1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice

The assassination of Anwar al -Awlaki, al Qaeda propagandist and American citizen

Discussion in 'Tilted Philosophy, Politics, and Economics' started by Willravel, Sep 30, 2011.

  1. The big question from all of this: What exactly are the "rules of war" when fighting by unconventional methods and teams? Unlike the Iraqi wars or even WWII, there were set combatants. Right now in the middle east, its hard to know who is who. It harder when the war isn't against a single nation or government. It is about a international terrorist organization that caused thousands to millions of deaths. Can not have one group going by the Geneva convention if the other side is allowed to disregard it.

    The same logic that allows the killing of Osama Bin Laden is the same logic that allows the killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki. If these "rules of war" allow for one person in al Qaeda to be taken out, then allows another and another and so on. If the president is going to pick and choose who to fight by standard rules of war, then he already lost this war. Hell the whole war in Afghanistan is under this umbrella. And Pakistan is either the most inept counter-terrorism fighting squad, or the modern day Deadwood for every terrorist in the world. Seems odd that all of them are found in this one country.
     
  2. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    The US is not operating under the rules of the Geneva Convention. If they were, the prisoners held in Guantanamo Bay would be considered prisoners of war and tried as such. So which "side" are you referring to?

    We either operate under Geneva Convention rules or we don't.
    We don't get to have it both ways or decide to disregard it when it's convenient to do so. It makes us look like we don't know what the hell we're doing.
     
  3. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    This is not a war. This is a police action.

    Incidentally, carried out with the support of the Yemeni authorities. So, why couldn't the guy be brought back and charged with (for example) treason?
     
  4. My point was we are not using the Geneva Convention because the other side isn't nor is it going to since it isn't an official nation. Thus no official treaties can be written or honored. Be heading people on national television isn't the most, humane way of getting support for your actions. Nor his hijacking planes and flying into buildings.

    Unlike Roy Rogers, the good guys don't wear white hats, and the law isn't going to be 100% clean. Since this is an unconventional war, then it will be fought in unconventional methods.
     
  5. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Yeah, I remember the good old days on GroupHug, when we'd have page-long debates with I-don't-know-how-many-people I encountered in the 7 years I was part of it.

    All of the above simply boils down again on the different weights you and I place on the function and operational value of a propagandist. You see them as civilians in all legal matters, I see them as viable military targets.

    No, not when it is convenient. When it is reasonable. A principle is a principle is a principle. It's a human concept and as such has a value limit. As I explained to roachboy in the other Thread, there's a limit to what resources should be allocated in order to ensure enforcement of the laws your country possesses. Is the application and enforcement of due process worth the likely Special Forces/US Marines casualties that would result from forcefully extraditing Awlaki? Where do you draw the line? From a purist ideological perspective, it would be fine to waste a country's ENTIRE armed forces to ensure the "defendant" has his rights protected and is subject to due process. Is that viable, though? Or, in the face of substantial losses, should he (I'm using "he" generically to refer to anyone who's a US citizen and poses a considerable threat) be left untouched and to continue whatever he was doing anyway? Does that serve justice?

    I refer this point to my arguments stated directly above.

    True. It doesn't help your case for civilian treatment, though. If military rules of engagement are not preferred, then certainly civilian due process is less so. It actually helps my case in which I argue for military target assessment and subsequent treatment of Awlaki. Which does include lethal force.

    Granted, I will be backtracking here in the face of unknown evidence. Now my point will be about any individual that actively aids an organization such as al Qaeda. How do the statements Awlaki made about Muslims to kill Americans without discrimination, his position of authority within the Muslim community and his extremist views not make him an active element of what we refer to as "al Qaeda"? You stated before that al Qaeda is more of a loose ideological movement, than an organized and tightly-knit organisation.

    Intelligence services do not require public approval to continue their operations. They are not civilian organisations and almost exclusively deal in the gray, if not the black, area of illegal and immoral actions. Their information is, at the time it has operational value, beyond reproach and not subject to civilian or political scrutiny. Administrations thus make decisions based on the intelligence they're provided with and may very well be wrong in principle, but that really is nothing the public can stop.

    What the public can do, though, is enact a change in the strategic objectives and priorities of the Administration. Only then can such actions be stopped, in theory.
     
  6. Joniemack

    Joniemack Beta brainwaves in session

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Well, as it's not a war I guess we can do whatever we want. We can change the rules to fit the circumstances. I can't wait to see what comes next.

