A diary of torture

[Channel72]

^
Awlaki is likely hanging out with the Scoleri brothers now, and other victims of the US (extra-)judicial system.

For one, TheHammer has a fairly consistent track record of doing exactly that across multiple subjects, including domestic police abuses and foreign policy abuses alike. This tends to color how people respond to him now. He has built up a reputation as a mouthpiece for the US government's military-security-statist point of view on matters of human rights and individual liberties.

Okay, fair enough - I'm not really too familiar with TheHammer's reputation here. But in isolation, I don't see much wrong with questioning the details of any one particular victim account - as long as it doesn't threaten to eclipse the general discourse regarding the fact that the CIA is ... uh.... actually fucking torturing people.

[Grumman]

I don't want to derail this thread but what you said makes absolutely no sense. First and foremost they did disclose much of their evidence against him, and the connections to the underwear bomber and ft Hood shooter were well known before he was killed. What they released, and indeed what was already publicly known even before that, was more than sufficient to justify the use of force.

A mere accusation is not sufficient grounds to justify the death penalty.

But even if you want to view this purely in domestic terms, then Awlaki was for all intents and purposes a fleeing violent felon who certainly posed a threat of serious physical harm to others and as such his death would certainly be legal under existing US law.

Oh, he was "violent" was he? He posed a threat of "serious physical harm", did he? Do you have a single piece of evidence that al-Awlaki ever even smacked his son as a baby, let alone that he is some rampaging psycho that needed to be put down?

If you don't know what the words "violent" and "physical" mean, buy a fucking dictionary.

[TheHammer]

I don't want to derail this thread

You brought it up. It is bad form to bring up a red-herring like that and then attempt to get the last word in by default on it.

I offered to take it to another thread. I didn't want to de-rail is a courtesy, but fuck it.

On the other side of that argument you have situations like Anwar Awlaki when many of you thought it was "just terrible" that the US "executed" some guy simply for "exercising his freedom of speech".

Strawman. The vast majority of us had little problem with him being killed. Rather, we took issue with a Secret List, constructed on the basis of Secret Evidence by Secret Personnel, of people including US citizens who could be straight up murdered without ever having their day in court.

A list so secret everyone knew about it? Evidence so secret everyone knew about it?

Then there is the issue of Al Awlaki's 16 year old son, who was not engaged in terrorist funny business as far as any evidence has indicated ever, who was on the same list and murdered along with a few other innocent teenagers. Whom you always conveniently ignore whenever he gets brought up.

Was killed as collateral damage in a strike on Ibrahim al Bana was he not? He wasn't targeted like his father, and is thus a separate issue entirely which is why I have "conveniently ignored" that red herring.

What I find particularly annoying is your willingness to take government statements at face value--despite the proven tendency of our foreign intelligence service to Make Shit Up including lying to congress--but you are skeptical of the statements of their victims.

Except you don't get to hide behind the "I don't trust the government" card in this case. We have Awlaki's own writings and videos openly calling for attacks on Americans. We don't have to take the government's word that Awlaki was a member of AQAP, we've got a confirmed source as close to Awlaki as one could get - Awlaki himself.

The underwear bomber, sure. Ok. I generally trust the FBI more than the CIA to tell the truth on such matters, because they have a much better track record and dont torture the people in their custody into giving false testimony. However, the Ft Hood shooter was asking pretty general questions of a theological nature. There was no planning or incitement of any kind in those exchanges.

Apparently some terrorists need less of a push than others. Those were but two well known examples and are hardly the sum total of the evidence against Awlaki.

Charlie Hedbo

Aaaaah!!!! Awlaki is still a threat from beyond the grave! Who ever are we going to call to help us!?

Point being, were he not killed he'd have planned numerous additional Charlie Hedbo type attacks. Charlie Hedbo is a prime example as to why the notion that Awlaki wasn't an "imminent threat" are completely fucking asinine. He was ALWAYS a threat and we are still cleaning up in his wake. There may be more gifts from beyond the grave that have yet to be discovered. But far fewer than there would have been were he still alive today.

[TheHammer]

I don't want to derail this thread but what you said makes absolutely no sense. First and foremost they did disclose much of their evidence against him, and the connections to the underwear bomber and ft Hood shooter were well known before he was killed. What they released, and indeed what was already publicly known even before that, was more than sufficient to justify the use of force.

A mere accusation is not sufficient grounds to justify the death penalty.

But even if you want to view this purely in domestic terms, then Awlaki was for all intents and purposes a fleeing violent felon who certainly posed a threat of serious physical harm to others and as such his death would certainly be legal under existing US law.

Oh, he was "violent" was he? He posed a threat of "serious physical harm", did he? Do you have a single piece of evidence that al-Awlaki ever even smacked his son as a baby, let alone that he is some rampaging psycho that needed to be put down?

If you don't know what the words "violent" and "physical" mean, buy a fucking dictionary.

Are you fucking serious? Awlaki wielded people as weapons. We have multiple terrorists carry out attacks (already cited) who openly stated that Awlaki was the man who sent them to kill "infidels", and yet you remain willfully ignorant on the matter. We have Awlaki's own writings and videos where he incites violent jihad on Westerners and you actually are going to ask me what evidence there is that he was violent?

[Simon_Jester]

The quality of argumentation on this board is truly in the toilet.

Hammer's first response was "forced sex sounds unbelievable to me, and Thanas, a board moderator and supposedly a superb debater and one of the "premier" members of the board responds with "If you had read about Guantanamo you would know that charges about this have been levelled by nearly every former detainee, there is no reason not to believe this" in his first response and "How about slashing people's dick with a cutlery knife? Because that happened too. Only apologists like Hammerlein would be surprised" in his second post.

Quite literally, a MODERATOR's first and second responses are ad hominem attacks, not high quality logic and debating.

Separately from any breach of protocol... I think you're mistaken about this issue on the face of it.

I fail to see how either of those quoted passages are ad hominem attacks.

Thanas' actual arguments are "accusations of this type have been made by numerous internees acting independently, there is nothing unique or special to separate the acts this internee says happened from events we know happened to others, so the accusations are at least plausible." The second is "well, if you think that forced sex (or at least forced groping) is unreasonable, do you also think this other thing that actually happened is unreasonable? If the forced groping/sex is less bad than other things that actually happened, surely we cannot assume it is 'too extreme' to have really happened."

Both of those seem like pretty good arguments to me. I don't understand on what basis you call them bad arguments.

As to the 'ad hominems,' the second quote contains an insult, and arguably so does the first. But 'insults' and 'ad hominem attacks' are not the same thing.

Put simply, an ad hominem is when you say "Simon is wrong because he's an idiot;" an insult is when you say "Simon is an idiot because he's wrong."

The former is a logical fallacy. Claiming I'm wrong purely on the grounds that I am an idiot is illogical, unless the debate hinges entirely on my trustworthiness and good judgment (say, because I am offering legal advice and someone points out that I am not a lawyer and know nothing of law).

The latter may well be unjustifiably rude and offensive... but it's not a fallacy. Calling me an idiot does not negate or invalidate whatever argument you used to prove me wrong. If you can prove me wrong, calling me an idiot in your last sentence doesn't mean you've committed an ad hominem.

Now, if you want to criticize people on the board for being quick to insult, or to identify as stupid, the people they disagree with... Well, you're about a dozen years too late to have any input on that. Because that's literally part of the motto. "Mockery of stupid people;" for better or for worse, there it is.

^
Awlaki is likely hanging out with the Scoleri brothers now, and other victims of the US (extra-)judicial system.

For one, TheHammer has a fairly consistent track record of doing exactly that across multiple subjects, including domestic police abuses and foreign policy abuses alike. This tends to color how people respond to him now. He has built up a reputation as a mouthpiece for the US government's military-security-statist point of view on matters of human rights and individual liberties.

