Bakustra wrote:TheHammer wrote:
Realizing that this particular killing was justified = blindily following the US government? No my friend, it is you how are blindly clinging to an ideal. I'm satisfied with how Awlaki was dealt with. That's not a blank check for the government to do whatever it wants, merely that it has my approval for its actions in this regard. I'll judge the next case on its own merits.
A dangerous enemy is now dead. You seemingly would rather have him alive recruiting more suicide bombers and soldiers for Al Qaeda. Who knows? Give him a few more weeks, maybe one of his disciples has an underwear bomb that actually works and takes out a bus. Or just goes low-tech and opens fire in a marketplace killing truly innocent people. But you could still wrap yourself in your idealism and sleep well at night right?
Who knows? Give Pat Robertson a few more weeks, maybe somebody tosses a bomb in an abortion clinic and kills a bunch of innocent people. Who knows? Give sovereign citizens a few more weeks, maybe more people resist violently to any attempts to bring them under US law. Who knows? Give James Dobson another few weeks, maybe somebody throws a bomb in a gay bar or murders a couple people he thinks are gay. Who knows? Give the KKK another few weeks, maybe they murder some innocent ethnic minorities. Who knows? Give Erik Prince another couple of weeks, maybe Xe rapes a couple more people, kills a bunch more. Who knows? Give the CIA a few more weeks, maybe they'll convince Obama to kill an innocent on suspicion of involvement with terrorism. Should all of these people be killed without a trial? After all, there is a very real chance that most of these people will continue to facilitate horrible crimes. Should they then be killed and due process of law be presumed to have been fulfilled?
Half the people you noted didn't cross the lines that Alwaki crossed. The other half are able to be captured and put on trial. The fact is, you don't have a comparable example because this is a very unique circumstance. If, hypothetically speaking, the leadership of the KKK were operating from a safe haven in South Africa while encouraging and directing attacks against Americans, and the South African government was unable to stop them, then yes they should be killed and due process of law fulfilled.
But what you actually said was that you trusted, that since the President believed he could do this, that it was okay. You know what Nixon believed? "If the President does it, it's not illegal." Are you willing to gamble the foundation of this country's law on whether Obama believes the same? Well, of course you are, because you believe that it's literally impossible for this country to survive unless we can kill people without a trial if they're Really Bad People.
I'm well aware of Nixon's beliefs. However Nixon faced impeachment and was forced to resign because he couldn't justify his actions to the American People. And that's entirely the point I'm getting at. In this case, myself and I think you'll find the majority of Americans feel he was justified in his actions given the nature of this situation.
And quite frankly, this goes beyond "killing bad people without a trial". If awlaki was able to be captured alive and brought to trial he should have been. Although quite frankly, we'd have had to wait 10 years for him to get out of his Yemeni prison before doing so. But in all likliehood that simply wasn't going to happen.
It wasn't a choice between "trial or no-trial". It was a choice between letting a dangerous man continue to operate freely, or ending the threat once and for all. Alwaki had devoted his life's efforts to destroying America and yet we are having a debate that he should be protected because he was
technically an American. An idealist might say "Well of course he should be protected!". But a realist sees how fucking stupid that notion is.
I think where we differ is that I feel due process of law has been completed. I've openly admitted its not as clean as I may have preferred. However, in lieu of there being more specific laws to handle situations like Awlaki, I feel that what was done was neccessary and for the greater good.
So why is US law unable to handle situations like Awlaki? You've never satisfactorily explained why it cannot do so, apart from the fact that the FBI and JTTF were unable to find enough evidence to indict and charge him, instead attempting to use unrelated charges to try and hold him so they could rifle through his belongings for evidence.
US law is unable to handle the situation because no such laws have been drafted to cover this situation. US law, quite understandably, is crafted around the notion that the bad guys are caught domestically. The situation with Awlaki being overseas and a member of a terrorist organization is a loophole that needs closed. However, in the interim I don't believe you can simply let Awlaki continue with his efforts to bring down the very system you are trying to protect him with.
Oh ok, so instead of defending himself by saying what the U.S. government was saying wasn't true, he decided the best course of action was to behave exactly like a terrorist member of Al Qaeda would. Yeah that makes sense, if he was in fact a member of Al Qaeda. You also forgot to say that the UN security council is Obama's puppet and that any declarations it makes shouldn't be trusted either. And Quite frankly, the Yemeni government's record on human rights is irrelevent. I'm no more calling them a "pillar of free nations" anymore than you are calling Alwaki a "pillar of the community". The point was that this wasn't merely a "declaration by the President" with no cooberating evidence.
