Radical American Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Killed

[Samuel]

At no point until you entered was the focus on the dangers of abuse. I prefer to stick to a single topic because it is easier to deal with, especially with intellectually dishonest opponents, who I do poorly with.

You've got to be kidding me. Nearly every single article I linked to talked about potential abuse.

I was talking about my argument with Vympel. That is why I provided the text of when I started arguing with Vympel. In fact I was aware of the potential was mentioned in this thread because I specifically mentioned a poster whose posts concentrated on that and not the legal argument.

- your complaints are baseless

How so?

[Thanas]

At no point until you entered was the focus on the dangers of abuse. I prefer to stick to a single topic because it is easier to deal with, especially with intellectually dishonest opponents, who I do poorly with.

You've got to be kidding me. Nearly every single article I linked to talked about potential abuse.

I was talking about my argument with Vympel. That is why I provided the text of when I started arguing with Vympel. In fact I was aware of the potential was mentioned in this thread because I specifically mentioned a poster whose posts concentrated on that and not the legal argument.

In what world does "at no point until you entered" suddenly mean "yeah, we have been talking about this already"? Want to try some more backpedalling and/or lying? The very fact that you also try to just answer this argument with yet another irrelevant quote mine that does not answer the point in any way is also quite revealing about your intelligence.

- your complaints are baseless

How so?

Because it is very easy to see for anyone with two functioning brain cells that Vympel is not evading the issue. Just because he does not reply to your quote mines and to your nonsensical posts which do not answer his points does not constitute a violation of DR #4.

[Samuel]

In what world does "at no point until you entered" suddenly mean "yeah, we have been talking about this already"? Want to try some more backpedalling and/or lying?

I am focusing "myopically" on the legality, because that is how the entire argument with Vympel started off. At no point until you entered was the focus on the dangers of abuse.

I'm also amused that you accuse me of lying when I say this only applied to my conversation with Vympel... even when the next paragraph is a copy of someone talking about it previously in the thread. Are you accusing me of claiming that no one discussed it followed by me posting an example of someone discussing this?

The very fact that you also try to just answer this argument with yet another irrelevant quote mine that does not answer the point in any way is also quite revealing about your intelligence.

I'm talking to Alyrium Denryle, not you. Now, there are two possibilties when it comes to your position
-I'm an idiot and wrong
-You are deluded and cannot see you are wrong

It is notable that for all your insults, I managed to convince Eleas I was right.

Because it is very easy to see for anyone with two functioning brain cells that Vympel is not evading the issue.

The question was of the legality of the killing of Alwaki. This is the second sentance by the way:

As a member of an armed paramilitary force engaging in open hostilities against an American ally, he was a legitimate military target.

The rest of the posts go about explaining and proving that. But apparently showing that someone was a legitimate military target is irrelevant to proving that it is legal to kill them. I'd also like to bring up the fact I posted this before Vympel entered the thread.
Edit Before our posts were moved to this thread from the Iran plot on. (Editted for clarity.)

In fact, other posters were of the same opinion and while they disagreed, they also thought the points were worth responding to. For MPs first post we got this responce.

He was actively fighting as a combatant for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.

When and how?

His presence on the drone strike list was a direct consequence of that fact. As a member of an armed paramilitary force engaging in open hostilities against an American ally, he was a legitimate military target.

What open hostilities are there? BTW, you do realize that if you definition of "open hostilites" is "bombs being built and detonated" then nearly the entire world is a warzone.

When you come across those in an active war zone, you are free to kill them. The fact that a drone did it has no more significance than if he had been bombed by aircraft, blown apart by artillery, shot by a rifleman, or stabbed to death with a bayonet. That al-Awlaki was primarily responsible for propaganda within the group does not mean he was a noncombatant, anymore than a logistics force is noncombatant, and there is certainly evidence he had command authority within the group as witnessed by his role in the attempted printer-bombings. He was still an armed member of a paramilitary force engaged in hostilities and therefore subject to being killed on the battlefield.

Active war zone? Engaged in hostilities? Armed? A lot of assumptions here.

There was no "blanket assassination order." The use of the term "assassination" is itself a loaded word designed to trigger strong emotions and obscure al-Awlaki's actual circumstances as an armed fighter engaging in hostilities in a war zone. He was only subject to being killed by American forces while he was operating as a hostile fighter in a war zone against American or allied forces.

And since when is Yemen defined as a warzone?