Okay, fair enough - I'm not really too familiar with TheHammer's reputation here. But in isolation, I don't see much wrong with questioning the details of any one particular victim account - as long as it doesn't threaten to eclipse the general discourse regarding the fact that the CIA is ... uh.... actually fucking torturing people.

Again, the problem is that TheHammer has a history of doing pretty much exactly that- of trying to use special cases and special pleas to muddy the waters whenever he participates in a discussion of the War on Terror.

Witness what he's doing with the al-Awlaki issue. He's recapitulating his basic argument that "al-Awlaki was obviously a TERRORIST BADMAN who should have been killed!" and totally ignoring the responses that have been put up to that over a period of years, trying to reduce the whole issue to "was al-Awlaki a BADMAN and if so, it was right to kill him!"

In the process, he's basically trying to take a whole complex of arguments about whether citizens have rights, when it is and is not justified for the executive to use armed force to target and assassinate individuals, and whether the concept of a free and open trial even means anything in the brave new world of the War on Terror... and he's trying to stuff all those arguments into the closet, suppressing it in favor of "was al-Awlaki a BADMAN, Y/N?"

[Alyrium Denryle]

A list so secret everyone knew about it? Evidence so secret everyone knew about it?

The administration leaked part of the list, and made certain claims regarding some of the individuals on that list.

That has no bearing on the legal justification for the program generally, or ANY checks on the authority of the executive branch to add new people to it, or transparency/due process in the ways and means by which individuals are put on it.

If you want to claim Awlaki was a Bad Man Who Needed Killing, fine. Had he been on a battlefield and been shot by an army drone operator, been killed while someone on the ground tried to capture him etc, we would not be having the conversation.

But the executive branch has declared the unilateral authority to kill anyone it wants without trial on its say so, using no independently reviewed evidentiary standards whatsoever.

Here is a hint: If the evidence you have is a state secret and classified unless you decide to leak it yourself, then there is no need to actually have evidence. The obama administration could just as easily put Glenn Greenwald on the kill list, and send a predator drone into Brazil to blow up his apartment, and then make up any story it likes for the press. There is nothing stopping them. In fact, if Glenn found out in advance he could not even challenge the matter in court due to the administration invoking the State Secrets privilege.

Was killed as collateral damage in a strike on Ibrahim al Bana was he not? He wasn't targeted like his father, and is thus a separate issue entirely which is why I have "conveniently ignored" that red herring.

No, because Ibrahim al Bana was not there at the time of the attack. The only people killed in that strike were civilians in an open air cafe. So either that is one HELL of a coincidence (seriously, the odds against that are astronomical given the complete lack of connection Awlaki's son had to any sort of terrorist activity), the administration is lying (which they can do, because the list is secret), or the people responsible for delivering intel are blisteringly incompetent AND arrogant as ever loving hell (being willing to kill 8 civilians on intelligence that is obviously bad, without positive ID on their actual target) combined with one hell of a coincidence.

Except you don't get to hide behind the "I don't trust the government" card in this case. We have Awlaki's own writings and videos openly calling for attacks on Americans. We don't have to take the government's word that Awlaki was a member of AQAP, we've got a confirmed source as close to Awlaki as one could get - Awlaki himself.

Here is the problem. Simply writing a book calling on people to rise up against the government and attack america, kill jews, murder gay people, or attempt to revitalize the 1000 year reich is not itself a crime.

The government could not legally arrest me if I were go go about publicly calling for the violent overthrow of the US government in order to install a communist utopia, or any number of other things.

The closest they could ever get to arresting me is if I got a bunch of people together and said something "Now pick up your guns RIGHT NOW, the revolution has begun!" and the crowd then proceeds to do so. Or, if I am caught engaged in an organized conspiracy to overthrow the US government in favor of a communist utopia that is somewhere in the operational planning stage (stockpiling weapons etc. It would not count if a bunch of my hypothetical commie friends just got together and swore a blood oath that we never acted on after that).

Just being a propagandist who convinces people to become revolutionary communists is not enough to get me arrested for ANYTHING.

The same goes for Awlaki. Doing what he did with respect to his videos could not get him (legally) arrested were he stateside. So how is it justification to kill him?

That is why the underwear bomber thing is actually important to have verified. Because then it is criminal conspiracy to commit terrorism because he got a prospective bomber in contact with someone who could help him do the bombing.

The Ft. Hood shooter... fuck man, those email exchanges did not raise the specter of criminal activity when they were read prior to the fucking shooting. Evidence against Awlaki they do not make.

Point being, were he not killed he'd have planned numerous additional Charlie Hedbo type attacks. Charlie Hedbo is a prime example as to why the notion that Awlaki wasn't an "imminent threat" are completely fucking asinine.

How on earth was he responsible for an ineffective firebombing that took place months after he died? Do you blame Martin Luther personally for the Holocaust as well?

You obviously dont know what the word Imminent means. Here, let me help:

Imminent
adjective
1. likely to occur at any moment; impending:
Her death is imminent.
2.projecting or leaning forward; overhanging.

If the latency is MONTHS, the process has to go through numerous operationally independent proxies and involves no planning participation on the part of the person under consideration for classification as an "Imminent" threat, they are by definition not an imminent threat.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Lets turn this around so as to illustrate why the kill list is a bad and dangerous policy.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the next president has decided they dont like a group you belong to. I dont know, the Audubon Society, or something. He has decided for whatever reason that people who want to protect the natural habitat of birds are menaces to society and has become convinced that they are responsible for attacks on Shell personnel in Nigeria. Assume you have been active, while living as an Expat in Iceland, recruiting people into the Audubon Society.

What exists to stop the president from having you blown up with a predator drone launched from a destroyer just outside icelands EEZ?

[Simon_Jester]

Well see, this kind of argument has been advanced to him many times, but it keeps getting suppressed because his response always reduces to "is there any doubt al-Awlaki was a BADMAN?" Which is exactly why I'm sensitive to cases where people try to use the details of a specific case and muddy the waters on that one case, as an alternative to actually discussing the issue.

We shouldn't stop talking about police brutality because a single alleged case of police brutality turns out to be a false charge. We shouldn't stop talking about CIA gulags because maybe one internee lied about torture techniques even though we have no reason to think he did given that other people experienced more or less the same things he did. We shouldn't stop talking about whether the president gets to have a 'hit list' of American citizens just because one of the people on it is probably a very bad man that the US would be more secure without... we think.

[Channel72]

Lets turn this around so as to illustrate why the kill list is a bad and dangerous policy.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the next president has decided they dont like a group you belong to. I dont know, the Audubon Society, or something. He has decided for whatever reason that people who want to protect the natural habitat of birds are menaces to society and has become convinced that they are responsible for attacks on Shell personnel in Nigeria. Assume you have been active, while living as an Expat in Iceland, recruiting people into the Audubon Society.

What exists to stop the president from having you blown up with a predator drone launched from a destroyer just outside icelands EEZ?

Practically speaking, any US President knows he can get away with assassinating a suspected terrorist, with zero political repercussions. But I doubt a President could push it much further without consequences. Nixon certainly couldn't when he tried.

Basically, nobody likes terrorists, so US Presidents can kill terrorists with impunity. But you can't really build much of a slippery slope beyond that.

[Thanas]

Actually, you easily can, as nobody would have thought the US president could get away with holding people without trial and brazenly torturing them.

[Simon_Jester]

Put this way.

For people who spend their time plugged into the American political zeitgeist, it seems as though the extraordinary, lawless power Americans are willing to grant the executive "to fight terrorists" really is restricted to terrorists. Or so it appears.

There actually are quite a few Americans who thought it was just fine for Obama to blow up al-Awlaki, but who would balk at saying he could blow up Glenn Greenwald (or Glenn Beck). And who would actually want him to face consequences for doing that.