    Dropping bombs on civilian locations isn't the best way to get support for your actions either. But of course, they're not televised on CNN or Fox News. Al-Jazeera however, is more than happy to televise the aftermath.

    Sorry, but I want the white hats. I like the white hats. I want things squeaky clean. My fucking reputation is on the line. When I travel abroad I don't want to be spat upon.

    I don't know what America some of you grew up in but what you're witnessing now is not the way it's supposed to be. Get out your history books (pre-Liz Cheney) and give yourselves an education on the way we are supposed to be operating here. Stop rationalizing and making justifications for activities that are illegal under our own constitution.

    It's not a war, conventional or otherwise. Continuing to say it is - does not make it so.
     
  7. Willravel

    Willravel Getting Tilted

    You act as if al-Awlaki was surrounded by a small army. I see no evidence of this. Even Osama bin Laden was only watched by a small group that was easily defeated by some Seals and special forces, and he's the terrorist version of royalty. al-Awlaki was a popular imam that had an online presence. That's it. And Yemen wasn't going to defend him, in fact the Yemeni intelligence community saw him as a nuisance.
    I don't think you're getting what I was saying. We're being bad, we're doing wrong by not following principles for violent conflict that we ourselves agreed to with numerous treaties like the Geneva Conventions. It's awful that we're engaged in a not-war with no end in sight against a vague and ever-changing enemy. It's absolutely inexcusable that we torture and kidnap and hold indefinitely. These are terrible things that need to be stopped. Even if you are a sociopath and all you care about is the success of the mission, it's not working. Our terrible policies are causing daily blowback in the form of insurgencies and the Taliban and al Qaeda. After 9/11, a lot of very stupid people asked the question, "Why do they hate us?" Our enemies hate us because of installing dictators, firing missiles and bombs on innocent people, sanctions against innocent people, our invasion and occupation of Middle Eastern lands, and the way we treat them when captured.

    Let me ask you this: if you're a young man in Yemen, someone who had a passing interest in al-Awlaki's teachings but who had gripe with the West and you found out he and three other people were simply killed in a bombing to silence him, how would that make you feel?
    Actively aids? That's dangerous. What about me? I'm anti-war. I protest and I write letters and have discussions with the intent of using what little influence and power I have to absolutely end the war. Wouldn't ending the war aid the Taliban, albeit tangentially? I'd never call for anyone being murdered or for violence, so is that the arbitrary line you draw between freedom of speech and requiring of extrajudicial military assassination? It seems like you may be missing a very big gray area.
    Oh yes they do. They answer to civilian representatives that we elect. That's how the United States (and most democratic) government is structured. Accountability to the people is built in from the ground up.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Seriously? The al-Awlaki tribe is one of the most powerful tribes in Yemen and, while Anwar was deemed a nuisance by Yemeni intelligence due to US pressure, enjoyed the unofficial protection of the government, as "the Yemeni prime minister is the uncle of al-Awlaki’s father" (http://www.thecuttingedgenews.com/index.php?article=51765&pageid=20&pagename=Security). Anwar, known for years as being wanted by the US government, couldn't possibly not have had a substantial protective force. Since neither you nor I can assess the strength of his protective force on the ground, we're moving into the highly speculative realm. My point still applies, and you have not responded on where to draw the line; the risk of how many potential casualties should be accepted in order to extradite Anwar al-Awlaki?

    I never defended your geo-political ambitions and the decisions they led to. However, the issue we're discussing is the assassination of enemy elements and in what context they should be pursued, whether they have US citizenship or not.

    Angry, hateful, lust for revenge. This is besides the point, though. Any military conflict/assassination sparks those feelings in the environment surrounding the "victim(s)". I can only see you arguing a completely pacifist agenda from this point onward.

    1) I've already mentioned that the al-Awlaki assassination is a very unlikely precedent for (official) assassinations within the US.
    2) Ending the war and supporting the enemy's efforts are two vastly different things.
    3) You're being nitpicky here. You fully realize the distinction between acting within freedom of speech and the points I already made about Anwar al-Awlaki:

    "How do the statements Awlaki made about Muslims to kill Americans without discrimination, his position of authority within the Muslim community and his extremist views not make him an active element of what we refer to as "al Qaeda"?"
    4) Given the above, how can you possibly argue for a "huge, gray" area between freedom of speech and active support?

