded murder of another human being, right? Have you no shame?
September 30th, 2011 at 11:39 pm
planning of operations is not free speech.
It is called command. Planners and Commanders in a war are valid military targets.
October 1st, 2011 at 2:00 am
Firstly I dont think there will be any doubts over at “Atlas does Druggs” , ” the gates of very sad people ” and ” bad watch” . A telling argument why it may not be such a good think in my book.
I dont believe in capital punishment anyway as this wonderful song demonstrates
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQm_8uoljWM&NR=1
October 1st, 2011 at 2:09 am
This is shameful. Obama is just like Bush in his foreign policy.
October 1st, 2011 at 3:03 am
Has anyone at Abu Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay received a fair trial so far? And then aren’t these people considered “very dangerous” to be brought to US’s soils to be awarded justice? Didn’t Obama’s opponents shoot down his proposal to bring Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a supposed mastermind behind 911, to trial in NY?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6917247.ece
Obama is acting according to what the parameters have been set for him by his predecessors and what the previous regime should have done instead of invading all over. Obama is the one who wanted to pull out of Iraq and close down Guantanamo Bay and withdraw troops from Afghanistan. His opponents are the one that want to prolong the so called “war on terror”.
October 1st, 2011 at 3:57 am
Ibrahim, why should I be ashamed of the cold blooded murder of a cold blooded murderer?
October 1st, 2011 at 4:37 am
Nobody in their right mind is saying al-awlaki was a good guy!
It’s just his execution without a legal trial is disturbing.
Even the Nazi generals had a trial at nuremberg!!!
October 1st, 2011 at 9:12 am
I agree with Susanna, Fox News (the commenter, not the channel), Nassir H, IbnAbuTalib, and everyone else here who recognizes that Anwar Awlaki was a dangerous terrorist and that his killing is good news for the civilized world.
This hard-hitting editorial refutes the specious arguments of misguided liberals like Glenn Greenwald:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/10/01/2011-10-01_dead_to_rights.html
“Just this week, Inspire published a 10th anniversary tribute to 9/11; on the cover was an image of the twin towers alongside the headline, “The Greatest Special Operation of All Time.”
These are American citizens? The idea may be of interest in law school seminars; as a moral matter during a war, it has nothing to do with anything.
If, in 1941, an American citizen put on a German or Japanese uniform and pledged allegiance to the swastika or rising sun, he would have walked into our guys’ cross hairs. End of story.
New Mexico-born Awlaki was far more dangerous than your run-of-the-mill radical cleric. His sermons, distributed mostly on YouTube, encouraged Muslims to kill Americans and Jews, and they are linked to more than a dozen terror investigations in the U.S., Britain and Canada…
They and their ilk dream of arrests, indictments and trials for every enemy soldier. Hardly an effective tactic in a war to protect the homeland.”
October 1st, 2011 at 9:16 am
Anwar al-Awlaki death’s was a good thing. 1 less terrorist in the world but to the people who speak of rule of law he was in Yemen how were we going to get to him and capture him It would cost most lives to get him them to shove a Drone missile up his face
October 1st, 2011 at 9:25 am
Susanna
you should read about people like
Aldrich Ames-Ames admitted that he had compromised “virtually all Soviet agents of the CIA and other American and foreign services known to me” and had provided the USSR and Russia with a “huge quantity of information on United States foreign, defense and security policies.” It is estimated that information Ames provided to the Soviets led to the compromise of at least a hundred U.S. intelligence operations and to the execution of at least ten U.S. sources. He was put on trial and is in jail
Julius and Ethel Rosenberg-t. Charges passing atomic bomb secrets to Russian agent. Were convicted and executed in 1953 for conspiracy to commit espionage during a time of war.
Jonathan Pollard-he turned over a great deal of classified material to the Israelis put on trial and is in Jail
We did not double tap these guys back of the head we put them on trial and they went to jail
October 1st, 2011 at 10:33 am
http://www.slate.com/id/2299967/
“In a manifesto posted online, the admitted killer, Anders Behring Breivik, praised Geller. He cited her blog, Atlas Shrugs, and the writings of her friends, allies, and collaborators—Robert Spencer, Jihad Watch, Islam Watch, and Front Page magazine—more than 250 times. And he echoed their tactics, tarring peaceful Muslims with the crimes of violent Muslims.”