So there is some validity to the assertion "the American people wouldn't stand for it." That is, that American public opinion has no regard for the civil rights or liberties of people associated with Islamic terrorist organizations, but suddenly start to respect those rights again as soon as the Islamic terrorists are no longer part of the picture.*

On the other hand, the historical record gives us gigantic mountains of examples of nations that started by persecuting a hated minority that 'everyone knows' are bad people that need punishment and whose evil schemes need to be ferreted out. And who then went on to create a reign of terror all through their population.

So there is also validity to the assertion that saying "It couldn't happen here" is invalid if lesser degrees of "it" have already started happening here and nobody important so much as batted an eyebrow.
__________________________

*This is obviously rather hypocritical, I'm not defending it or claiming that I myself agree with this mindset. I'm just describing it from a sociological viewpoint.

[jwl]

The quality of argumentation on this board is truly in the toilet.

Hammer's first response was "forced sex sounds unbelievable to me, and Thanas, a board moderator and supposedly a superb debater and one of the "premier" members of the board responds with "If you had read about Guantanamo you would know that charges about this have been levelled by nearly every former detainee, there is no reason not to believe this" in his first response and "How about slashing people's dick with a cutlery knife? Because that happened too. Only apologists like Hammerlein would be surprised" in his second post.

Quite literally, a MODERATOR's first and second responses are ad hominem attacks, not high quality logic and debating.

And then the dogpile begins, and everything degenerates into complete and utter bullshit.

As I said to Thanas a month back in a PM, this board has become an echo chamber where adherence to dogma is more important than proper debating and logic, especially if a MODERATOR's first response is to commit logical fallacies and NOT GET CALLED OUT FOR IT.

I suppose this was expected when Mike departed for other things... but it's still sad to see, and I was hoping for better things when I stopped lurking and joined up. Oh well...

Who cares what a MODERATOR thinks? I'm certainly not going to start believing something just because Thanas is going on about it. Moderators are there to enforce the rules, not be infallible debaters.

[jwl]

Oh, and on the subject of al-whatever, would it have been possible to arrest the guy? If not, and he is deemed a current threat, there's nothing wrong with targeting him. It's the same situation as those terrorists who were killed in france, and france doesn't even have the death penalty.

[Thanas]

That's different, the guys in France were literally holding guns to the heads of French citizens.

All anybody has ever released in the way of evidence regarding Al-Awlaki is that he was posting nasty stuff on the internet.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Lets turn this around so as to illustrate why the kill list is a bad and dangerous policy.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the next president has decided they dont like a group you belong to. I dont know, the Audubon Society, or something. He has decided for whatever reason that people who want to protect the natural habitat of birds are menaces to society and has become convinced that they are responsible for attacks on Shell personnel in Nigeria. Assume you have been active, while living as an Expat in Iceland, recruiting people into the Audubon Society.

What exists to stop the president from having you blown up with a predator drone launched from a destroyer just outside icelands EEZ?

Practically speaking, any US President knows he can get away with assassinating a suspected terrorist, with zero political repercussions. But I doubt a President could push it much further without consequences. Nixon certainly couldn't when he tried.

Basically, nobody likes terrorists, so US Presidents can kill terrorists with impunity. But you can't really build much of a slippery slope beyond that.

Yeah, you really really can. History is laden with examples of it. Which is why we rely on the rule of law to protect us, rather than the capricious whims of what the citizenry will tolerate and the moral fortitude of el presidente. Even if trials took place in absentia, there would be someone there to potentially say "No" to such a kill order, thus rendering them illegal, and a lack of obedience to the court acting as grounds for impeachment or any number of other remedies. As it stands, no one can say no and not be readily replaced with someone who will say yes, because everyone is bound to secrecy and serves at the pleasure of the president.

[TheHammer]

The administration leaked part of the list, and made certain claims regarding some of the individuals on that list.

That has no bearing on the legal justification for the program generally, or ANY checks on the authority of the executive branch to add new people to it, or transparency/due process in the ways and means by which individuals are put on it.

If you want to claim Awlaki was a Bad Man Who Needed Killing, fine. Had he been on a battlefield and been shot by an army drone operator, been killed while someone on the ground tried to capture him etc, we would not be having the conversation.

But the executive branch has declared the unilateral authority to kill anyone it wants without trial on its say so, using no independently reviewed evidentiary standards whatsoever.

Here is a hint: If the evidence you have is a state secret and classified unless you decide to leak it yourself, then there is no need to actually have evidence. The obama administration could just as easily put Glenn Greenwald on the kill list, and send a predator drone into Brazil to blow up his apartment, and then make up any story it likes for the press. There is nothing stopping them. In fact, if Glenn found out in advance he could not even challenge the matter in court due to the administration invoking the State Secrets privilege.

Classic slippery slope fears that I do not share. If and when Glenn Greenwald or anyone like him is killed via drone strike, I'll gladly come back here and tell you that you were right. If anything, the long drawn out process the administration invoked when determining whether or not a piece of shit like Anwar Al-Awlaki's killing would be justified should give you comfort.

No, because Ibrahim al Bana was not there at the time of the attack. The only people killed in that strike were civilians in an open air cafe. So either that is one HELL of a coincidence (seriously, the odds against that are astronomical given the complete lack of connection Awlaki's son had to any sort of terrorist activity), the administration is lying (which they can do, because the list is secret), or the people responsible for delivering intel are blisteringly incompetent AND arrogant as ever loving hell (being willing to kill 8 civilians on intelligence that is obviously bad, without positive ID on their actual target) combined with one hell of a coincidence.

I haven't found specifics on it, but I've also seen no indication that his killing was authorized or sanctioned by the President. In fact, it would seem opposite. The previous link also indicated the target was al Bana... Regardless, unless Awlaki Jr was specifically targeted by the Administration, it's still a separate issue from the discussion regarding his father.

Here is the problem. Simply writing a book calling on people to rise up against the government and attack america, kill jews, murder gay people, or attempt to revitalize the 1000 year reich is not itself a crime.

Recruiting people for attacks that you planned in order to make your speech a reality is a crime. Which is what awlaki did.

The government could not legally arrest me if I were go go about publicly calling for the violent overthrow of the US government in order to install a communist utopia, or any number of other things.

They could once you started planning to enact your communist utopia by recruiting accomplices and plotting attacks. Which is what Awlaki did.

Quite frankly, I've thought the idea that advocating "violent overthrow" of the government or advocating "commission of violent crimes" to be protected speech is ridiculous. The basis for a democratic society is that if you don't like a law or method of government, you have rights to petition that government, form associations to get it to change via voting. Anyone seeking to "violently overthrow the government" means that they can't get the votes they need and instead wish to impose their will on the majority. Its not a view that has been held universally in this nation's history, rather it's swung back and forth with the latest SCOTUS precedent and I predict that if you had a similar challenge today, such language would be deemed to be NOT protected.

The closest they could ever get to arresting me is if I got a bunch of people together and said something "Now pick up your guns RIGHT NOW, the revolution has begun!" and the crowd then proceeds to do so.

That is essentially what Awlaki did in his various postings and videos. Its all out there, this isn't a secret.

Or, if I am caught engaged in an organized conspiracy to overthrow the US government in favor of a communist utopia that is somewhere in the operational planning stage (stockpiling weapons etc. It would not count if a bunch of my hypothetical commie friends just got together and swore a blood oath that we never acted on after that).

Which is where Awlaki was.

Just being a propagandist who convinces people to become revolutionary communists is not enough to get me arrested for ANYTHING.

That's debatable. Depends on the specifics, and the whims of the Supreme Court who I suspect would ultimately rule on your case.

The same goes for Awlaki. Doing what he did with respect to his videos could not get him (legally) arrested were he stateside. So how is it justification to kill him?

It's not the sole justification, just easy to obtain publicly available evidence that shows you the type of person he was. I'd argue many of his speeches do in fact cross the boundaries of protected speech, but making such an argument is hardly necessary given the rest of his activities.