The UNSC added him to the resolution after the US declared that he was a member of al-Qaeda, which again was solely on the grounds that the government of Yemen, notoriously oppressive, declared him to be so, arrested him, and quite possibly radicalized him by detaining him with possible pressure from the US. But you think that the US government would simply have given up and stopped trying to kill him if he denied being a member of al-Qaeda. Laughable. I am reminded of Father Charles Coughlin back in the 1930s. Should the US government have just shot him? After all, I'm guessing that a lot of anti-Semitic, nativist, and pro-Fascist criminals were inspired by Coughlin's radio program.
There you go! The UNSC is essentially at America's beck and call. Thats what I expected to hear the first time around. Would the US have stopped trying to kill him if he denied being a member of Al Qaeda or a sponsor of terrorism? I guess we'll never know, but it certainly would have helped his case far more than boasting about being the "teacher" of Hasan and the underwear bomber. It would certainly have helped his case if he wasn't writing articles for Al Qaeda's "inspire" magazine calling for Jihad against America.
Your attempt to find a similar situation fails again since Father Coughlin wasn't located on a foreign shore. Further, he didn't cross the lines awlaki crossed of specifically planning and encouraging terrorist attacks. There are plenty of "anti-American" clerics foreign and domestic out there that aren't on the list. But when you are encouraging jihad, planning jihad attacks, and recruiting others to the cause then that is a step over the line.
Al Qaeda may have gotten what it thought it wanted. But believe me, with Bin Laden dead and numerous other high levels dead with him lately I guarantee they are re-thinking that strategy. Sure there have been numerous "hearts and minds" fuckups. But targeted assassinations keep civilian casualties down and make full on invasions of other countries unneccessary. We found Bin Laden in Pakistan but we didn't invade the country to get him. Nor did we invide Yemen to get Awlaki. For all this fear about "making martyrs" I really don't buy it. Clearly, the terrorist leaders have been in no hurry to make martyrs of themselves. If doing such a thing really helped their cause more than keeping them alive, why aren't they lining up to be the next suicide bomber? Because its all a load of bullshit.
If you're going to take something as stupid as "War on Terror" seriously, then I'm afraid I have to mock you until you stop. But you think that apparently Eisenhower should have stormed the beaches in Normandy personally. You see, the leadership of al-Qaeda are the generals and strategizers of the organization. They don't risk their lives normally for the same reason generals in regular armies don't fight on the frontlines in the course of normal combat.
You are well aware that the WoT is the commonly associated with the fight against Al Qaeda and its copy cats targeting America. Your mocking is irrelevent and distracts from the actual topic at hand.
And no, I don't think Eisnehower should have stormed the beaches. The point I was making was the notion that by killing men like Bin Laden and Awlaki that all we are doing is "making them martyrs" is ridiculous. As if should we strike them down they will become more powerful than we can possibly imagine! If anything you just proved my point that striking at the leadership via targeted assassinations makes far more sense then killing scores of their foot soldiers in battlefield skirmishes.
But it's not "making martyrs" alone. Doing things like violating Pakistani sovereignty and accusing them of supporting enemies of the USA, or making use of drone aircraft with the permission of a hated Yemeni government, or declaring a general "War on Terror" rather than a specific effort to capture the people responsible for the September 11th attacks, or propping up repressive governments in the Middle East and North Africa- all these things contribute to that.
Pakistan DOES support enemies of the USA. I'd think that much should be clear by now. If they were cooperating with us then we wouldn't have had to "violate their sovreignty". Further, your idea of the "war on terror" is a short sighted one. Getting the people responsible for 9/11 was only one aspect. The larget goal was to also destroy any other groups who would attempt anything similar. To set an example that unlike other terrorist attacks in the past where the U.S. pulled back, we would not be pulling back from this fight.
Meanwhile, why would they be "rethinking their strategy" now? Their goal was to get the US drained from having to maintain invasion forces in multiple countries, make the US conduct raids and attacks in dozens more, and get the public of the Arab and North African worlds turned more against the US. That is what is happening right now.
We are picking off their leadership like flys. Their sources of income are drying up. Admittedly, our image in the mideast still needs to be rehabed following Bush's mishandling of Iraq. But Obama's support for uprisings in libya and egypt no doubt won us a few points in our favor.
In the mean time we keep striking at the "old guard" in these terrorist groups, and eventually you will have them questioning if its worth it. In fact, there were reports that they were already questioning if it was worth it even prior to Bin Laden's death.
They've pretty much completed most of their goals against the US- we're in an artificial debt crisis being used as shock therapy to kill social welfare thanks to deficit spending to fund our "War on Terror". They've lost their goal of spreading repressive theocratic governments, but that was almost certainly secondary to striking a blow against the US and either way it's limited our power in the region.
While Afghanistan is part of the war on terror, invading Iraq was not, even if the Bush adminstration wants to paint it as such. As for the debt crisis, well that has more to do with a global recession unrelated to the WoT and the general refusal of Republicans to increase taxes of any kind on the rich - even if the rates going no higher than the "boom years" of the late 90s.
