EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Al-Awlaki Killing Hailed by Obama, Slammed by Rights Groups
President Barack Obama hailed the killing of American Anwar al-Awlaki as a “milestone” and “a major blow to al-Qaeda,” but rights groups raised fears that the U.S. Constitution had also taken a devastating hit.
Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born cleric linked to al Qaeda's Yemen-based wing, gives a religious lecture in an unknown location in this still image taken from video released by Intelwire.com on September 30, 2011. (Reuters)
Missile-firing Predator drones, flown by CIA pilots sometimes half a world away, are increasingly the President’s weapon of choice. Hundreds of al-Qaeda suspects have been killed in Pakistan by roving Predators and similar strikes have been launched in Somalia and Yemen. The attacks often go unreported, downed drones are deniable and there is, of course, no opportunity for surrender nor any attempt to capture.
Former president George W. Bush stretched constitutional limits with an offshore prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba in a failed effort to deny foreign detainees due process. Now Mr. Obama has upped the ante.
Using missile-firing drones to hunt down and kill American citizens abroad takes the “war on terrorism” to yet another level even as Mr. Obama has tried to distance himself from the Bush-era rhetoric and practices. Guantanamo and its notorious war-crimes trials remain in business.
“The targeted killing program violates both U.S. and international law,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. It allows “American citizens far from any battlefield to be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret – not just from the public but from the courts.”
Few Americans will lament the killing of the charismatic, Internet-savvy cleric who inspired a slew of jihadists and was linked to half-a-dozen vicious attacks. But the killing may be the first shot in the fundamental conflict over constitutional and geographic limits – if any – to Mr. Obama’s new methods of waging war.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
78 Comments so far
Show AllHate to sound cynical, Galenwainwright, but the Nobel Prize has ALWAYS been a crock of shit. It's funny that those who have the most on their vestigial consciences have to put on such shows of nobleness. I thank Mr. Carnegie every time I check out a book, but I still hate his shriveled soul which, if there is such a thing as beyond death Karma, is shrieking in some kind of hell.
The last line of the piece refers to Obama "waging war". This is a misnomer. ALL of the aggression and occupation of the past 10 years has been extrajudicial killing; none of it done under a legitimate declaration of war. The actions taken do not fit the definition of war as they are not directed at another state, but at voluntary and nominally religious groups and individuals. Murder is the the proper term.
really and truly and entirely a brain-dead comment , eku.--------------------------
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy..............
War.........................
War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities. Thus, fisticuffs between individual persons do not count as a war, nor does a gang fight, nor does a feud on the order of the Hatfields versus the McCoys. War is a phenomenon which occurs only between political communities, defined as those entities which either are states or intend to become states (in order to allow for civil war). Classical war is international war, a war between different states, like the two World Wars. But just as frequent is war within a state between rival groups or communities, like the American Civil War. Certain political pressure groups, like terrorist organizations, might also be considered “political communities,” in that they are associations of people with a political purpose and, indeed, many of them aspire to statehood or to influence the development of statehood in certain lands.
People don't seem to understand that this is a war between angry men (terrorists), those wishing to destroy democracy with all of its guarantees and protections and a ruling cadre of corporate bought politicians whose policies have brought pain and suffering to much of the poor world. Who's winning? Well, it doesn't seem to be democracy. Too long have we behaved like a nation of spoiled brats. The most valuable thing we have is not a grand lifestyle or Walmarts or McDonalds, but that precious system of laws and protections that has taken thousands of years to develop. When we murder ANYONE without due process, it is a victory both for terrorists and our corporate rulers. We should be feeling the pain instead of dancing in the street.
"People don't seem to understand that this is a war between angry men (terrorists), those wishing to destroy democracy with all of its guarantees and protections and a ruling cadre of corporate bought politicians whose policies have brought pain and suffering to much of the poor world."
Statements like that always make me a bit sick to my stomach.
Even before Bush, that was the rhetoric that the government and the media used to justify the invasions, the killings, the occupations of Islamic nations. "They hate us for our freedoms and democracy" repeated over and over. Goebbels said that was the way to make a lie a truth. Repeat it endlessly until the people believe it and it becomes the truth.
People around the world don't hate us for our freedoms, they hate us because we invade and kill them with impunity, because we tell them that the only way to live is our way. They hate us because we interfere with and overthrow any government, any nation, that disagrees with us, or that fights back. They hate us because we demonize them, treat them as sub-humans with no values, no honor.
If the situation were reversed and we were fighting back against an overwhelmingly powerful occupier, we would consider our fighters freedom fighters. We call the freedom fighters opposing our occupations around the world terrorists or insurgents and, having so defined them, declare open season on them, their families, their tribes, their friends.