So – is Norway now justified in carrying out ‘targeted killings’ of the sponsors of terrorism in their own country, even if they are American or British citizens? Will we see the FBI carrying out sting operations and surveillance in politically active right-wing Christian churches and communities, as has been the norm in many Muslim communities in the U.S.?
The fact is, radical violent extremists of all stripes are a threat to democracy and open societies – and their true goal is likely the same in all cases: replace democratic pluralist societies with authoritarian states. But this is a road we cannot go down without destroying our fundamental values.
October 1st, 2011 at 11:37 am
This isnt some vigilante justice as potrayed by some comments. If you have someone pointing a gun at your family threatening to kill them, you would do whatever it takes including shoot at first sight. Awlaki isnt some “just a preacher with extreme views”. He openly advocates war and killing of westerners and is part of group that has attempted it. He is more bold in affirming the killing of non-combatants then OBL. Nor is Awlaki some honoured member of parliament in Yemen. He is on a run even in Yemen. The only way to take him out is through a bomb on their heads.
And someone who has issues with everything thats western shouldnt necessarily have the luxury of being tried under western law. US is free to use the law Al Qaeda agrees and practices do deal with Al Qaeda. Why would Al Qaeda fans ever be opposed to their own ways ?
And this action by US isnt surprising. After all, even Americas closest allie has been bombing Palestinian resistance for ages without any complain from US. I dont see why the US would not do the same in their own battle.
I am not taking sides, but simply saying its fair and legal enough. There is a whole bigger background to this about who is the terrorist, who is the oppressor, who is the defender, who started it all and what really matters- who side are we supporting. Both sides point fingers at each other. What both sides should note is that whatever tactic they use against their opponents, they are justifying the tactic being used against themselves, from an eye for an eye perspective. That is quite dangerous for America as Al Qaeda openly states their tactic, but America says one thing and does something else.
The real issue the muslim generality should be worried about is the double standards when it comes to muslim rights. Which nation in the world would allow their own citizens to be put into a Guantanamo Bay of some other country, other than muslim nations ?
October 1st, 2011 at 12:18 pm
This is an extrajudicial killing. Outside of a war zone the US cannot kill an individual unless that person presents an imminent threat of deadly harm, and lethal force is the last result. That is the standard.
October 1st, 2011 at 1:04 pm
“Yeah let’s kill them all because they recite their korans! Free speech? What’s that???”
October 1st, 2011 at 1:27 pm
@Fox News
“Americas closest allie has been bombing Palestinian resistance for ages without any complain from US. I dont see why the US would not do the same in their own battle.”
You are suggesting Israel as a role model for our policies? Are you serious? I think Israel is an example of what NOT to do.
October 1st, 2011 at 1:58 pm
This is NOT an extra judicial killing. If during WW2 an American citizen had joined the Nazis, it would be perfectly legal to kill him on the battlefield. Awlaki joined a foreign terrorist organization that is waging war on the United States. He was a clear and present danger to US citizens and his hiding in the Yemeni desert prevented any possible chance of apprehending him.
Idealists think that every enemy combatant terrorist deserves a trial but Realists (those of us who live in reality) understand that terrorists are enemy combatants. The rules of crime do not apply. The rules of war do apply.
October 1st, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Salaam,
Im still on the fence about this. Even in Islamic Law is it permitted to kill someone who is directly influencing those who are violent (meaning, someone who encourages it openly) and is actually successful.
At the same time, it is hard to say that Alwaki was actually a “citizen” at this point because it seems he committed an act of treason.
October 1st, 2011 at 5:30 pm
I find it interesting when people make bold statements about international law without sourcing. Do they actually look this stuff up, or just make it up?
US Request to United Nations:
“The United States respectfully submits that inquiries related to allegations stemming from military operations conducted during the course of an armed conflict with Al Qaida do not fall within the mandate of the Special Rapporteur. . . . [E]nemy combatants may be attacked unless they have surrendered or are otherwise rendered hors de combat. Al Qaida terrorists who continue to ploy attacks against the United States may be lawful subjects of armed attack in appropriate circumstances.”
Response:
“This response suggests that the Special Rapporteur should automatically accept a State’s unsubstantiated assertion that a particular individual was an ‘enemy combatant’ attacked in ‘appropriate circumstances’. According to this understanding, a Government may target and kill any individual without any detailed explanation to the international community simply by stating that he was an enemy combatant.