Had he not gone to Yemen to join up with that paramilitary belligerent force and instead gone to some country that was not in the middle of an Islamist-backed civil war, the worst he could have faced would have been extradition back to the US and a trial in the same.

Evidence for that? He has not even been indicted. How could he have been extradited then?

So yeah, other posters recognized that the information was relevant. I'm also amazed this is derided as quote mining. Is there some reason you believe it is wrong for someone to have to read content from threads they are posting in?

[Thanas]

I'm also amused that you accuse me of lying when I say this only applied to my conversation with Vympel... even when the next paragraph is a copy of someone talking about it previously in the thread. Are you accusing me of claiming that no one discussed it followed by me posting an example of someone discussing this?

Are you retarded now? When you say "no one brought it up until you did", then that includes the entirety of the topic.

I'm talking to Alyrium Denryle, not you. Now, there are two possibilties when it comes to your position
-I'm an idiot and wrong
-You are deluded and cannot see you are wrong

I think we all know the answer to that one, Sammy Boy.

It is notable that for all your insults, I managed to convince Eleas I was right.

So what?

In fact, other posters were of the same opinion and while they disagreed, they also thought the points were worth responding to. For MPs first post we got this responce.

Yeah, I freaking know what I wrote.

As for the rest, keep up playing martyr. I will not discuss it with you. The fact that among the mods not a single one thought your points are worthwhile or that your claims of abuse on the part of Vympel are in any way credible should tell you something.

Responding with yet another quotemine will not convince anybody.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I am focusing "myopically" on the legality, because that is how the entire argument with Vympel started off. At no point until you entered was the focus on the dangers of abuse. I prefer to stick to a single topic because it is easier to deal with, especially with intellectually dishonest opponents, who I do poorly with.

Was I ever addressing a single thing you personally said until you responded to me? No. But while we are on the subject of legality, exactly what authorizes the drawing up of secret lists with secret evidence in this country? The fact that al-awlaki WAS killed in combat is a bit irrelevant when you consider the other unknown names on the List.

As for your fears, is this representative of what you think?

He mentions some of the problems, yes. And the response from Marshal was to ignore the core issue, granted, we have talked over IM.

Al-Awlaki was a self-declared member of an armed terrorist group, actively involved in hostilities on the soil of an American ally. There is no question that the US has the right to use military force against Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and affiliated groups. As a member of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, indeed as a senior officer of that organization, al-Awlaki was by definition a legitimate military target. His status as an American citizen was superseded by his status as an enemy combatant, armed and actively engaging in hostilities against the United States.

This, I will grant. It is in fact true that this is exactly what al-Awlaki was. However, it ignores the core issue of drawing up a secret list with secret evidence with no review process or accountability. The issue is not al-awlaki, he is just the case of the day. The issue is the existence of the list itself. How can we be sure that the other people on this list meet the aformentioned criteria?

[Samuel]

Since Thanas has declared that he is unwilling to discuss or read my posts, I will just leave him with a helpful tip- words have meaning:

Quote mining is the deceitful tactic of taking quotes out of context in order to make them seemingly agree with the quote miner's viewpoint.[1] It's a way of lying.

Was I ever addressing a single thing you personally said until you responded to me? No.

And I was explaining why I was focusing on legality. Your statement:

And your arguments have been piss poor and in the end do not address his central argument at all. You are still missing the forest through the single tree. You keep your myopic focus on Awlaki, and put your blinders on with respect to the inherent dangers of secret Death Warrant lists.

Appeared to be asking why I did not focus on the ramifications. I figured that since you didn't like my arguments you should know why they are structured the way they are.

He mentions some of the problems, yes. And the response from Marshal was to ignore the core issue, granted, we have talked over IM.

However, it ignores the core issue of drawing up a secret list with secret evidence with no review process or accountability.

Thanks. This is actually helpful. I believe the reason the responce MP gave ignored the core issue is because he views it as part of the practice of selecting targets, which the military does with secret evidence, no review process or accountability.

To be fair, saying the rest of the system is like that doesn't justify the setup of the whole system. Do you think the whole process of target selection should be improved or do you think that there are characteristics of this method that are sufficiently different that it should be treated differently?

For the latter there is the obvious fact that time constraints don't loom as large (so you have time to dispence information and ask questions), but that runs into the parallel problem that telling people you are planning on killing them leads to them going to a new hiding spot, potentially more difficult to find or with more civilian casulties.