That is why the underwear bomber thing is actually important to have verified. Because then it is criminal conspiracy to commit terrorism because he got a prospective bomber in contact with someone who could help him do the bombing.

The Ft. Hood shooter... fuck man, those email exchanges did not raise the specter of criminal activity when they were read prior to the fucking shooting. Evidence against Awlaki they do not make.

Anwar Alwaki Had this to say:

“[Obama’s] administration tried to portray the operation of Brother Nadal Hasan as an individual act of violence from an estranged individual. The administration practiced a control on the leak of information concerning the operation in order to cushion the reaction of the American public. Until this moment, the administration is refusing to release the emails exchanged between myself and Nadal.”

In case your ability to read between the lines is broken he is taking credit for the Ft Hood shooting.

Point being, were he not killed he'd have planned numerous additional Charlie Hedbo type attacks. Charlie Hedbo is a prime example as to why the notion that Awlaki wasn't an "imminent threat" are completely fucking asinine.

How on earth was he responsible for an ineffective firebombing that took place months after he died? Do you blame Martin Luther personally for the Holocaust as well?

Awlaki planned and recruited for the attacks before he died. Did Martin Luther plan the Holocaust and recruit the Nazis?

Also, I don't get the argument about it being an "ineffective firebombing". Is that REALLY how you percieved it? Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about? Here's a link Al Qaeda branch claims Charlie Hebdo attack was years in the making . Regardless what does the effectiveness have to do with it?

You obviously dont know what the word Imminent means. Here, let me help:

Imminent
adjective
1. likely to occur at any moment; impending:
Her death is imminent.
2.projecting or leaning forward; overhanging.

If the latency is MONTHS, the process has to go through numerous operationally independent proxies and involves no planning participation on the part of the person under consideration for classification as an "Imminent" threat, they are by definition not an imminent threat.

Awlaki was constantly making plots, recruiting for those plots, and then sending men off to enact them. Once those "birds have flown" the attack has begun, even if you don't see the end results for months later. The process of constantly planning attacks is what made him an imminent threat. You are being willfully naive to think otherwise.

Lets turn this around so as to illustrate why the kill list is a bad and dangerous policy.

Let us assume for the sake of argument that the next president has decided they dont like a group you belong to. I dont know, the Audubon Society, or something. He has decided for whatever reason that people who want to protect the natural habitat of birds are menaces to society and has become convinced that they are responsible for attacks on Shell personnel in Nigeria. Assume you have been active, while living as an Expat in Iceland, recruiting people into the Audubon Society.

What exists to stop the president from having you blown up with a predator drone launched from a destroyer just outside icelands EEZ?

Again, ridiculous slippery slope fears and an even more ridiculous scenario that I do not share. But lets entertain it shall we?

Would I in this case be well known to advocate violence on Shell employees? Would I have videos and writings publicly available on the internet where I professed this for all the world to see? Would I be involved in recruiting people to take on the attacks on Shell, and be recruiting and training these individuals for that purpose in iceland when the drone hits? Would I be protected by hundreds of fellow Audobon "tribesmen" willing to die and kill for me should someone try to capture me? Then yes a drone strike would be justified.

That's different, the guys in France were literally holding guns to the heads of French citizens.

All anybody has ever released in the way of evidence regarding Al-Awlaki is that he was posting nasty stuff on the internet.

What about the guys holding the Guns and planting the bombs openly stating that Al-Awlaki was the man who sent them?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Classic slippery slope fears that I do not share. If and when Glenn Greenwald or anyone like him is killed via drone strike, I'll gladly come back here and tell you that you were right. If anything, the long drawn out process the administration invoked when determining whether or not a piece of shit like Anwar Al-Awlaki's killing would be justified should give you comfort.

It is not a slippery slope. A slippery slope takes the form:

"If we let X take this power, how long before they obtain Y?" or "If we let 1 do X, it opens the door for them to do Y by implication"

There is no implication. The executive branch has claimed the powers of judge, jury, and executioner. Full Stop. No checks on that power. No transparency. Even if Obama never misuses it, there is no guarantee those who follow in his footsteps wont.

I haven't found specifics on it, but I've also seen no indication that his killing was authorized or sanctioned by the President. In fact, it would seem opposite. The previous link also indicated the target was al Bana... Regardless, unless Awlaki Jr was specifically targeted by the Administration, it's still a separate issue from the discussion regarding his father.

So, in response to the argument that the administration is either lying or incompetent, you refer back to statements made by the administration.

How circular of you.

I repeat. What are the odds?

What are the odds that while targeting Person A, drone pilots misidentified another person B as that person. With person B just so happening to be the son of someone who was specifically targeted for a drone kill weeks earlier who had no connection to terrorism other than his father?

Had al Bana been there and survived, that would be one thing. But he was not there. Had a double been present. Ok. Had they just hit random fucking civilians because their intel was bad. OK. Stupid, but no foul play.

But you have been the one harping throughout this entire thread about how "unbelievable" the claims of a torture victim are because they simply seem improbable to you. The chances of killing this particular person can be quantified. For that drone strike, targeting someone else, stacking the odds so that no matter how you iterate it 8 people will die, the chance of killing Awlaki's son is 8 in 24 million. They are actually much worse, because you have to start multiplying in the chance of intel being wrong, timing etc.

If you were sitting on a Jury and Person A said that they killed person B by mistake, because they were really trying to kill Person C, but Person A had already murdered Person B's father using an identical MO and Person C was not in the cafe at the time AT ALL, would you believe them?

I wouldn't.

Quite frankly, I've thought the idea that advocating "violent overthrow" of the government or advocating "commission of violent crimes" to be protected speech is ridiculous.

The supreme court disagrees.

Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969

Awlaki planned and recruited for the attacks before he died.

Evidence?

Also, I don't get the argument about it being an "ineffective firebombing". Is that REALLY how you percieved it? Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about?

Yes dipshit. I was referring to the attack in 2011. You know, the one Awlaki was alive to have possibly ever engaged in the planning thereof.

FROM LINK

AQAP did not claim responsibility for Friday's deadly siege at a kosher grocery store in Paris, but praised it.

....

Also found inside the apartment, according to Le Parisien: a stash of weapons, explosives and two ISIS flags.

Coulibaly purportedly told authorities before he was killed that he belonged to ISIS.

Read your own source material

Then yes a drone strike would be justified.

That is not the question I asked. I asked "What would stop it?" not "is it justified?"

I constructed the scenario such that it is plainly not justified objectively.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Post Correction:

Redact:

FROM LINK

AQAP did not claim responsibility for Friday's deadly siege at a kosher grocery store in Paris, but praised it.

....

Also found inside the apartment, according to Le Parisien: a stash of weapons, explosives and two ISIS flags.

Coulibaly purportedly told authorities before he was killed that he belonged to ISIS.

Read your own source material

Replace:

AQ is perfectly capable of claiming responsibility for attacks, or making up details about those attacks that they are responsible for. It is almost as if they are terrorists engaged in a propaganda war with ISIS or something.

It would be improbable for Awlaki to have planned an attack from beyond the grave, the operational details of which go stale after 4 years.

[TheHammer]

Classic slippery slope fears that I do not share. If and when Glenn Greenwald or anyone like him is killed via drone strike, I'll gladly come back here and tell you that you were right. If anything, the long drawn out process the administration invoked when determining whether or not a piece of shit like Anwar Al-Awlaki's killing would be justified should give you comfort.

It is not a slippery slope. A slippery slope takes the form:

"If we let X take this power, how long before they obtain Y?" or "If we let 1 do X, it opens the door for them to do Y by implication"

There is no implication. The executive branch has claimed the powers of judge, jury, and executioner. Full Stop. No checks on that power. No transparency. Even if Obama never misuses it, there is no guarantee those who follow in his footsteps wont.