In essence, your Government’s position has the effect of placing all actions taken in the ‘global war on terror’ in a public accountability void, in which no public and transparent international monitoring body would exercise oversight. 42 It is in the interest of all parties that no such void exists in international law.”
UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial Executions
October 1st, 2011 at 8:22 pm
Alright, let’s do this…
We have two completely seperate points here:
1. Was the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki a ‘good’ thing in a literal sense?
2. Was the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki a ‘good’ thing in a legal sense?
‘Good’ is of course a relative term here:
1. In the former question it is asking if the world was ‘made a better place’ with Anwar al-Awlaki’s removal.
2. In the later question it is asking if it was legally ‘correct’ and above the board to remove Anwar al-Awalki.
So, the answer? I think that to the former most people will agree that Anwar al-Awalki was, to say the least, an undesirable character who did a fair bit of harm to both Muslims and non-Muslims around the world with his hate speech. His ‘removal’, in this case his killing, was thus a ‘good’ thing though it can be argued that it just makes him a martyr.
To the second, the answer is that it is clearly not legal. I’m not going to do your research on this one but there are plenty of sources on the internet for your reading.
Personaly I think that the impact of Anwar al-Awlaki has been greatly overstressed to provide an ‘enemy’ in the media, just as OBL was. It would have, as with OBL, probably been far better to drag him into court and pick apart his reasoning in the face of the world media. In fact, I think that Muslims should do just that; take every one of his stupid videos and provide a counter video to it. I’ve already started, anyone want to help?
October 1st, 2011 at 10:59 pm
The comments regarding this story really shows how ignorant the majority
of you are…THERE IS NO AL QAEDA ! Are you dumb,deaf or just stupid ? Whoever the states claims is a terrorist speaks the truth,they are the terrorists …..period !
October 1st, 2011 at 11:01 pm
@ IbnAbutalib…. Where is your proof ?? show me where he killed ! and don’t you dare use any msm ….
October 1st, 2011 at 11:02 pm
as evidence.
October 2nd, 2011 at 7:47 am
planning of operations is not free speech.
It is called command. Planners and Commanders in a war are valid military targets.
October 2nd, 2011 at 9:03 am
Some regular posters, naming no names, are seemingly trying to appease the non-Muslim audience.
Anyone with an ounce of respect for the rule of law would never be able to justify the murder of Al-Awlaki.
Fox News – you seem to suggest that those who attack Muslims can be deemed to be legitimate targets against whom Muslims can strike? Does that include Obama? Does that include the US military? It is the US military which has an ocean of Muslim blood on its hands.
A question to those justifying the murder of Al-Awlaki: Do you accept that similar means can be adopted by Muslims against those who kill Muslims?
October 2nd, 2011 at 9:14 am
IbnAbuTalib
Your comments are, quite frankly and with all due respect, a disgrace.
Please forward the evidence confirming that Al-Awlaki was a ‘cold blooded murderer’.
Thanks
October 2nd, 2011 at 11:08 am
I have made a fundamental error in my post at 9:03am on 2 October 2011.
There are many posters here cheering the murder of a man killed for his words and not his actions.
The question I posed earlier is based on a false premise: there is absolutely no evidence that he has killed anyone. He has been – so we are told – killed because of his words.
The USA is saying we can do anything we want: invade your country, steal your resources, flatten cities, destroy the infrastructure of your country, kill hundreds of thousands etc. The USA is acting in a reasonable manner. What is unreasonable however is for someone to speak out against the USA. That is what is really objectionable!
Which is the greater harm?:
What the USA has done and continues to do to countries like Iraq and Afghanistan
OR
The words (and nothing more) spoken by a man who opposes the crimes of the US military?
I can guess what 100% of Iraqis and Afghans would regard as the bigger problem.
October 2nd, 2011 at 1:58 pm
Dawah Films
Im still on the fence about this. Even in Islamic Law is it permitted to kill someone who is directly influencing those who are violent (meaning, someone who encourages it openly) and is actually successful.
Islamic law doesn’t allow for vigilante justice. The USA nor anyone else has any right to kill anyone without a trial.
Islamic law doesn’t allow for anyone to get up and kill. It has to go through the proper channels.
Remember, the Shariah courts of Pakistan sentenced Daniel Pearls killers to death. That was justice, as it was by a judge and jury. Had any vigilate killed Khalid S Mohammed, then that would have been wrong.