[Thanas]

Since Thanas has declared that he is unwilling to discuss or read my posts, I will just leave him with a helpful tip- words have meaning:

Yes they do, but for some reason you are apparently unable to get their meaning.

But great job of playing the martyr.

[Samuel]

So despite the fact the Purnell was arguing that the killing was legal and I used them to argue the killing was legal, it is quote mining because... well, you don't say. I was under the impression the mods job is to not only tell people that they have done something wrong, but explain what it is so they don't do it next time.

[Vympel]

So despite the fact the Purnell was arguing that the killing was legal and I used them to argue the killing was legal, it is quote mining because... well, you don't say. I was under the impression the mods job is to not only tell people that they have done something wrong, but explain what it is so they don't do it next time.

It was explained to you. We were discussing a particular topic - namely, your assertion that Awlaki's killing was legal 'under international law'. In the course of doing so, you just copied the arguments of others that were talking about various similar, related, and/or unrelated issues, without discrimination. I, and anyone else, am simply not obliged to wade through that. For example, your quoting MarshallPurnell talking about Congress's AUMF, which has nothing to do with establishing that his killing was legal under international law, but instead relates to domestic American law. And your completely non-responsive quoting of Purnell again when Alyrium was talking about the extremely ugly ramifications of this completely secret, no-right-of-review death list which Awlaki was put on.

[Samuel]

It was explained to you.

No, it wasn't. It was said to be irrelevant. That is not an explanation. What you give here by contrast is actually an explanation, as it explains why it is considered irrelevant.

In the course of doing so, you just copied the arguments of others that were talking about various similar, related, and/or unrelated issues, without discrimination.

So if I copy other complete arguments they can be dismissed as irrelevant. If I copy part of them, they can be dismissed as quote mining.

However you declare that since it has some irrelevant stuff you can dismiss all of it. The majority of the posts deal with the legality of the issue but this is irrelevant- you can dismiss arguments because of nitpicky details.

Here, I'll explain (relevance is if a part of the paragraph has relevant information. Several of the paragraphs repeat themselves though, but that isn't count)
post 2
paragraph 1 legal rationale-relevant
paragraph 2 "assassination"-partially relevant, explains necessary conditions
post 3
paragraph 1 evidence combatant- relevant
paragraph 2 evidence war zone- relevant
paragrpah 3 fitting the requirements- relevant
paragraph 4 fitting the requirements- relevant
paragraph 5 "assassination"-partially relevant, explains necessary conditions
paragraph 6 "assassination"-partially relevant, explains necessary conditions
paragraph 7 sarcasm- irrelevant
post 4
paragrpah 1- legal right to war- irrelevant (although Bakustra later brings it up)
paragrpah 2- evidence-relevant
paragrpah 3- lack of capture- relevant
paragraph 4- evidence-relevant
paragrpah 5- operational authority-relevant
post 5
paragraph 1- legal rationale- relevant
paragraph 2- citizenship-irelevant
paragraph 3- hypotheticals- quasi-relevant
paragraph 4- summary
I'd remind you of the "horrors of wading through" that this was posted earlier in the thread and so you should bother to read it. Unless you are declaring that any post that covers both issues (and since Thanas covers both issues that means him and everyone he talked to) is something you can ignore.

And your completely non-responsive quoting of Purnell again when Alyrium was talking about the extremely ugly ramifications of this completely secret, no-right-of-review death list which Awlaki was put on.

He mentions some of the problems, yes. And the response from Marshal was to ignore the core issue, granted, we have talked over IM.

The person I was actually talking to had an entirely different view. But you know what the say- there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

[Vympel]

No, it wasn't. It was said to be irrelevant. That is not an explanation. What you give here by contrast is actually an explanation, as it explains why it is considered irrelevant.

Bollocks. I posted precisely why it was irrelevant in the past, and I need not jump through anymore of your hoops. You are simply too incompetent to understand what you are reading, as we shall see:-

The person I was actually talking to had an entirely different view. But you know what the say- there are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

You illiterate fucking retard, that's Alyrium talking about Simon Jester's comments. Not MarshallPurnell's. Which do not address Alyrium's point at all, which he has stated, as have I. The fact that you are too fucking stupid to understand this, no matter how obvious it is, merely speaks to your rank incompetence and why neither I nor Thanas nor anyone else takes your quote mining seriously. The fact that MarshallPurnell posted something in response to what Simon Jester said doesn't magically mean its answering the point- either Simon's or Alyrium's.