    Come on, mate. Even in Germany, a much more democratic and liberal country than the US, the Bundesnachrichtendienst has actively been involved in numerous extra-judicial assassinations. Hell, they facilitated the CIA's "extraordinary renditions" for years. It was a huge public outcry in Germany that forced the political elite to change course, which in turn forced the intelligence service to either A) discontinue these particular practices, or B) continue in a more secretive fashion and improve cover-ups.

    The Administration is subject to public scrutiny, not the intelligence services. Unless the public pressures the Administration extensively to stop these kinds of actions, the intelligence branch remains entirely untouched.
     
  9. Willravel

    Willravel Getting Tilted

    (emphasis mine)
    I was hoping my baseless speculation about al-Awlaki's security would lead you to make a statement like the one in bold above. Your statements about having to send in half the US military to arrest al-Awlaki are really baseless. Perhaps it would have been quite difficult, perhaps not. We don't know. What we do know is that he was killed in a drone strike after a few months of trying. What we can glean from that is very little. Until we can establish, with evidence, how well defended he was, we can't assume that it would have been difficult or easy to retrieve him for trial. And that's a big part of both of our cases.
    Enemy elements is a frighteningly vague term, especially when we're talking about a fellow American of mine (and yours? It says Kabul, but I've been operating under the assumption you're an American either contracting or serving. Feel free not to answer if you prefer that information not be shared).
    I hope our intelligence services don't think the real probability of blowback is beside the point when planning an assassination.

    I used to be a pacifist, but I'm really only mostly a pacifist. After Pearl Harbor, I would have supported the United States entering World War II, for example. I would have supported the sending in of special forces into Afghanistan to retrieve or, if necessary, even assassinate people directly involved with 9/11 (that's a very small group of people and doesn't include Iraq or the Taliban). I do believe that every public American military endeavor today is futile and unnecessary. I don't want to make this thread about me, though, I'd rather it be more about the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki.
    You have mentioned this, but you have yet to discuss why you think this is. I'd be interested in hearing your thought process on this.
    Okay, I'll agree with that for the most part. I only mean that if the United States completely left Afghanistan and Pakistan tomorrow, the Taliban would likely be able to retake Afghanistan. It's also likely that the Northern Alliance or it's replacement would rise up and the civil war would continue where it left off.
    Because that's not how membership in al Qaeda should be thought of. Just agreeing with an organization does not make one a member. I'm sure plenty of people around here agree with the ACLU without donating. Does that make them members? No. I'm sure plenty of Libertarians vote Republican, but that doesn't make them Republicans. If we start thinking of al Qaeda as anyone that agrees with al Qaeda, we go from fighting hundreds of people to fighting hundreds of thousands, most of whom are no threat to anyone.
    Germany does it, thus it's okay? I don't buy that. I know it's a lot of fun to write out Bundesnachrichtendienst. Some times I do it while I'm bored at work. It's a gas. That doesn't mean they're always right.
     
  10. Remixer

    Remixer Middle Eastern Doofus

    Location:
    Frankfurt, Germany
    Absolutely agreed. We don't know, as such we can't denounce nor support. My point was not that half the US military is required; but where you draw the line and say "application of rule of law on individual A isn't worth risking the lives of more than X amount of soldiers"?

    I'm German in birth and nationality, Australian in upbringing. I don't see "enemy element" as a frightening or vague term, as long as its definition is concise and frames it as "active support and/or direct involvement in the efforts made by the officially-declared enemy of one's nation".

    It isn't beside the point. However, when the potential benefit outweighs the potential risk, action must be taken even if that 10-yr old will grow up hating the US for killing his father, and potentially becoming another terrorist down the line.

    Agreed. As I said before, I'm not arguing the legality or viability of your current military efforts. I'm debating the case of Awlaki in the global military context that exists today.

    As Borla mentioned in the other Thread, the political ramifications of such killings within the US territory would very likely be huge and cause a massive public outcry. Legally, I have no idea whether it could be argued as a precedent, but politically it would likely be suicidal. I see the potential political ramifications as the only stopping force for officially-sanctioned domestic assassinations.

    Civil war would be a highly plausible result of US/ISAF withdrawal. That, and because they see for themselves what good they do here and what must be done, is why all the ISAF military personnel I've met so far unflinchingly support the continued presence. Obviously, the US military personnel's opinions vastly differ from those of the US civilians.

    You are oversimplifying Awlaki's support of al Qaeda. As a pro-conflict propagandist, an avid supporter of al Qaeda's efforts as well as having declared "war on the US" and for Muslims to kill Americans while he was in a position of authority; these all combined made him a viable threat to the US. Actual membership really is not that relevant, as his operational threat is clearly there.