We are not hated for our freedoms, or our "democracy," we are hated because we will not leave them alone, we will not respect their right to exist.
In Islamic countries, the Holy Qur'an forbids offensive war, forbids the killing of women, children, the elderly and the gratuitous destruction of property. It permits defensive war.
If you fight against an implacable enemy invader who destroys homes, villages, mosques, kills women, children, the elderly, captures and tortures anybody they feel like, are you a terrorist or a freedom fighter? Are you fighting in self-defense? Are you perhaps fighting terrorism waged on a huge scale?
Just think about it for a while, then redefine your terms.
----"If you fight against an implacable enemy invader who destroys homes, villages, mosques, kills women, children, the elderly, captures and tortures anybody they feel like, are you a terrorist or a freedom fighter?"---
if you fight against such an enemy, you're likely fighting Al Qaeda
From the article"Former president George W. Bush stretched constitutional limits with an offshore prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba in a failed effort to deny foreign detainees due process [not to mention torturing prisoners] Now Mr. Obama has upped the ante."
Ya know, I was never under any delusions that Obama was a field of daisies, but I am genuinely surprised at what he actually turns out to be: a black barry bush.
Is your comment racist? No, just clever (and funny!)
The really clear fact here, is that the rich and overgourged, the ones who have all the power and wisdom at thier disposal, theons who could and should be improving the world, can only get thier uber thrill from killing others. They search for any opportunity to inflict death and destruction on others. Whether it be starving millions in Africa by withholding available resorses that could save lives. Or dropping deleted uranium on countries, condeming them to eternity of birth. defects, with poison land and water. Or choosing an entire religion for destruction, because they worship a different God. Thier lust for death knows no bounds, as they seek to create weapons which not only kill but inflict horrible and excruciating pain and dismemberment. The excitement of another execution, has them all salivating, hoping to have an opportunity to witness the carnage. These are very dangerous times as the uber rich and wealthy grow more bored by the day, and looked for new opportunities to slaughter the poor.s To imprision nations of people, and use them for target practice. Being able to take the lives of others without justice or ramifications is obviously becoming thier latest fad. How sad that the new world order is only for the rich. Once theve exterminated the really bad guys, where are they going to go from there?
al-Awlaki doesn't deserve to be called an American citizen or to be granted the rights of an American citizen. He in essence renounced his citizenship when he declared war on this country and recruited terrorists to kill authentic Americans for him. All you bleeding hearts have found another excuse to bash Obama, who has done more to track down and destroy enemies who plot daily to attack this country than cowboy Bush ever did. Was Awlaki an American? ABSOLUTELY NOT!
You are sadly misinformed about the issue of the constitutional protection of persons against extralegal murder by our government. I sincerely hope that there are no so-called "green carders" in your family living legally in our country because you seem to believe that president Obama has the authority to order their extralegal (no due cause) killing by a drone missile while peacefully driving their cars even within the USA simply because they are not US citizens. If you do believe that please tell me where in law the president has that authority under which circumstances.
You must be kidding when you compare "green carders" peacefully driving their cars within the USA with Awlaki and partners in crime driving their cars as they plot another destructive attack on the US. Please. Get real!
Crowsnest, you're not all that informed yourself if you don't think that waging war against the United States isn't sufficient cause to get your ass blown up under the authority granted the president by the constitution and the AUMF.
war doesn't operate on the same plane as traffic enforcement, which doesn't customarily result in penalties involving a military response.
The U.S. Constitution does not give the President the right to have anyone assassinated. From the time of the U.S. Revolution until the Nuremberg Trials, the U.S. took the moral high ground, insisting on fair trials for our enemies. Even those accused of being traitors to the U.S. in time of war were charged and tried, not assassinated.
Now Obama has set a dangerous precedent, and has also tossed the U.S. Constitution into the recycling bin.
Now what? Will other governments exercise their "right," just like hope-and-change Obama, to take out anyone in the U.S. who they want to accuse of "waging war" against them?
The Constitution very clearly does give the US president the right to use military force against armed and active enemies of the United States, particularly after congress approves the use of military force against those enemies....and that necessarily entails killing a big bunch of them.
The US has never insisted on trials for our enemies.....unless we managed to capture them. That wasn't really an option with this guy. WE had a much better chance of capturing bin Laden in that raid. Of course he was in the same organization that Alwaki was in, but we didn't capture him, we killed him. The president authorized that use of military force against bin Laden and somehow I don't think we lost any of the high ground.