So if I copy other complete arguments *waaaaaaaaaaaah*

Oh just shut the fuck up, you gigantic blubbering vagina. Everyone can read in this thread why I had a problem with your approach and the specific reasons why, your inane prejudicial strawmen aside. This is the internet, after all. In sum, you made a particular claim about a particular issue, I challenged you on same, and you just dumped a massive pile of bullshit which you copied without independent thought from the conversations from other posters and shifted the goalposts so you could assert its relevant. At every point where I attacked you on the relevance of any given thing, you have dropped the point like a coward. The facts speak for themselves.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Thanks. This is actually helpful. I believe the reason the responce MP gave ignored the core issue is because he views it as part of the practice of selecting targets, which the military does with secret evidence, no review process or accountability.

And against someone who is shooting at them, trying to keep movements a secret so as to avoid loss of life, that is cool. It is also entirely different from selecting an individual for specific assassination. Shooting at someone engaged in combat (actual shooty shooty combat) who is protecting a strategic objective is one thing. Shooting someone for the sole purpose of killing them is another, and if that person is a US citizen, when combined with other secret processes (like terrorist designations), it gets really dangerous for the reasons I listed.

Also, Marshal actually agrees with me that a list such as this involving US citizens (and while we did not talk about it specifically, I assume nationals from allied nations like Germany) should have AT LEAST those specific names in public, so that we dont end up killing innocent people. I know this, because we talked.

To be fair, saying the rest of the system is like that doesn't justify the setup of the whole system. Do you think the whole process of target selection should be improved or do you think that there are characteristics of this method that are sufficiently different that it should be treated differently?

Yes.

For the latter there is the obvious fact that time constraints don't loom as large (so you have time to dispence information and ask questions), but that runs into the parallel problem that telling people you are planning on killing them leads to them going to a new hiding spot, potentially more difficult to find or with more civilian casulties.

And I have already dealt with that argument. If someone IS fighting the US in a way that would get them put on a death list, they are already hiding by sheer necessity.

What is a worse risk? Marginally increasing the likelihood that some religious nut will hide in a deeper cave than before, or the risk that we will kill/torture/forever imprison an innocent person, and put a precedent in place that is a danger to our supposedly cherished human and civil rights?

[K. A. Pital]

As a Third Party Mod, I will voice my opinion in this thread since Samuel asked for it.

1) Legality of Awlaki's killing under U.S. laws has been conceded by most members
2) Legality of Awlaki's killing under international laws has been debated re: Geneva Conventions and there are legitimate arguments brought by e.g. Vympel.
3) Alyrium's point about hit lists has not been adequately answered - saying that the way the list was compiled was unacceptable cannot be negated by "replying" that the list is "very specific" or "targets only active combatants", since the list is not subject to any third party review, as I gathered, it is decided solely in the upper echelons of power and there are no reliable methods to check whether the names on the list are correctly identified as combatants or the US is killing someone misidentified or just assassinating people it finds threatening - without review, the list is clearly dangerous.

The idea that the list is not dangerous because that list only contains "bad men" as of now (which presumes you can't put wrong people on the list or you can't compile a new list for other people in places other than Yemen) - that's just bullshit.

I'm firmly of the opinion that the third point is the strongest; it relies on real utilitarian concerns other than sheer legalese and it is actually very reasonable. I also think that both sides need to calm down a bit and refine their arguments in this debate (sort of like Alyrium did). If someone's arguing from a purely legal basis, is that a strength of the argument or a weakness? I'm not sure.

[Alyrium Denryle]

If someone's arguing from a purely legal basis, is that a strength of the argument or a weakness? I'm not sure.

It is a weakness. Something being legal is a necessary but not sufficient to declare a government's actions "all well and good". Just because it was technically legal to inter all US citizens and residents of Japanese descent living on the west coast during WW2, does not mean that doing that (and stripping them of all of their assets in the process) was anything short of despicable. Sure, it was Legal to assert State Secret Privilege to bar Khalid El-Masri access to our courts in order to obtain redress for the literal 4 months of rape and starvation inflicted upon him by our government, but doing so was... evil beyond words.

In the same way, even if it IS legal for our government to create secret death lists containing US citizens (something I will not concede on the evidence thus far presented), doing so is both a civil and human rights violation and is thus morally repugnant.

