US 'approves killing' US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

[Zanza]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8606584.stm

US 'approves killing' US-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki

Anwar al-Awlaki's has said violence is a religious duty for Muslims

The US government has authorised operations to capture or kill the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, currently based in Yemen, reports say.

The cleric, who is a US citizen, is being targeted for his involvement in planning attacks on the US, officials told journalists.

Mr Awlaki was linked to the attempted bombing of an airliner bound for the US and a shooting on a US Army base.

The US has warned Yemen is becoming a safe haven for al-Qaeda.

The order was made by the Obama administration earlier this year, but it has just been revealed after a review of national security policy, the New York Times reported.

Further approval

"The danger Awlaki poses to this country is no longer confined to words, he's gotten involved in plots," unnamed officials told the newspaper.

Unnamed officials quoted by the Reuters news agency confirmed the story, saying that Mr Awlaki had been placed on a "US target list" of people it had authorised to kill or capture.

The list, maintained by the CIA, is thought to be of people the US government believes are planning terrorist attacks against the US.

Because Mr Awlaki is an American citizen, his addition had to be approved by the US National Security Council, the paper reported.

"Awlaki knows what he's done, and he knows he won't be met with handshakes and flowers. None of this should surprise anyone," the New York Times quoted the official as saying.

Failed state

Mr Awlaki was born in New Mexico, but is currently based in Yemen.

The Yemeni government, with support from the US and Saudi Arabia, has bombed suspected al-Qaeda hideouts in the last few months.

But some analysts have warned that Yemen may become a failed state because of the fragile hold the Yemeni government has on its own country.

Mr Awlaki was linked to an attack by a US Army major on the Fort Hood base last November, in which 13 people died.

Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a plane on its way into Detroit airport on Christmas Day 2009, allegedly met Mr Awlaki in Yemen weeks before boarding a US-bound plane in Lagos.

The cleric became popular among Islamic radicals for his firebrand preaching in English which endorsed the use of violence as a religious duty.

He lived and studied in the US where he was an imam in San Diego, where his sermons were attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers.

He fled the US in 2007 and went to Yemen.

This seems to set a bad precedent in my opinion. Aren't all US citizens guaranteed due process? Just killing someone with a drone does not seem to qualify.

[CountDeMoney]

This seems to set a bad precedent in my opinion. Aren't all US citizens guaranteed due process? Just killing someone with a drone does not seem to qualify.

You're right.  Let's serve him his warrant instead.

[HisMajestyBOB]

This seems to set a bad precedent in my opinion. Aren't all US citizens guaranteed due process? Just killing someone with a drone does not seem to qualify.

You're right.  Let's serve him his warrant instead.

We'll tape it to a hellfire.

Also,
OMG OBAMA IS TEH WEAK ON TERRORZ!

[Zanza]

You're right.  Let's serve him his warrant instead.

Keeping up the principle of due process is worth more than whacking one guy.

[CountDeMoney]

You're right.  Let's serve him his warrant instead.

Keeping up the principle of due process is worth more than whacking one guy.

Maybe if he's in Montana, but in Yemen he's fair game.

[Tamas]

You're right.  Let's serve him his warrant instead.

Keeping up the principle of due process is worth more than whacking one guy.

Maybe if he's in Montana, but in Yemen he's fair game.

Well at least the US is planning to kill a citizen by themselves, unlike we did in WW2, when we outsourced the jews to Germany.

[Neil]

You're right.  Let's serve him his warrant instead.

Keeping up the principle of due process is worth more than whacking one guy.

You don't get due process in wartime if you're fighting on the other side.

[grumbler]

This seems to set a bad precedent in my opinion. Aren't all US citizens guaranteed due process? Just killing someone with a drone does not seem to qualify.

US citizens are no more guaranteed due process than non-US citizens.  This guy enjoys no special privileges or immunities because he is a US citizen.  Actions against him would be military, not criminal.

[Zanza]

US citizens are no more guaranteed due process than non-US citizens.  This guy enjoys no special privileges or immunities because he is a US citizen.  Actions against him would be military, not criminal.

Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.

[Admiral Yi]

I agree it's unprecendented.  It was a line Bush was careful not to cross.

[Razgovory]

I dunno.  The US government wasn't serving warrants on the battlefield at Gettysburg.  This doesn't seem that different then a sniper being ordered to shoot a hostage taker or something.

[Zanza]

To me, battlefields and hostage takers are different as there is immediate contact and it is likely that not killing a person in such a situation would lead to others being killed by that person. Shooting a hellfire missle from a drone at this guy is not necessary to avert clear and present danger to other persons. Sure, it may help in the long run. But I don't think this potential benefit in the long run is worth what I consider to be a breach of perhaps the most basic right a citizen has, namely not to be killed by his government (*).



(*) death penalty under due process is something different that I don't support either, but for other reasons.

[jimmy olsen]

US citizens are no more guaranteed due process than non-US citizens.  This guy enjoys no special privileges or immunities because he is a US citizen.  Actions against him would be military, not criminal.

Okay. So if it is a military matter, the protections of the constitution regarding due process do not apply anymore? Or is the due process in military matters that the executive can just decide over life and death of a citizen? If it is the latter, I find that objectionable.

Virtually every member of the Confederate Army was a U.S. citizen. Should each soldier have been served a warrant before the Union army was allowed to open fire?

[Razgovory]

Perhaps, but there lots of incidents of this happening.  Stuff like Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger.  It's not exactly a precedent.  The question is: Can law enforcement reasonable expect to capture him with out undue danger to themselves?  Probably not.  These guys tend to have armed militia surrounding them.  Of course he's free to contact a lawyer and arrange to turn himself in and face any charges against him in a court of law.

[Habbaku]

Virtually every member of the Confederate Army was a U.S. citizen. Should each soldier have been served a warrant before the Union army was allowed to open fire?

[Lettow] Yes.  Mew. [/Lettow]