It’s not about whether it’s a good thing that Awlaki is dead, it’s about justice. What the USA should have done, was dragged him into court, given him a chance to defend himself, and if he had then been given the death sentence, it would be acceptable.
This however is not acceptable.
October 2nd, 2011 at 2:01 pm
I think it would good thing to get the UN definition of terrorism, and analyse whether recent history of actions committed by the opponents of “militant Islam” i.e US & Israel, fall within or outside the definition. There is a whole linguistic game going on where we are forced into supporting a particular side even though the other side is to be equally held responsible with same rigour.
Fact is that al qaeda lost the propoganda war with their legitimising of attacks on non-combatants. The whole current moral superiority of US or Israel in their propoganda, lies on this particular issue only in that US or Israel atleast has not explicitly legitimised the blood of non-combatnts.
If al qaeda would have acted differently, history would have been quite different.
October 2nd, 2011 at 2:05 pm
Jack Cope
I think that to the former most people will agree that Anwar al-Awalki was, to say the least, an undesirable character who did a fair bit of harm to both Muslims and non-Muslims around the world with his hate speech. His ‘removal’, in this case his killing, was thus a ‘good’ thing though it can be argued that it just makes him a martyr.
Not the point.
Whether he killed 1, or none or 10 million, doesn’t mean anyone can get up and kill.
Does Nuri Al Maliki have the right to send vigilantes to kill Dick Cheney?
This was illegal whether you look at it from an Islamic perspective, (definately wrong) or if you look at it through democratic US laws. It was wrong.
People are overlooking something else, that may have motivated Obama. The dying ecomony and bankrupt military, means these so called wars can’t go on. It was probably an economic decision too, rather than spend billions on a war in Yemen, Obama wants to end but he cannot. So he took the easy way out.
October 2nd, 2011 at 2:18 pm
E Dantes,
I am a 911 truther and what people would call a “conspiracy theorist”. Some people don’t like me for it. For me, Awlaki is nothing but a stooge of the USA to be used for creating fear about radical Islam. Sometimes I do wonder if Awlaki physically existed somewhere. The last time he was in USA, he had passport issues with the US government and then he just disappeared and his passport issues were magically resolved. I mean his radical website is based in Arizona. I can’t go ask Godaddy to host my violent speeches against America, now can I?
I do absolutely believe that Obama is getting rid of previous regime’s stooges or phantom scary figures such as OBL, Awlaki, etc. BTW was Awlaki dumped in sea as well? Obama is the one that was opposing Lieberman’s resolution of calling violent extremism as “violent Islamist extremism”. So I do think Obama is on our side but I know many people don’t buy it.
http://news.yahoo.com/lieberman-obama-admin-refuses-phrase-violent-islamic-extremism-190805777.html
October 2nd, 2011 at 4:13 pm
@Jack Cope: You bring up an interesting point when you describe Awlaki’s alleged crimes as “hate speech.” I agree that he was basically killed for nothing other than hate speech. That is why I find this assassination so disturbing. Why is “hate speech” only a capital offense for Muslims? Why aren’t they drone striking gellar, spencer, wilders, darwish, et al? Many Islamophobes have called for far worse violence against Muslims than anything Anwar Alwaki ever said. Numerous Islamophobes routinely advocate genocide and nuclear war against Muslims. They routinely glorify and encourage violence againt Muslims and denial of our civil liberties. Never once have I heard of any prominant Islamophobe disavow or criticize violence or hate crimes against Muslims. Clearly these people are guilty of incitement against thier fellow citizens who are Muslim. So why no action against them? Just the opposite, Islamophobia nets them revenue and curries political favor with many voters.
I also agree with E Dantes who mentioned that many posters are simply trying to appease the non-Muslim audience. Do you think the Muslim haters will be satisfied and happy now? Will they now hug us and “be friends?” I doubt it. After the killing of OBL, anti-Muslim sentiment actually increased. They are bullies plain and simple. This kind of stuff just emboldens them and gives them the impression that they can do whatever they want to us and we will be happy with it and justify their crimes and abuses for them. So you can expect increased anti-Muslim hate from the usual suspect as one consequence of Awlaki’s assassination.