[Samuel]

2) Legality of Awlaki's killing under international laws has been debated re: Geneva Conventions and there are legitimate arguments brought by e.g. Vympel.

No there aren't. Vympel's "argument" is attacking wheter or not Anwar is a member of Al-Queda and thus a legitimate target. He keeps on using the criteria for civilians for some reason, even though MP, TheHammer, MoO and others arguments are based on the idea he isn't a civilian.

http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/docum ... 020609.htm

It is important to distinguish members of State armed forces or organized armed groups (whose function it is to conduct hostilities on behalf of a party to an armed conflict)

If you are a member of Al-Queda we can attack you. Anwar declared he was a member. Vympel's responce was:

And if you can find a principle that states that simply saying you're a member makes you one, present it.

Presumably the claims from the US government that he was tied to multiple terrorist attempts, the confession from Abdulmutallab that he was a trainer in an Al-Queda base in Yemen, the listing by the UN as associated with Al-Queda, the fact the man issued a death threat in Inspire (Al-Queda's newpaper) in 2010... exactly what would qualify one as a member of a terrorist group?

Alyrium's point about hit lists has not been adequately answered - saying that the way the list was compiled was unacceptable cannot be negated by "replying" that the list is "very specific" or "targets only active combatants", since the list is not subject to any third party review, as I gathered, it is decided solely in the upper echelons of power and there are no reliable methods to check whether the names on the list are correctly identified as combatants or the US is killing someone misidentified or just assassinating people it finds threatening - without review, the list is clearly dangerous.

"the list" isn't the danger- the fact that there is no review for designating an individual as a legitimate military target may be. However, the reason people have been responding that way is because that is how legitimate military targets have always been designated- the list is nothing new. Unless you believe that the government should have seperate legal rules concerning when it can kill foreigners than citizens, the list is not a big deal. It merely shows the military is consistent.

I'm firmly of the opinion that the third point is the strongest; it relies on real utilitarian concerns other than sheer legalese and it is actually very reasonable.

Yes, but it runs into multiple problems
-Since the information is secret we can't make utilitarian estimates about wheter or not things would be better if the information was public. I guess we could try to estimate the odds of leaks and calculate the number of innocent people who die versus the odds of the military killing innocent people, but I don't know either number. There is a problem with determining the guilt of the people you kill as well- I imagine investigations tend to be focused on live terrorists where you can gather evidence, not dead ones who are in tiny bits.

-Trials can be expensive and it might be a better use of the money to do something else. From a purely utilitarian view, providing money to make sure the US has a better trial system would probably be a better plan. Of course, since this is related to American military action which was not motivated by utilitarian concerns in the first place this objection comes off as slightly... well off. I'd ignore it because we ignore this standard most of the time.

-The most likely group to hold the trials is the military. The military takes forever to hold trials. Lonestar mentioned a year and a half in an open and shut case. If trials take to long the military might decide to ignore it and "accidentally" come in contact with insurgents in an area and order drone strikes on their "C and C".

These aren't absolute problems- all of them can be dealt with money and effort. I think it would be a great leap foward if the government could text you to inform you that you are under suspision and let you respond so you can clear up any clerical errors (like the wrong name). Of course the US government doesn't do long term planning well so it will ignore this until the problem goes away.

In the same way, even if it IS legal for our government to create secret death lists containing US citizens (something I will not concede on the evidence thus far presented), doing so is both a civil and human rights violation and is thus morally repugnant.

It is legal for the government to list individuals who are legitimate military targets. Being a legitimate military target supercedes their status as citizens. There are several more hoops the US government has to go through (president, security council), but it isn't truly different than killing non-citizens.

[Samuel]

Just forgot:

1) Legality of Awlaki's killing under U.S. laws has been conceded by most members

To kill him requires him to be a legitimate military target- for it to be legal it must meet the standards set by international law. So saying that people agree with 1 but not 2 is nonsense- you can either agree with both or disagree with both. Implicit in the claim is that an individual is not a civilian as a civilian cannot be a long term legitimate military target.

Also the reason I am upset (and that Stas's injunction for people to calm down won't work) is everything I have said has already been said previously in this thread. And Vympel blew it off previously in the thread. Vympel, if you want to save us all time, but copy paste the previous round of arguments where this claim was made- I'd say it would save me the trouble of reading your posts, but I think it is obvious I stopped reading posts in this thread in favor of those on the first 4 pages and skimming.