    Now, even if we assume Awlaki was not a member of al Qaeda, surely as a responsible adult with sound mental capacity he must have realized how his actions and speeches aid al Qaeda. There is a reason why ignorance is not accepted even in a court of law, and definitely not in the world of military conflict.

    That was not the point I was making, nor did I agree with the actions of the Bundesnachrichtendienst. I was highlighting the democratic process: the public disagrees with certain policies of the intelligence branch, they exact massive pressure on the political elite, the political elite gives in and forces a change in the intelligence branch's policies. The intelligence branch itself is never under direct scrutiny of the public, as I also highlighted with the scenarios of A) them stopping those practices or B) doing it more secretively.

    On a sidenote, I just stumbled uplon this remark the BBC made, one of the most leftist news media outlets out there:

    "Pakistanis are now fearing some kind of unilateral US action.
    It could take the shape of increased bombing by drone missiles, which have already killed thousands of people - many of them militants, but also Pakistani civilians."
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15109629
     
  11. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
    Sorry to cross-post, but this is relevant here, too.

    Also, apart from all of the legal implications, there has to be some question as to whether this will inhibit terrorism or increase its likelihood in the future.

    Apart from the question of efficiency, there is also the question of the impact of the method. In terms of psyops, I am sure that this must have been considered. Militarily, I am sure that the use of drones in this way (and the widespread use of them), is highly effective and, if the entire population is viewed as combatants, will instill fear and impress on them the power of the USA.

    However, tackling terrorism isn't a problem that can be solved by purely military means, in my opinion. How many potential, future terrorists are being created?

    As I say, I would expect that this has been discussed as part of the decision to deploy these weapons. Whether the right decision has been made will be known in time.

    My main concerns right now are those expressed in the UN document I linked above.
     
  12. Alistair Eurotrash

    Location:
    Reading, UK
  13. Aceventura

    Aceventura Slightly Tilted

    Location:
    North Carolina
    I respect you and others for being consistent on these matters and for asking the question. I think our democracy works best when people with strongly held convictions challenge the strongly held convictions of others. We may not always get it right, one way or the other, but this is what we need. Personally, I know that I error on the side of being too aggressive and I need the voice of the other side for balance.
     
  14. Willravel

    Willravel Getting Tilted

    I'd say that going in and getting the person should depend on how dangerous they are and how dangerous the mission might be for the military folks we send in. However, it doesn't put anyone in danger to present the evidence against someone or to indict them. Honestly, the attempt at due process would have gone a long way to separating this from the Bush Administration's insanity.
    I think something may have been lost in the discussion: al-Awlaki was not killed because he was a propagandist. It was the contention of the US government, particularly the White House, that al-Awlaki was not only a member of al Qaeda, but was vital to the organization, thus (according to them) he was deserving of the unusual step of assassinating an American citizen. I suspect the Obama administration knows that if they tried to kill him for speaking out against the government, they'd be rightly met with the argument that this is a clear First Amendment issue (current laws could never result in the death penalty for any kind of speech, even if it directly lead to deaths). I'd be glad to continue to discuss the legal and philosophical questions about propaganda, but as far as him being killed, it's not really a part of the equation. Because of this, the whole thing really does rest on his alleged membership and active role within al Qaeda, specifically in carrying out attacks. The White House used the term "operational planner" several times as the buzz term for his alleged role.

    Here is a video of the White House's position:
    http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/201...arney-on-president-killing-u.s.-citizens.html

    "...planned and carried out terrorist attacks. ", "Christmas day bombing", "attempts to bomb cargo planes"... these are the foundation of the argument for killing al-Awlaki, and they're presented without a shred of evidence, in fact, in the video, he says that the White House has "nothing" for us. Nothing.

    When you put this within the full context of the Global War on Terror and the numerous, undeniable lies that have been told, there's no reason whatsoever to believe the White House on al-Awlaki. If there was a case against him that was so strong, wouldn't it have been easy to present this evidence to a judge, or even the American people?
    The BBC is centrist. If you're looking for liberal media, I suggest checking blogs because that's the only place they exist. Maybe al Jazeera, sometimes.
    I'm not excited for what seems like the inevitable war with Pakistan. There are ways, historically, which have helped failed states like Pakistan to start to get back on track, and many of them are economic. Military, in this case, will grow the Taliban in numbers and influence within a government with nuclear arms. No thanks.