Now I happen to agree with you that we may not have acted well in assassinating Awlaki. It may not have been a necessary act (neither you nor I know what it was that Alwaki was doing and whatever it was may not have been threatening enough to make it worthwhile), but there was no legal imperative that forbade killing the creep unless one wants to pretend that he was not a member of Al Qaeda.
(BTW, the US assassinated Admiral Yamamoto during WWII, so this didn't set a precedent.)
*Comment deleted by site administrators as spam: identical, repetitive comments posted on multiple articles*
see: http://www.commondreams.org/comment-policy
Sorry, but I don't understand why a person on a roof top aiming and shooting at passersby on the street can be shot dead by a swat team, and a person blockaded in his house with a hostage can be shot dead by a swat team but Anwar al-Awlaki cannot.....WTF is the argument??
There is a great and terrible sickness here on this planet. It manifests in a wide variety of ways, and this targeted killing, this extra-judicial killing, ordered by a man who swore to uphold the Constitution on the same Bible that Abraham Lincoln swore his oath on, beggars the imagination, the instincts, the sensibilities, and the intellect of any and all who profess to the idea of natural justice.
There are several internal inconsistencies evident.
The hypocrisy of swearing on a book purportedly dictated directly by the God of Abraham and Moses to a chosen people.
The outright superstition demanded of this fact - believed in some form by perhaps half of the world's people, comprising the three mono-theistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The acquiescence of the International Community in this crime and its precedents, in that the International Criminal Court at The Hague, specifically convened to deal precisely with matters such as we have just witnessed, again, and again, and again, is powerless and impotent in this and other cases.
I am a scientist by training, inclination and lifelong habit, and a mountaineer by instinct - perhaps a reaction to a life witnessing the depredations of the human race in my lifetime, and seen through the lens of the natural historian, in mankind's long and bloody past.
I wish to close with a quote from a fellow climber and scientist, Nick Lane, in the epilogue of his magnificent book, "Life Ascending":
"In one of the most arresting sequences ever screened on TV, Jacob Bronowski paced through the marches at Auswitz, where the ashes of 4 million people had been flushed, including some of his own family, and talked to camera in the way that only he could.
Science, he said, does not dehumanize people and turn them into numbers.
Aushwitz did that.
Not by gas, but by arrogance...by dogma...by ignorance.
It happens, he said, when people aspire to the knowledge of the gods, and have no test in reality."
------------------------------------------------
Manysummits
=======
Another capital crime by another American president.
Soon the drones will be attacking the protesters on the Brooklyn Bridge because they threaten Obama's monied patrons!
Comin sooner than ya'll thunked to towns throughout the U$A–DRONES, PREDATOR DRONES. Cun hear the wails already, "Don't drone me dude!"
"Al-Awlaki Killing Hailed by Obama, Slammed by Rights Groups"
Everything's particularly good and safe now that Obama's taken to killing US citizens with drones at his own whim and say so: "Al-Awlaki Killing Hailed by Obama".
After all, it can't be that bad, I thought - I'm sure there was SOME kind of judicial due process at work there. - He was found guilty after a trial, only he wasn't there, right? - No? Well, at least whatever he did does carry the death penalty, right? What was it, treason? No? You mean just preaching in a mosque, and calling for jihad against the "American satan"? That's all!?! - Oh, he was a "a senior talent recruiter and motivator"? Oh, ok. And "implicated in helping to motivate at least three attacks on U.S. soil". Yes, a clincher.
That's from the Washington Post. Must be true. In spite of the modifiers.
"Motivating" attacks: guess that might be illegal, depending only on the kind of motivation. But is that as in "You could do that, you know" or as in "I'll kill your mother if you don't"? - Where the last would be over the line, but then as a threat, not really as the threatener being an accomplice yet. At least if the attack doesn't happen.
But "helping to motivate", what's that about? - Bringing tea while others were talking about the "three attacks"?
And then "implicated in helping" - is that like making the tea smbd else brought to smbd else talking about "three attacks" made by smbd else? - Is that a little remote, maybe? Does it still carry the death-penalty, that kind of tea-making?
Obviously, yes - the guy's dead, already, after the drone got him.
And the drone was sent out by a proper court-order in order to fulfill the order by that Yemeni judge ordering Awlaki "captured "dead or alive" for "plotting to kill foreigners", of course - all very orderly.
Aha! - so Obama himself got completely convinced by that Yemeni judge's order, and therefore personally ordered the drone-strike. And the CIA told him Awlaki was guilty of an execution-warranting offence. I see. - Those were the guys who told US all about the WMD in Iraq, right? - So it's obviously true. Because they got Saddam, after all. Only not those WMD - that apparently was a little off. Got Saddam, though. And his country. Got those evil guys.