[Simon_Jester]

1) Legality of Awlaki's killing under U.S. laws has been conceded by most members

To kill him requires him to be a legitimate military target- for it to be legal it must meet the standards set by international law. So saying that people agree with 1 but not 2 is nonsense- you can either agree with both or disagree with both. Implicit in the claim is that an individual is not a civilian as a civilian cannot be a long term legitimate military target.

Stas may be speaking unclearly- does he mean that most have conceded that it was legal to kill Awlaki? Or does he mean the opposite, that most have conceded it was illegal?

[Vympel]

No there aren't. Vympel's "argument" is attacking wheter or not Anwar is a member of Al-Queda and thus a legitimate target. He keeps on using the criteria for civilians for some reason, even though MP, TheHammer, MoO and others arguments are based on the idea he isn't a civilian.

Wow you're stupid. The argument is that they're wrong, dumbass, and I've explained why I hold that view, in detail.

Here is my last post (and so far, the last word) on that topic.

But of course, you don't even understand it, so here's the crayon version:-

Assuming a continuous combat function makes you a member of an armed organized group for the purposes of the Geneva Convention, and not a civilian - meaning you're open to being killed at any time. By contrast, a civilain can only be lawfully killed whilst they are committing a specific act amounting to direct participation in hostilities. Its very, very simple.

So, in order to establish that Awlaki is a member of an armed organized group under the law - you have to show assumption of a continuous combat function. Which is defined. If that cannot be shown - and it can't - then he is a civilian, and his killing was unlawful under the Geneva Conventions.

Get it?

Presumably the claims from the US government that he was tied to multiple terrorist attempts, the confession from Abdulmutallab that he was a trainer in an Al-Queda base in Yemen, the listing by the UN as associated with Al-Queda, the fact the man issued a death threat in Inspire (Al-Queda's newpaper) in 2010... exactly what would qualify one as a member of a terrorist group?

This is just obviously dishonest. MP's claimed that he could be considered a member of an armed, organized group for the purposes of the Geneva Convention (which is not the same thing as a terrorist group, you clown) purely on the basis that Awlaki "declared" himself part of Al Qaeda. For which I asked for a principle. "Presumably the claims from the US government" have fuck all to do with anything.

To kill him requires him to be a legitimate military target- for it to be legal it must meet the standards set by international law. So saying that people agree with 1 but not 2 is nonsense- you can either agree with both or disagree with both. Implicit in the claim is that an individual is not a civilian as a civilian cannot be a long term legitimate military target.

ROFLMAO. Any country can just say and act is if something is legal by the standards set by international law, that doesn't make it objectively true.

Also the reason I am upset (and that Stas's injunction for people to calm down won't work) is everything I have said has already been said previously in this thread.

Whine, whine, whine, whine. The only things you've said - like that circular nonsense you just posted above- have been incredibly stupid. Otherwise your arguments constitute nothing but cutting and pasting other people and thinking you've refuted something. The fact that you can't even get your head around the concept that "Awlaki's not a civilian" is in dispute (and for good fucking reason, as I have laid out) and just assume it as a given is obvious testament to this incompetence.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is legal for the government to list individuals who are legitimate military targets. Being a legitimate military target supercedes their status as citizens. There are several more hoops the US government has to go through (president, security council), but it isn't truly different than killing non-citizens.

And if the government designated an organization you belonged to as a threat and then designated you a military target you would have no problem with this? What would your response be if the government declared anti-war groups were providing material support to our enemies abroad and thus were legitimate military targets? Ignoring international law as irrelevant (because lets face it, it is toothless against the US), the list is secret, not subject to review due to state secrets privilege, and as I have argued and has gone uncontested, the process by which the list is arrived at is secret and thus arbitrary. Would this be OK?

Why in the ever loving fuck should we so blindly trust the executive branch, when we have ten years of flagrant constitutional violations to inform our decision that we most certainly should not?

In the past, we made these determinations under the auspices of a declared war with definite strategic and tactical objectives, and a well defined enemy, and there was at least some check on executive power. We dont have that anymore. We have a funding authorization that supposedly meets that constitutional burden. That is not the same.

[open_sketchbook]

It wouldn't be okay, but realistically there is no means to stop them from making such a list or executing on it; both parties are for it so there is nothing the voting population can do, and this assumes that the majority of the population even cares; I bet most Americans wouldn't classify somebody named Anwar al-Awlaki a "real American" anyway.