October 2nd, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Anwar Al-Awlaki was pretty much just an armchair Kharajite. Were his words dangerous? Yes. Did he actually commit any acts of violence or just cheer from the sideline? That hasn’t been determined and probably never will. The following ebook does gives a pretty thorough refutation of him and illustrates his bizarre post 9/11 transformation:
http://www.salafimanhaj.com/ebook.php?ebook=70
This being said, Obomba has pretty much thrown the US Constitution into the bonfire with this move. He’s basically taken Bush’s actions one step further, killing US citizens without a jury trial. I fear for the future generations now that this precedent has been set. Once again, the only politician with the guts to challenge the sheeple is Ron Paul:
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/10/02/2011-10-02_an_unconstitutional_killing.html
October 2nd, 2011 at 10:00 pm
Am I correct in understanding that no formal charges have been brought against him? No evidence presented? maybe I missed it. If that is the case then this is where the problem comes in, legally of course. As for Alawlaki’s speech….I dont kno, hey its better to keep your mouth shut rather than relying on the US constitution to protect you. A piece of paper (which is what the Constitution has been reduced to) cannot protect you from Hellfire missiles…or jail or invasion of your privacy in the case of the many Muslim students, activists, and regular citizens.
October 2nd, 2011 at 10:15 pm
Great, related article from the New York Times:
An Illegal and Counterproductive Assassination
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/opinion/sunday/assassinating-al-awlaki-was-counterproductive.html?_r=1
October 4th, 2011 at 2:28 am
From the article:
“Given that Awlaki’s messages is sitting on the internet, easily accessible to millions of English speaking Muslims, it’s very interesting how few have taken him up on his demand that Muslims join the revolutionary movement”
Really? So explain the underwear bomber, the Fort Hood shooter (who e-mailed Al-Awlaki a question on whether it’s legit from an Islamic perspective to kill US soldiers on US soil) and the Times Square bomber (who cited Al-Awlaki as his inspiration)? Three attempts in less than a year. I’d say that’s pretty impressive and his message is definitely getting out.
@Ahmed
“So do you think if an American pastor says that we should nuke Mecca (like many have), and then someone starts hating Muslims and goes out and kills a Muslim (like we have seen happening before), the American pastor can be sought and shot dead on the spot by the FBI?”
I don’t even know how to answer this; you’re comparing apples and oranges. I doubt Americans in America would be on a hit list. If Al-Awlaki wasn’t hiding out in the Yemeni desert and was still in Colorado there’d have been no need for him to be on a hit list, he’d have been arrested and tried like any other American citizen. That isn’t the case, he was an enemy combatant who had joined a group of foreign terrorists and quite frankly scum like him aren’t worth the trouble of a trial.
@Talisman
If he were so innocent why did he go into hiding in Yemen? Why didn’t he stay in the US so he could get his trial? Don’t be absurd, he had contacted convicted murderers and terrorists and was cited as the source of inspiration for said murderers and terrorists.
@JD
Funny how none of the guys you mentioned was hiding out in a foreign war zone.
@Zain
LOL. So the MSM is not a reliable source of information? I’d like to ask all the anti-MSM folks out there a question: if the “lamestream media” has it wrong then where do you get your information from?
@E Dantes
The invasion of Afghanistan was perfectly justified and the Taliban needed to be removed, they turned their shithole of a country into a problem for the civilized world when they harboured a terrorist. If people like Al-Awlaki didn’t exist there’d be no reason for the US to be in places like Iraq and Afghanistan.
The comparison with the Nazis is getting irksome. The Nazi regime fell apart and the high-ranking Nazi officials who hadn’t managed to flee Europe surrendered which is why they received a trial. I very much doubt Al-Awlaki had any intention of surrendering and he could’ve if he wanted to.
Geller, Spencer, et al never called for killing Norwegians (regardless of how Breivik felt about them), Al-Awlaki praised attacks on US soil and actively encouraged them. If you were to ask Geller & co. how they feel about Breivik or any other right-wing extremists chances are they’d denounce them and deny having anything to do with them, AL-Awlaki was more than happy to acknowledge his affiliation with Al-Qaeda and individuals who carried out attacks in the US.
In the real world not every terrorist can get their fair trial, nor do they deserve it if you ask me. This is war and I applaud the success of the current US administration in taking these people out.