I'll worry when they misuse it.

I haven't found specifics on it, but I've also seen no indication that his killing was authorized or sanctioned by the President. In fact, it would seem opposite. The previous link also indicated the target was al Bana... Regardless, unless Awlaki Jr was specifically targeted by the Administration, it's still a separate issue from the discussion regarding his father.

So, in response to the argument that the administration is either lying or incompetent, you refer back to statements made by the administration.

How circular of you.

It's actually you with the circular logic of "The administration was lying and/or incompetent because it lies and is incompetent". There is a dearth of information on Awlaki Jr. The statements from the Administration or all we have to go on. In contrast to the open acknowledgement and praise of Awlaki Sr.'s death, the death of Jr. was met with the opposite reaction. And the fact remains you can't point to a single piece of evidence that he was specifically targeted and thus it is a separate issue.

I repeat. What are the odds?

What are the odds that while targeting Person A, drone pilots misidentified another person B as that person. With person B just so happening to be the son of someone who was specifically targeted for a drone kill weeks earlier who had no connection to terrorism other than his father?

I don't know what the odds are. I do know that Awlaki Jr was over there trying to locate and meet with his father. And that being the case it certainly increases the probability he would come into contact with some of his fathers former associates, or that they would attempt to take him under their wing in the wake of his father's death. That's not a judgement on Awlaki jr, or justification for his death merely a possible explanation as to how he ended up in the same area that would be targeted.

I've about reached the limits to which I'm going to entertain this red herring, and your various hypotheticals. Unless you can show me some evidence he was on the kill list as his Father was I'm not going to respond to it further. .

Had al Bana been there and survived, that would be one thing. But he was not there. Had a double been present. Ok. Had they just hit random fucking civilians because their intel was bad. OK. Stupid, but no foul play.

But you have been the one harping throughout this entire thread about how "unbelievable" the claims of a torture victim are because they simply seem improbable to you. The chances of killing this particular person can be quantified. For that drone strike, targeting someone else, stacking the odds so that no matter how you iterate it 8 people will die, the chance of killing Awlaki's son is 8 in 24 million. They are actually much worse, because you have to start multiplying in the chance of intel being wrong, timing etc.

If you were sitting on a Jury and Person A said that they killed person B by mistake, because they were really trying to kill Person C, but Person A had already murdered Person B's father using an identical MO and Person C was not in the cafe at the time AT ALL, would you believe them?

I wouldn't.

Refer to my previous statement.

Quite frankly, I've thought the idea that advocating "violent overthrow" of the government or advocating "commission of violent crimes" to be protected speech is ridiculous.

The supreme court disagrees.

Brandenburg v. Ohio 1969

No shit sherlock. And that's one of those SCOTUS rulings that you have to look at and wonder "What the fuck were they thinking"? It also reversed earlier SCOTUS precedents and is unlikely to stand in future courts.

Awlaki planned and recruited for the attacks before he died.

Evidence?

Already given. Statements from multiple terrorists that Awlaki recruited them and sent them on their missions.

Also, I don't get the argument about it being an "ineffective firebombing". Is that REALLY how you percieved it? Do you even know what the fuck you're talking about?

Yes dipshit. I was referring to the attack in 2011. You know, the one Awlaki was alive to have possibly ever engaged in the planning thereof.

Really? Been living under a rock these past few weeks?

FROM LINK

AQAP did not claim responsibility for Friday's deadly siege at a kosher grocery store in Paris, but praised it.

....

Also found inside the apartment, according to Le Parisien: a stash of weapons, explosives and two ISIS flags.

Coulibaly purportedly told authorities before he was killed that he belonged to ISIS.

Read your own source material

What does the attack on a KOSHER GROCERY STORE have to do with the Charlie Hebdo attacks? They are two separate incidents.

Rather pathetic attempt to cherry pick from the article. Lets quote some relevant text shall we?

Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula claimed responsibility Wednesday for last week's rampage that killed 12 people at France's Charlie Hebdo satirical magazine.

The attack was years in the making, an AQAP leader said in a video, claiming U.S.-born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was the mastermind behind it.

...

The claim of responsibility for the deadly attack on the magazine came in a video showing AQAP commander Nasr Ibn Ali al-Ansi, with pictures of the Kouachis in the background.

"When the heroes were assigned, they accepted. They promised and fulfilled," al-Ansi said.

Reading comprehension - GET SOME

Then yes a drone strike would be justified.

That is not the question I asked. I asked "What would stop it?" not "is it justified?"

I constructed the scenario such that it is plainly not justified objectively.

You constructed an outlandish and vague scenario to show a ridiculous slippery slope that would NEVER HAPPEN.

But I'll entertain your question - What would stop it? Nothing. I'd be dead. What would happen to the President? Would depend entirely on how he justifies it to congress and the American people after the fact. On Awlaki the vast majority of us are SATISFIED with the justifications given.

[TheHammer]

Post Correction:

Redact:

FROM LINK

AQAP did not claim responsibility for Friday's deadly siege at a kosher grocery store in Paris, but praised it.

....

Also found inside the apartment, according to Le Parisien: a stash of weapons, explosives and two ISIS flags.

Coulibaly purportedly told authorities before he was killed that he belonged to ISIS.

Read your own source material

Replace:

AQ is perfectly capable of claiming responsibility for attacks, or making up details about those attacks that they are responsible for. It is almost as if they are terrorists engaged in a propaganda war with ISIS or something.

It would be improbable for Awlaki to have planned an attack from beyond the grave, the operational details of which go stale after 4 years.

Spin spin spin.

Charlie Hebdo was on AQAP's radar for years due to their depictions of Muhammad. "Operational details go stale"? Did Charlie Hebdo move their offices? This isn't a mobile missile platform, its a cartoonist office with minimal security. Further, do you think that they have no capability to adjust on their own to changing conditions? The fact remains the attack was Awlaki's brain child.

We don't have just AQAP's statements to go on. We also have the words of the terrorists who carried out the attacks themselves specifically naming Awlaki.

Al-Awlaki’s name came up again last Friday when, just hours before they were killed by police, the two men who carried out the attack on Charlie Hebdo called up a local news station and said they were working on behalf of AQAP and had been financed by al-Awlaki. Overnight today, an AQAP official said in a new video that al-Awlaki had made “arrangements” for the attack.

“[Al-Awlaki] threatens the West both in his life and after his martyrdom,” the AQAP official says in the video.

source: http://abcnews.go.com/International/aqa ... d=28223532

[Simon_Jester]

Classic slippery slope fears that I do not share. If and when Glenn Greenwald or anyone like him is killed via drone strike, I'll gladly come back here and tell you that you were right. If anything, the long drawn out process the administration invoked when determining whether or not a piece of shit like Anwar Al-Awlaki's killing would be justified should give you comfort.

The problem is that at this rate, you are going to be actively egging on the government literally until the very moment they start using drone strikes on their domestic political opposition. As, assuming everything they do is legal and fine and good until five seconds before they pull the trigger.

Which means that, in essence, you are colluding with any future government that wants to assassinate domestic political opponents, by running interference for them and letting them set 'legal' precedents that they have the power to do that.

Only after the precedents are in place, and after the infrastructure to do it is in place, only after the tyrants have all their tools lined up and ready to go... do you propose to so much as frown at them... if they start using them.

This is the equivalent of locking your weapons away in a box the night before the enemy army attacks, and threatening to court-martial anyone who opens the locks early. You're letting the opponent get in the first shots and claiming that after the first shots are fired you will think about condemning the people firing them.

And that is, charitably, assuming you don't just find justifications for why the domestic political opponents that get targeted were BADMEN who deserve to die.

I haven't found specifics on it, but I've also seen no indication that his killing was authorized or sanctioned by the President. In fact, it would seem opposite. The previous link also indicated the target was al Bana... Regardless, unless Awlaki Jr was specifically targeted by the Administration, it's still a separate issue from the discussion regarding his father.