Also, this relies on the idea that this is the first time the US assassinated a citizen in it's history instead of the far more reasonable standpoint that it's the first time we can remember that they did it publicly.

[K. A. Pital]

Stas's injunction for people to calm down won't work

Really? A simple call to calm down "won't work"? Is that some sort of monkey circus when I have to yell at chimps to have them calm down, or is that a board where people can understand a recommendation to calm the fuck down?

I hope you realize that a recommendation is not repeated twice as a recommendation. So there you go: a warning.

He keeps on using the criteria for civilians for some reason, even though MP, TheHammer, MoO and others arguments are based on the idea he isn't a civilian.

Vympel is debating his status as a civilian, whether he qualifies - which is a reasonable debate. You can't really appeal to axiomatic definition of him as a combatant based on "the idea he's isn't a civilian" because that's what is being debated.

[Master of Ossus]

Vympel: how exactly can you claim that Awlaki was anything other than a member of Al Qaeda, given that the United Nations Security Council announced that he was one? Or are you arguing that members of Al Qaeda can also be civilians?

[Vympel]

Vympel: how exactly can you claim that Awlaki was anything other than a member of Al Qaeda, given that the United Nations Security Council announced that he was one? Or are you arguing that members of Al Qaeda can also be civilians?

The UNSC didn't ever declare him a member of an armed organized group for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions under the relevant resolution. They had no regard to the Geneva Conventions at all. The purpose of the list made under the relevant resolution was merely economic and travel sanctions:-

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/aq ... list.shtml

The Security Council Committee established pursuant to paragraph 6 of resolution 1267 (1999) (hereafter referred to as the Committee) oversees the implementation by States of the three sanctions measures (assets freeze, travel ban and arms embargo) imposed by the Security Council on individuals and entities associated with the Al-Qaida organization. The Committee maintains a List of individuals and entities subject to the sanctions measures. By resolutions 1267 (1999), 1333 (2000), 1390 (2002), as reiterated in resolutions 1455 (2003), 1526 (2004), 1617 (2005), 1735 (2006), 1822 (2008), 1904 (2009) and 1989 (2011) the Security Council has obliged all States to:

freeze without delay the funds and other financial assets or economic resources, including funds derived from property owned or controlled directly or indirectly
prevent the entry into or the transit through their territories
prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale, or transfer of arms and related material, including military and paramilitary equipment, technical advice, assistance or training related to military activities, with regard to the individuals, groups, undertakings and entities placed on the Al-Qaida Sanctions List.

Obviously, an individual or an entity can be "associated with Al Qaeda" without meeting the standards of assuming a continuous combat function in Al Qaeda.

[Master of Ossus]

The UNSC didn't ever declare him a member of an armed organized group for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions under the relevant resolution. They had no regard to the Geneva Conventions at all. The purpose of the list made under the relevant resolution was merely economic and travel sanctions:-

http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1267/aq ... list.shtml

It is true that the purpose of the list was to establish definitively that member states of the UN had to sanction these individuals, but surely it should have some bearing on whether or not the guy is a legitimate military target. Being so closely associated with Al Qaeda as to belong to a rather exclusive list of less than 250 people listed as such is pretty damning.

Moreover, while it's true that the list was only meant to require member nations to economically sanction these people, for a nation already engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the list clearly has more significance and member nations so engaged are not limited to mere economic sanctions against them. While the precise reason for creating the list was to ensure that economic and travel restrictions would be placed on these people, their inclusion on the list also represents an understanding that the evidence against them has been vetted by the UNSC and is considered sufficiently strong to consider them affiliates of Al Qaeda.

Finally, it is false to say that the UN "didn't even declare him a member of an armed organized group." It declared him to be a member (in fact, a leader) of Al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula (see below).

Obviously, an individual or an entity can be "associated with Al Qaeda" without meeting the standards of assuming a continuous combat function in Al Qaeda.