Of course it can't convince the people of the Middle East of its good intentions, not as it is presently populated. It has been too ingrained in the culture. No matter how hard we work to rebuild Iraq we will be looked at as the decadent west. No matter how hard we try to create a Palestinian state we will be looked at as Zionist puppets. Until the textbooks and what they are taught in schools and mosques changes, their attitudes towards us will never change. But quite frankly, the leadership over there, both religious and political, wants it that way so I wouldn't hold my breath.
You actually think that being the "decadent west" is why public opinion of the US is so low in the Middle East. You actually think that the US is trying to create a Palestinian state. You actually think that the political leadership, which is largely in bed with the US, and before the Arab spring only Iran wasn't, wants their people to dislike the US. You think that nothing the US has done could have influenced people to think negatively of us. You are contemptibly ignorant. You have swallowed "They hate us for ARE FREEDOMS" for Christ's sake!
Apparently you lack reading comprehension and critical thinking skills. The point I was trying to make was that even under the best circumstances there is a cultural and religious gap to overcome. Further, you should be well aware that while some of the leadership was "in bed with the US" they almost ALL pay lip service to anti-americanism. The few exceptions being Jordan, Kuwait, and to an extent Saudi Arabia. And clearly the people of Iran are incredibly happy with their anti-american government which is why they didn't have their own Arab Spring movement
Shut up and learn something- people in the Middle East dislike the US because we give them a lot of valid reasons to dislike us. We are complicit in the oppression of Palestinians, which is something the political leadership in the Middle East doesn't give a rat's ass about, but the public cares about. We prop up repressive governments and claim that any democratic movements are Islamist in origin and would lead to theocracy. We drop bombs on innocents, and hide behind our shield of "collateral damage". We claim to be the bearers of freedom, but we hold people without trial and torture them. We had a major debate over whether torture was wrong. Our media stereotypes Muslims, Arabs, and North Africans, generally in very negative ways. We have popular pundits who insist that Islam is inherently violent and evil. The specter of our President being a Muslim is considered a hugely negative thing by a swathe of Americans. And yet, and yet, the overall perception is that America is inspirational, but has essentially lost its way. It's not too late, and it's never too late, to turn things around and start living up to the things we claim to hold dear.
Fuck off. I'm neiter ignorant of how the situation got to how it is, nor do I "not understand" why many Arabs feel the way they do. I certainly don't need a lecture on it from
you. This discussion isn't about every misdeed America has ever done, its about targeted assassination of Al Qaeda leadership. So set your strawman on fire please.
Actually it was when evidence came to light about his teachings and support for the Hassan and the underwear bomber, events he freely took credit for mind you, that his name was put up on the list. No magic required.
And who gives a shit if he was a "moderate" in 2001 and 2002? Either his attitudes evolved to be more radical, or he was misidentified. Regardless, its clear he wasn't moderate at the time he was put on "the list".
He freely took credit for communicating with them, and he said that he supported the attacks, but he specifically repudiated ordering them to kill people and he pointed out that the emails he sent to the Fort Hood shooter were never released (and I doubt they ever will be released, to be frank), and he never said anything to contradict that. Even US officials believed that he didn't plan
operations until after they ordered his killing.
Whatever. Its clear to me no matter what evidence is presented you'll hand wave it away as being insufficient to convince you. You will note that Samir Khan, who happened be with him was not said to have had an operational role in Al Qaeda. If that were merely a label we were slapping on them, why didn't he get tagged? And so what if he didn't plan every little detail of the missions he "inspired"? Maybe he's not into micro managing his terrorist recruits.
What's your point? That we could land next to a destroyed vehicle well after the fact?
That US forces could have, you know, captured him without risking assaulting his place of residence by simply waiting until he was moving and dropping a helicopter full of troops right in his path. Unless you think that he was actually guarded by an elite team of killer cyborgs that would have slaughtered any American troops trying to capture him, reciting wildly inappropriate hadiths all the while. Risky, to be sure. But so is pulling over someone speeding or driving erratically, and we don't throw our hands up and equip cop cars with missile launchers to blow those potentially-firearms-carrying bastards up when they go 15 above.
You clearly have no fucking idea on the situation. He was in a car, meaning he was mobile. We don't have helicopters up in the air 24/7 staffed with commandos able to strike on a moments notice. However we do have predator drones for that purpose. Awlaki was on the targeted killing list for several months. Both our government and the Yemeni government were looking for him the entire time. Yet it was only recently that we actually succeeded in getting him. That alone should indicate to you the incredible difficulty of finding him. All he would have had to do in the meantime would have been to drive in to a populated area and POOF he'd be gone. I still stand by the assertion that if we could have captured him we would have done so for the intelligence boon alone.
"
- PeZook