It would seem hard to know whether he was targeted or not given that the list is a secret...

Again, ridiculous slippery slope fears and an even more ridiculous scenario that I do not share. But lets entertain it shall we?

Would I in this case be well known to advocate violence on Shell employees? Would I have videos and writings publicly available on the internet where I professed this for all the world to see? Would I be involved in recruiting people to take on the attacks on Shell, and be recruiting and training these individuals for that purpose in iceland when the drone hits? Would I be protected by hundreds of fellow Audobon "tribesmen" willing to die and kill for me should someone try to capture me? Then yes a drone strike would be justified.

Are all these things necessary conditions to justify assassination by drone?

If so, then why is the state not required to prove any of these things in open court?

I mean, the problem here is not "the government blew up al-Awlaki." The problem is "the government has a secret kill list of people it thinks it's allowed to kill, and you can't read the list, and the only people responsible for deciding who goes on the list are people who can easily be fired and replaced at the president's whim, so there is no independent review of who is on this list and why."

The president could put somebody on the list because they made a scene at his daughter's birthday party, and we would not know that. No one could get the president into trouble for doing that, because the list is secret and not subject to review by anyone except the president's duly appointed sycophants subordinates.

The very existence of such a list is a problem, and you have NEVER acknowledged this, over YEARS of debate.

[TheHammer]

Classic slippery slope fears that I do not share. If and when Glenn Greenwald or anyone like him is killed via drone strike, I'll gladly come back here and tell you that you were right. If anything, the long drawn out process the administration invoked when determining whether or not a piece of shit like Anwar Al-Awlaki's killing would be justified should give you comfort.

The problem is that at this rate, you are going to be actively egging on the government literally until the very moment they start using drone strikes on their domestic political opposition. As, assuming everything they do is legal and fine and good until five seconds before they pull the trigger.

What's to stop them from doing that now? Many actions of the government are going to have to be justified after the fact. When those justifications cease to satisfy the electorate, then the shit will hit the fan. That's why I don't have these same hypothetical fears that you do.

Which means that, in essence, you are colluding with any future government that wants to assassinate domestic political opponents, by running interference for them and letting them set 'legal' precedents that they have the power to do that.

Only after the precedents are in place, and after the infrastructure to do it is in place, only after the tyrants have all their tools lined up and ready to go... do you propose to so much as frown at them... if they start using them.

They already have the tools. No law or precedent protects you from that fact. The only check they have now, and will have in the future is that the people who are physically (soldiers, police) using those tools will recognize that they are being abused and fight back.

This is the equivalent of locking your weapons away in a box the night before the enemy army attacks, and threatening to court-martial anyone who opens the locks early. You're letting the opponent get in the first shots and claiming that after the first shots are fired you will think about condemning the people firing them.

What the fuck are you talking about?

And that is, charitably, assuming you don't just find justifications for why the domestic political opponents that get targeted were BADMEN who deserve to die.

Better be some damned good justifications. Such an event would likely start a civil war. Again, I think this is an unjustified slippery slope fear, because if it did happen it would be an abuse of such magnitude that it doesn't matter WHAT sort of review process you have in place.

I haven't found specifics on it, but I've also seen no indication that his killing was authorized or sanctioned by the President. In fact, it would seem opposite. The previous link also indicated the target was al Bana... Regardless, unless Awlaki Jr was specifically targeted by the Administration, it's still a separate issue from the discussion regarding his father.

It would seem hard to know whether he was targeted or not given that the list is a secret...

We knew his father was on the list. And that the administration went to great lengths to come up with a legal justification for putting him on the list.

As of now, it seems likely that if he were intentionally targeted by someone (and at present we have no evidence of that), that decision was made much further down the chain of command and not sanctioned by the executive.

Since this debate is essentially about when it is justifiable for the executive to put a citizen on the "kill list" it's not exactly relevant.

Again, ridiculous slippery slope fears and an even more ridiculous scenario that I do not share. But lets entertain it shall we?

Would I in this case be well known to advocate violence on Shell employees? Would I have videos and writings publicly available on the internet where I professed this for all the world to see? Would I be involved in recruiting people to take on the attacks on Shell, and be recruiting and training these individuals for that purpose in iceland when the drone hits? Would I be protected by hundreds of fellow Audobon "tribesmen" willing to die and kill for me should someone try to capture me? Then yes a drone strike would be justified.

Are all these things necessary conditions to justify assassination by drone?

I was drawing a parallel to Awlaki, not trying to set a minimum set of requirements. Awlaki is the only example we have of this use of power.

If so, then why is the state not required to prove any of these things in open court?

Since when do we subject military targets to court approval? Awlaki was an admitted member of a terrorist organization engaged in open hostility towards the US and operating from foreign soil. That fact alone meant he was a justifiable military target. That the administration went to such lengths beyond that to determine if he could legally targeted is evidence of how serious they took the matter. A trial is something you can afford when you have someone in custody locked away from the public, not while he is still on his crime spree.

I mean, the problem here is not "the government blew up al-Awlaki." The problem is "the government has a secret kill list of people it thinks it's allowed to kill, and you can't read the list, and the only people responsible for deciding who goes on the list are people who can easily be fired and replaced at the president's whim, so there is no independent review of who is on this list and why."

The President and his staff ARE the review. He is not suggesting the targets, rather they are being suggested to him for approval. And we elected him to make those decisions. He's got his hands on the button for nuclear weapons. We elected him to make that decision too.

Look, if Awlaki's a citizen of any other nation killing him is an absolute no-brainer. He was a US citizen in name only, and had effectively (if not legally) renounced his citizenship long ago. I don't feel like we should have extended him extra protection because he failed to surrender his passport and pay his exit tax.

The president could put somebody on the list because they made a scene at his daughter's birthday party, and we would not know that. No one could get the president into trouble for doing that, because the list is secret and not subject to review by anyone except the president's duly appointed sycophants subordinates.

The very existence of such a list is a problem, and you have NEVER acknowledged this, over YEARS of debate.

Simon, you're a fucking whackjob sometimes. Do you think that the president having someone killed over making a scene at a birthday party wouldn't come out? Nevermind that it would never happen. You think it would remain secret? When has anything like that remained secret? Do you think that his political enemies would then let it stand? Oh right he'd have them all eliminated via drones after that and everyone would just go along with it.

The existence of the list is NOT a problem. It only becomes a problem if the justifications for putting names on that list are faulty. The justification for putting Awlaki on the list is sound, and to date he is the ONLY American who has been targeted and killed from said list. To me, that is evidence that they are using that power responsibly.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I'll worry when they misuse it.

You know, I am pretty sure someone said that in 1936

It's actually you with the circular logic of "The administration was lying and/or incompetent because it lies and is incompetent".

No, moron. I took the information at hand.

1) The death of awlaki's son
2) The lack of their claimed target at the attacked location
3) The spatial-temporal co-location of these two events
4) The quantifiable improbability of 3

And constructed the most likely explanations. Incompetence or Dishonesty.

Protip: You dont try to assassinate someone using a bomb launched from a drone inside a civilian population unless--at the very least--you have a positive ID of a specific target. To do anything else, and the "collateral damage" is not "collateral damage". It is simply murdered civilians.

So either they had a positive ID of their target and lied about who it was
or
They are not very good at their jobs. And war criminals. Dont forget that last part.

The statements from the Administration or all we have to go on.

An administration that we cannot actually trust and has numerous bad policies with respect to the drone program to boot. It even lies about who it kills, with signature strikes that have definitions of "militant" so broad as to be equivalent to indiscriminate killing.

And that being the case it certainly increases the probability he would come into contact with some of his fathers former associates, or that they would attempt to take him under their wing in the wake of his father's death. That's not a judgement on Awlaki jr, or justification for his death merely a possible explanation as to how he ended up in the same area that would be targeted.