While I suppose that this might be theoretically possible, in Awlaki's particular case this is false. Here's what the UN had to say about him:

QI.A.283.10. ANWAR NASSER ABDULLA AL-AULAQI

Date on which the narrative summary became available on the Committee’s website: 20 July 2010

Anwar Nasser Abdulla al-Aulaqi was listed on 20 July 2010 pursuant to paragraph 2 of resolution 1904 (2009) as being associated with Al-Qaida, Usama bin Laden or the Taliban for “participating in the financing, planning, facilitating, preparing, or perpetrating of acts or activities by, in conjunction with, under the name of, on behalf of, or in support of”, “recruiting for”, and “otherwise supporting acts or activities of ” Al-Qaida (QE.4.01) and Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (QE.A.129.10).

Additional information:

A dual U.S. - Yemeni citizen, Anwar Nasser Abulla al-Aulaqi is a leader of Al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) (QE.A.129.10). He has pledged an oath of loyalty to AQAP emir Nasir al-Wahishi (QI.A.274.10), and has played a key role in setting the strategic direction for AQAP. Al-Aulaqi has also recruited individuals to join AQAP, facilitated training at camps in Yemen in support of acts of terrorism, and helped focus AQAP's attention on planning attacks beyond the Arabian Peninsula.

Since late 2009, Al-Aulaqi has taken on an increasingly operational role in the group, including preparing Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab for his attempted bombing of a Northwest Airlines flight traveling between Amsterdam and Detroit on 25 December 2009. In November 2009, while in Yemen, Abdulmutallab swore allegiance to the emir of AQAP and shortly thereafter received instructions from Al-Aulaqi to detonate an explosive device aboard a U.S. airplane over U.S. airspace. After receiving this direction from Al-Aulaqi, Abdulmutallab obtained the explosive device he used in the attempted attack.

Al-Aulaqi was imprisoned in Yemen in 2006 on charges of kidnapping for ransom and being involved in an Al-Qaida (QE.A.4.01) plot to kidnap a U.S. official, but was released in December 2007 and subsequently went into hiding in Yemen.

Being a leader of a group engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with a nation certainly goes beyond civilian status even under the most stringent interpretations of the Geneva Convention. Moreover, the report conclusively states that he has taken an actively operational role in AQAP, including listing particular incidents in which he engaged in specific acts, any one of which would constituted a combat function.

[Vympel]

It is true that the purpose of the list was to establish definitively that member states of the UN had to sanction these individuals, but surely it should have some bearing on whether or not the guy is a legitimate military target. Being so closely associated with Al Qaeda as to belong to a rather exclusive list of less than 250 people listed as such is pretty damning.

Why? Quite frankly, there's no connection at all between what the UNSC says and what the Geneva Conventions say. The UNSC is not a court. Its one thing to say that the UNSC authorised his inclusion on a list regarding economic sanctions, its quite another to use that list to justify his targeted killing under international law. You're talking the difference between black-listing someone and killing them.

In fact, I'm not sure the UNSC even has the authority to provide for the targeted killing of anyone, even if it intended to. Something to look into.

Moreover, while it's true that the list was only meant to require member nations to economically sanction these people, for a nation already engaged in an ongoing armed conflict with Al Qaeda, the list clearly has more significance and member nations so engaged are not limited to mere economic sanctions against them. While the precise reason for creating the list was to ensure that economic and travel restrictions would be placed on these people, their inclusion on the list also represents an understanding that the evidence against them has been vetted by the UNSC and is considered sufficiently strong to consider them affiliates of Al Qaeda.

Finally, it is false to say that the UN "didn't even declare him a member of an armed organized group." It declared him to be a member (in fact, a leader) of Al Qaeda Arabian Peninsula (see below).

When I said "armed organized group" I said it in the sense meant by the Geneva Conventions, hence why I said "for the purposes of the Geneva Conventions".

While I suppose that this might be theoretically possible, in Awlaki's particular case this is false. Here's what the UN had to say about him:

Or more accurately, here's what the US has to say about him and it horse-traded with the other countries on the Council to get them to agree. The UNSC is not a court. The UNSC is simply a collection of powerful countries who get together and agree on things when its convenient for them all to do so. None of these accusations have been vetted by any independent finders of fact in the slightest (and the list has been criticised precisely on the grounds that it lacks standards of evidence and transparency for placing people on the list). Indeed, Al-Awlaki himself said that whilst he supported what Adbdulmutallab did, he did not tell him to do it - which is in stark contrast to the numerous assertions that Al-Awlaki has admitted to every heinous thing the US has accused him of doing. And his involvement with Adbdulmutallab is pretty much the only specific thing that the list asserts. The rest is so vague as to be useless, which is unsurprising because its not a charge sheet.