October 4th, 2011 at 2:39 am
Since when did the US constitution mean anything to folks like Al-Awlaki anyway? Get real. Whether you’re a Western leftist who is fighting for the rights of a Yemeni terrorist who’d have you killed in a heartbeat or an everyday Muslim who doesn’t agree with Al-Qaeda (who said Yemeni terrorist would also have killed in a heartbeat), people like Al-Awlaki don’t care about anyone’s human rights and pose a constant danger to the world which is why they are killed the way they are.
@Abdullah67
Al-Awlaki would never call himself a Kharajite, he is a Salafi which is very fitting b/c Salafis believe in “offensive jihad”.
October 4th, 2011 at 4:46 am
When Muslims treat people like human beings then we will reciprocate. The man is a terrorist and got what he deserved. I just wish it was a slow and painful death.
Those sub-human terrorist behead people, kill man woman and child indiscriminately and I’m supposed to give damn about his poor Muslim rights. He’s got his virgins what the problem?
October 4th, 2011 at 7:40 am
Good. We should do this with ALL those who plan & plot against the U.S. even if they started out Americans!
October 4th, 2011 at 9:07 am
I do not believe anyone here is saying that the death of al-Awlaki wasn’t a good thing but I do believe the issue that is being debated is, are we a nation of laws that does what is morally right because it is right and not because it is easy?
This is an example of us doing what is easy and not what is morally right. As a nation of laws that guarantees “Due Process” for its citizens when a citizen is denied her or his right the rest of the citizens should be outraged even if you do not agree with her or his point of view.
In our history there is evidence of Jewish attorneys representing White Supremacists not because they agreed with their political or moral beliefs but because they believed in her or his right for “Due Process.” To deny any citizen this right and for the rest of the citizens to agree is a slippery slope that sets precedence. What would happen if tomorrow your point of view is seen as Anti-American? Are you no longer afforded the Right of Due Process and your day in court? I think we would all agree that Timothy McVeigh is a traitor to our nation and he was tried and convicted of his crimes.
I for one believe in our Justice System and know that we are still a nation of laws that does what is morally right, which was created for the people and by the people. Summary execution has never been our way and never should be.
October 4th, 2011 at 11:14 am
I find it a bit troubling that people that are not Muslim in the U.S. can say what ever they want, spew hate, inspire violence with no consequences.
On the other hand I feel deeply, insha’Allah, that the more Islam is demonized that the stronger the Muslim community will be. More people will become Muslim as a result of this. Recent history has proved this. “they plan but Allah is the best of planners” (unsure of the verse in the quran)
The time has come for Muslims to no longer be distracted by these petty things. In the bigger picture they are rather insignificant. If you don’t get caught up in the hype and stop trying to rationalize everything as why things are happening you’ll be able to see what’s truly happening.
Be more concerned about your neighbor who’s in need rather than what’s happening outside of your small space on the planet.
This type of thinking helps me, otherwise I’d go crazy and be completely dysfunctional.
October 5th, 2011 at 1:31 am
Awlakis “Words” are called conspiracy…
When you talk about and plan and send others to conduct operations you are no longer in the realm of free speech or speech. When words are more than simply inciting but are actually part of a planning process and a training process you have another scenario.
There is no grounds for condemning this action.
Awleki’s plans were clear
his declaration of war were clear.
Killing him was the killing of a military commander.
This is not murder. It is a legitimate action under the Geneva convention of a self admitted enemy officer and commander who claims a flag under which he performed his actions.
October 5th, 2011 at 10:21 am
“The Day America Died”
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/10/04/the-day-america-died/
read it and weep
November 1st, 2011 at 9:30 am
Silent enim leges inter arma ~ Cicero
I think that translates into “The law is silent between armies.” I’ve seen it rendered “In war the law is mute,” and “In times of war, the law falls silent,” but those seem to reverse the order of the phrases ~ “silent enim leges” and “inter arma.”
Whatever. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus ~ possibly the fundamental protection of individuals from a tyrannical regime. When the shooting starts, the gavel stops.
One of America’s Supreme Court Justices said “Criminals do not have rights because of who they are, but because of who we are.” I’m not quite sure what rights Awlaki might have had in American jurisprudence (I don’t plan to give it much thought ~ Obama and company started a war, America is just finishing it), but in muslim jurisprudence the right he exercised was the right to make himself a target for assassination.
I find it interesting that some people will get all exercised over the killing of an American at war with America, but excited in another way entirely over America’s slaughter of tens of thousands of innocents who never had any bone to pick with any American.
Mandatory public education. Such a wonderful thing for predatory capitalism.