And if any of those people where there, fine. But they were not. Only he was.

As I said before. Get proper ID first BEFORE firing a bomb into a cafe.

Either they were hitting exactly who, where, and when they wanted to, or they were not doing their jobs correctly. Alternatively they just dont give a shit.

None of these cover anyone in any heroic glory or make me OK with the drone program.

Unless you can show me some evidence he was on the kill list as his Father was I'm not going to respond to it further. .

You do realize that the list is secret, and so who is on it is by definition unknowable, right?

http://www.thenation.com/article/173980 ... ?page=full

The drone that killed him killed other members of his family, none of whom were terrorists. The administration lied about killing Al-Banna at that time. He was not there. At all. The event Awlaki jr attended took place in the open air. So unless drone pilots make a habit of targeting a set of coordinates without anyone seeing who is in that set of coordinates (and doing so on the say so of some informant with no fact checking), it stands to reason that they should have known Al-Banna was not there.

Harry Reid, who sits on the intelligence committee and has access to the details let this slip:

“I do know this,” he said on CNN, “the American citizens who have been killed overseas…are terrorists, and, frankly, if anyone in the world deserved to be killed, those three did deserve to be killed.”

A former senior official in the Obama administration told me that after Abdulrahman’s killing, the president was “surprised and upset and wanted an explanation.” The former official, who worked on the targeted killing program, said that according to intelligence and Special Operations officials, the target of the strike was al-Banna, the AQAP propagandist. “We had no idea the kid was there. We were told al-Banna was alone,” the former official told me. Once it became clear that the teenager had been killed, he added, military and intelligence officials asserted, “It was a mistake, a bad mistake.” However, John Brennan, at the time President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, “suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally and ordered a review. I don’t know what happened with the review.”

There is every possibility that we are talking about an intentional extra-judicial killing, but one not listed. It would not shock me from JSOC, they have a storied history of committing war crimes.

So there is that possibility too.

So we have three (well, 4)
1) Lying
2) Incompetent
3) Rogue Operation
4) Some combination of 2 and 3

I am willing to entertain that the officials who made these decisions were lied to by someone, and did not check their facts. They monitored Awlaki sr for two weeks before they obliterated him in order to check their intel and get the timing right. It seems to me that a good faith error is improbable, but that does not mean that the left hand knew what the right was doing.

Either way, we need to re-evaluate our entire drone program. Because the decision making that goes into where and went to use them has a nasty habit of killing shitload of civilians

Already given. Statements from multiple terrorists that Awlaki recruited them and sent them on their missions.

I was referring to the 2015 attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine, which is what you were referring to in the bit I quoted before making that statement.

What AQ says about a man who is dead does not mean much. I could believe it for the 2011 attack, but not the 2015. Even if he had plans for the 2015 attack back in like 2011, there is no way those were the plans enacted (unless he had a terrorist plot wish list or something with full operational details). I could buy the idea that some of his recruits were sent on that one, but they would be general recruits, not mission-specific recruits.

Unless you are going to tell me that it takes 4 years to plan and execute a plot wherein two gunmen assault a magazine in paris.

Protip: It doesn't.

When it comes to OTHER attacks, yeah. Sure. I can buy the underwear bomber bit. Especially because that information was obtained by the FBI after interrogating the now-convicted perp, and they dont use torture, but instead use better more reliable interrogation methods.

My objection to the killing of Awlaki does not come from his guilt or innocence. It comes from the existence of a policy regarding the targeted killing of US citizens. It comes from the institutional... I dont even want to call it corruption. Institutional criminality of the organizations tasked with carrying out those, and other, targeted killings (The CIA and JSOC do not cover themselves in goodness and probity when it comes to their decision making and respect for human rights or the laws of war). It comes from the secrecy and unaccountability under which they are conducted.

Had Awlaki been killed when a base was raided, or an installation bombed, I would be OK with that. But once a list including US citizens is constructed, there is nothing but the beneficence of politicians (or worse, the CIA) that stands between us and being on that list.

When I give someone a gun and the responsibility to use it for my protection and in my name, i want to be able to set conditions under which that gun may be unholstered and toward whom it it is pointed.

Would you be OK with police Use of Force guidelines that are basically "We can kill whoever we want, but trust us, we wont abuse that power at all. No, you may not see our records. Ever."? Of course not. Unless you are even more idiotic than I credit you for.

Reading comprehension - GET SOME

Yes, I noticed the error. Hence the ghetto edit. The article you selected jumps topics a great deal. Poorly written it is.

You constructed an outlandish and vague scenario to show a ridiculous slippery slope that would NEVER HAPPEN.

No. It is a hypothetical scenario designed to separate out the issue that is of concern (the lack of any checks on executive power) from any obfuscation you might wish to engage in (Awlaki was a Bad Man).

There have been numerous cases throughout history of people being given extraordinary powers, and then abusing the ever loving shit out of them. The US is not immune to the temptation presented by those extraordinary powers.

We already have documented cases of US citizens and non-enemies being tortured by the CIA and their proxies. US presidents have abused their powers before (Hi Nixon, Roosevelt, Jackson, Wilson, Reagan, Bush II. To name a few), sometimes due to the uncertainties of war, sometimes for naked personal gain. The unchecked power of life or death over anyone they so choose is not something I am willing to grant any human being. Eventually, it will be abused. It is a historical inevitability. The other powers we let the executive branch have to combat terrorism already HAVE been abused, what makes you think this one will be any different?

Better be some damned good justifications. Such an event would likely start a civil war.

No independent review. if the 45th president of the United States kills the leader of the opposition party, it would be a rather trivial matter to fabricate documents "proving" he or she supported terrorism or whatever overseas. If no one ever gets to review the evidence independently, people would likely rather let it slide than plunge the country into civil war.

Lets put it this way.

If targeted killings of that nature are Never Permitted, then there is no wiggle room to say it was justified by any evidence, real or fabricated. No room for the person tasked with carrying out the killing to rationalize it away as justified or legal. No way to say "I was just following orders" with the expectation that maybe the order was legal.

It keeps the person who ordered the hit from being able to muddy the waters.

[TheHammer]

You know, I am pretty sure someone said that in 1936

That's two Nazi references in the same thread.

It's actually you with the circular logic of "The administration was lying and/or incompetent because it lies and is incompetent".

No, moron. I took the information at hand.

1) The death of awlaki's son
2) The lack of their claimed target at the attacked location
3) The spatial-temporal co-location of these two events
4) The quantifiable improbability of 3

And constructed the most likely explanations. Incompetence or Dishonesty.

Speculation is not evidence

Protip: You dont try to assassinate someone using a bomb launched from a drone inside a civilian population unless--at the very least--you have a positive ID of a specific target. To do anything else, and the "collateral damage" is not "collateral damage". It is simply murdered civilians.

So either they had a positive ID of their target and lied about who it was
or
They are not very good at their jobs. And war criminals. Dont forget that last part.

The drone pilots might suck at their job. Or maybe they did their job to the letter and it was the intel that they were given that was bad. Or maybe the intel was good, and the story we're getting isn't the whole truth. I'm not calling for excusing people fucking up at their jobs.

At question is if he were deliberately targeted by the Executive. Unless you've got evidence of that, its a separate issue.

The statements from the Administration or all we have to go on.

An administration that we cannot actually trust and has numerous bad policies with respect to the drone program to boot. It even lies about who it kills, with signature strikes that have definitions of "militant" so broad as to be equivalent to indiscriminate killing.

Circular - The Administration is lying because it lies. You need evidence they lied in this case. Anything else is speculation.

And that being the case it certainly increases the probability he would come into contact with some of his fathers former associates, or that they would attempt to take him under their wing in the wake of his father's death. That's not a judgement on Awlaki jr, or justification for his death merely a possible explanation as to how he ended up in the same area that would be targeted.