It's all taken care of then, appeal and all.
It's all good. - It's not like Obama's taking out the neighbors exactly. Yet.
Except if you live in Pakistan. Then he's taking out the neighbors, by drone. - Well, unless u're so unlucky your house goes too. Then you may get famous as "collateral damage", and the US army pays yr daughter, if she survives, $ 5,000 in damages. That's the going rate in Afghanistan, anyway.
So it's all safe. Except if you live in, ok: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya or Iraq. Plus here and there. And if u live there, u're already half culpable, anyway. That's like providing the heat (maybe being an electrician?) for the the guy making the tea for the guy bringing the tea to the guy talking to a guy about getting some guys, preferably over the internet, to blow themselves up to "kill foreigners". That's were the real force comes from. The tea-makers. They're evil. No more explanation needed. Evil. Stop thinking right there.
Five removes from the bomb - and Awlaki gets droned. THAT's how illegal it is to suicide-bomb oneself in rage. Shows 'em! - The ones who "plotted and motivated" that rage. Obviously evil people: hypnotizers and worse. Bloody tea-makers.
(Cf. Guidere, in the "recent book 'The new terrorists' ": "Generally the only link with the terrorist organization is virtual; thanks to the Internet, the sympathizer radicalizes all by himself and learns how to make bombs at home." - See how the hypnotism works? - "... the sympathizer radicalizes all by himself...". Strong stuff - the internet! - I heard it's addictive, too. So that's when the bombs manifest, I presume, when the addiction's gone on long enough. Must be true.
After all, the central quote the supposed al-Qaeda online magazine "Inspire" is named from, according to the Letter from the Editor [Awlaki] in the first issue, is:
" 'O you who believe! Respond to the call of Allah and His Messenger [Muhammed] when they call you to what will give you life'. Imam [priest] al-Qurtubi states that this verse is referring to jihad. It is jihad that gives this nation life. We survive through jihad and perish without it. Our history is testimony to that."
Just see how evil they are - saying that jihad is to give life! Hah!! - So where do the bombs come from, then? The bombs prove jihad is killing, and evil - and they are behind the bombs because they talk of jihad. That's a good working logic. Plus because we just KNOW it's these guys who do it! - Whatever the 'it' is, that doesn't really matter: it's them!)
(Isn't it "six degrees of separation" we're all connected with? See how culpable we all are? - One degree more, and it's US. Close. Better not go near those guys. Whoever they are. One degree: that means they could be anyone. And they probably are.)
That's the way it has to be, because the guys bombing themselves up can't be caught. They're dead and pretty much gone. Except for a finger here and there and some muck... Can't get them anymore. They don't count any longer. So get the ones behind them - they're more responsible. And get them before they get anyone to do anything - that's important: preventive execution for "plotting to kill foreigners". Better safe than sorry.
Remember, they got Saddam. And he was evil, no doubt. A real tea-maker.
And if one is wrong now and then, as in the 50 % civilians in Pakistani drone-raids, that's a "good rate". ("JSOC's success in targeting the right homes, businesses and individuals was only ever about 50 percent, according to two senior commanders. They considered this rate a good one." - Cf. Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/top-secret-america-a-look-at-the-militarys-joint-special-operations-command/2011/08/30/gIQAvYuAxJ_story.html).
(Cont.)
(cont'd)
The bomber just does it, anyone can do that.
But "plotting and planning", now that's worse. Got to get those people. With drones. Spread them all over the neighborhood, like Awlaki (his father couldn't find him, ""It is not a corpse. He is in pieces," " - according to Washington Post). Got him!
That's exactly the kind of execution the US Constitution orders. Right? - Or was it the UN Charter, ratified law of the land in the USA? - I'm sure it's in one of those, or one of the others. It's all good, then.
Have a happy weekend. Unless, of course, the drones get closer. - After all, they're run from mobile trailers outside of Las Vegas, Nevada, and the joy-stick users before the screens are glad to get the drone-hit done before going home to dinner. Yes, there are interviews with those executioners for Obama on the net. They're proud.
All due processes are long ago taken care of. After all, it's as Nixon said: "When the President does it, that means it is not illegal" (Cf. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejvyDn1TPr8 ).
It's all good.
Can targetting murder of the Wall Street Protesters be far behind?
Or the pipe-line protesters at the White House gate. I can see it now: small drones taking out poster-bearers on Wall Street one by one, or by the White House fence. "Those d*** terr'ists were getting too close..."
Actually, that thought's a bit too close for comfort.