And if any of those people where there, fine. But they were not. Only he was.

We do not know who was and was not there. There are indications he was attempting to link up with AQAP to achieve Martyrdom like his father. It's very possible that Ibrahim or other AQAP were present and survived, or left before the actual missile strike. My speculation is just as valid as yours...

There were 7 people killed, have all 7 been identified as "civilian"? I haven't found any information on that.

As I said before. Get proper ID first BEFORE firing a bomb into a cafe.

Either they were hitting exactly who, where, and when they wanted to, or they were not doing their jobs correctly. Alternatively they just dont give a shit.

None of these cover anyone in any heroic glory or make me OK with the drone program.

Fair enough. I'm fully in favor of holding accountable those who are actually "calling the targets". Fuckups should be fully reviewed and appropriate action taken.

Unless you can show me some evidence he was on the kill list as his Father was I'm not going to respond to it further. .

You do realize that the list is secret, and so who is on it is by definition unknowable, right?

We knew his father was on the list. It's not really that big of a secret.

http://www.thenation.com/article/173980 ... ?page=full

The drone that killed him killed other members of his family, none of whom were terrorists. The administration lied about killing Al-Banna at that time. He was not there. At all. The event Awlaki jr attended took place in the open air. So unless drone pilots make a habit of targeting a set of coordinates without anyone seeing who is in that set of coordinates (and doing so on the say so of some informant with no fact checking), it stands to reason that they should have known Al-Banna was not there.

Refer to above - we don't know who was and was not there over the course of the evening, we only know who was killed.

Harry Reid, who sits on the intelligence committee and has access to the details let this slip:

“I do know this,” he said on CNN, “the American citizens who have been killed overseas…are terrorists, and, frankly, if anyone in the world deserved to be killed, those three did deserve to be killed.”

I would like to know why Reid made that statement. Its a shame a follow up question was not asked...

A former senior official in the Obama administration told me that after Abdulrahman’s killing, the president was “surprised and upset and wanted an explanation.” The former official, who worked on the targeted killing program, said that according to intelligence and Special Operations officials, the target of the strike was al-Banna, the AQAP propagandist. “We had no idea the kid was there. We were told al-Banna was alone,” the former official told me. Once it became clear that the teenager had been killed, he added, military and intelligence officials asserted, “It was a mistake, a bad mistake.” However, John Brennan, at the time President Obama’s senior adviser on counterterrorism and homeland security, “suspected that the kid had been killed intentionally and ordered a review. I don’t know what happened with the review.”

There is every possibility that we are talking about an intentional extra-judicial killing, but one not listed. It would not shock me from JSOC, they have a storied history of committing war crimes.

So there is that possibility too.

So we have three (well, 4)
1) Lying
2) Incompetent
3) Rogue Operation
4) Some combination of 2 and 3

I am willing to entertain that the officials who made these decisions were lied to by someone, and did not check their facts. They monitored Awlaki sr for two weeks before they obliterated him in order to check their intel and get the timing right. It seems to me that a good faith error is improbable, but that does not mean that the left hand knew what the right was doing.

Either way, we need to re-evaluate our entire drone program. Because the decision making that goes into where and went to use them has a nasty habit of killing shitload of civilians

I don't have a problem with that. My argument is specific to Awlaki being a legitimate target.

Already given. Statements from multiple terrorists that Awlaki recruited them and sent them on their missions.

I was referring to the 2015 attack on the Charlie Hebdo magazine, which is what you were referring to in the bit I quoted before making that statement.

What AQ says about a man who is dead does not mean much. I could believe it for the 2011 attack, but not the 2015. Even if he had plans for the 2015 attack back in like 2011, there is no way those were the plans enacted (unless he had a terrorist plot wish list or something with full operational details). I could buy the idea that some of his recruits were sent on that one, but they would be general recruits, not mission-specific recruits.

Unless you are going to tell me that it takes 4 years to plan and execute a plot wherein two gunmen assault a magazine in paris.

Protip: It doesn't.

You've got the men who carried out the attack saying Awlaki sent them, and you have AQAP saying he was the man behind it. How about you simply accept reality?

When it comes to OTHER attacks, yeah. Sure. I can buy the underwear bomber bit. Especially because that information was obtained by the FBI after interrogating the now-convicted perp, and they dont use torture, but instead use better more reliable interrogation methods.

My objection to the killing of Awlaki does not come from his guilt or innocence. It comes from the existence of a policy regarding the targeted killing of US citizens. It comes from the institutional... I dont even want to call it corruption. Institutional criminality of the organizations tasked with carrying out those, and other, targeted killings (The CIA and JSOC do not cover themselves in goodness and probity when it comes to their decision making and respect for human rights or the laws of war). It comes from the secrecy and unaccountability under which they are conducted.

I don't think I'd even call it a "policy". I view it as a special case, of the type which we elected the President to make a decision. These decisions are made with the best available information. They aren't always going to be right. Again, if bad information is being given then hold the people gathering that information accountable. In the Awlaki case however, the right information was available and the right decision was made.

Had Awlaki been killed when a base was raided, or an installation bombed, I would be OK with that. But once a list including US citizens is constructed, there is nothing but the beneficence of politicians (or worse, the CIA) that stands between us and being on that list.

When I give someone a gun and the responsibility to use it for my protection and in my name, i want to be able to set conditions under which that gun may be unholstered and toward whom it it is pointed.

Would you be OK with police Use of Force guidelines that are basically "We can kill whoever we want, but trust us, we wont abuse that power at all. No, you may not see our records. Ever."? Of course not. Unless you are even more idiotic than I credit you for.

You seem to view Awlaki as some sort of major precedent setter and I simply do not. As I noted, I feel he was a rather special case, and while perhaps not unique would be so rare that the next time it happens its going to be BIG NEWS. And when it does happen the justifications for why it was necessary had better be to the same level that they were in this case.

Fuck this is getting tedious... Lets wrap this up.

No. It is a hypothetical scenario designed to separate out the issue that is of concern (the lack of any checks on executive power) from any obfuscation you might wish to engage in (Awlaki was a Bad Man).

There have been numerous cases throughout history of people being given extraordinary powers, and then abusing the ever loving shit out of them. The US is not immune to the temptation presented by those extraordinary powers.

We already have documented cases of US citizens and non-enemies being tortured by the CIA and their proxies. US presidents have abused their powers before (Hi Nixon, Roosevelt, Jackson, Wilson, Reagan, Bush II. To name a few), sometimes due to the uncertainties of war, sometimes for naked personal gain. The unchecked power of life or death over anyone they so choose is not something I am willing to grant any human being. Eventually, it will be abused. It is a historical inevitability. The other powers we let the executive branch have to combat terrorism already HAVE been abused, what makes you think this one will be any different?

The president already has numerous powers that can be abused. As such, an abuse that you seem to fear can happen any time regardless of changes to the law.

Better be some damned good justifications. Such an event would likely start a civil war.

No independent review. if the 45th president of the United States kills the leader of the opposition party, it would be a rather trivial matter to fabricate documents "proving" he or she supported terrorism or whatever overseas. If no one ever gets to review the evidence independently, people would likely rather let it slide than plunge the country into civil war.

I don't agree.

Lets put it this way.

If targeted killings of that nature are Never Permitted, then there is no wiggle room to say it was justified by any evidence, real or fabricated. No room for the person tasked with carrying out the killing to rationalize it away as justified or legal. No way to say "I was just following orders" with the expectation that maybe the order was legal.

It keeps the person who ordered the hit from being able to muddy the waters.

It also keeps someone like Anwar Awlaki alive and plotting attacks. I'd rather he be dead and you and I having this debate.

[Grumman]

That's two Nazi references in the same thread.

If you don't want to be compared to the Nazis, don't put innocent people in concentration camps and torture them.