Radical American Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Killed

[Samuel]

If you do believe that the US did the wrong thing and acted illegally against al-Awlaki, then why shouldn't you feel sympathetic to someone who was murdered without a chance of ever receiving justice? Tell me, would Allied atrocities be right if they managed to kill or torment or rape people who sincerely believed in the Nazi cause? Would it be wrong to feel sympathy for someone gunned down while surrendering if they voted NSDAP in 1932? The actions of al-Awlaki and his beliefs do not change whether people should feel sympathy for him if he was indeed murdered without chance of justice. Otherwise, we could justify atrocities as long as the people we did them to did evil or supported it. Is that what you really want to endorse?

And once again you misrepresent. al-Awlaki was not killed for his beliefs or speeches. He was killed for going to Yemen and providing aid to Al-Queda.

Why is this so difficult for people to grasp?

[TheHammer]

If you do believe that the US did the wrong thing and acted illegally against al-Awlaki, then why shouldn't you feel sympathetic to someone who was murdered without a chance of ever receiving justice? Tell me, would Allied atrocities be right if they managed to kill or torment or rape people who sincerely believed in the Nazi cause? Would it be wrong to feel sympathy for someone gunned down while surrendering if they voted NSDAP in 1932? The actions of al-Awlaki and his beliefs do not change whether people should feel sympathy for him if he was indeed murdered without chance of justice. Otherwise, we could justify atrocities as long as the people we did them to did evil or supported it. Is that what you really want to endorse?

Ahhh Bakustra and another one of his infamous Men Of Straw arguments.

Tell me, would Allied atrocities be right if they managed to kill or torment or rape people who sincerely believed in the Nazi cause?

No, but that's not anywhere equivalent to this situation. There is a distinct line between "sincerely believing" something and then taking action to enact those beliefs. You are free to hate anything you want and hope for its destruction. But when you cross the line to take steps to make it happen via engaging in, planning, and or encouraging actual attacks then that takes it to another level.

Would it be wrong to feel sympathy for someone gunned down while surrendering if they voted NSDAP in 1932?

No, that absolutely would not be wrong. But Awlaki was not surrendering. In fact, he was emphatically not surrendering. Once it became clear to him that we were aware of what he was up to, rather than trying to defend himself he proudly boasted of his role in getting his "students" to commit acts of terror. This is the opposite behavior of what somone "innocent" would do.

This whole argument is laughable. I think the mis-interpretation everyone seems to have is that they feel Awlaki was "executed" as "punishment for a crime". The reality is he was killed because he was, by his own choice and admission, a military resource to Al Qaeda. People are killed every day "without trial" when the circumstances warrant it, and we don't call it a travesty of justice. Weeping over the death of Awlaki while hand waiving away the deaths of all the other al qaeda fighters we've bagged is asinine.

[MarshalPurnell]

Al-Awlaki was, by his own words, waging war on America. And then he went to a warzone and joined an organization that exists to wage war on America. Prima facie evidence of being a combatant is all that is necessary in a state of hostilities to eliminate a combatant. Evidence like membership in a military or paramilitary force. It seems rather less certain to kill someone because he is wearing a uniform, than because he openly proclaimed his hostility in a series of videotape interviews.

Put more bluntly, his adherence to Al Qaeda is not in issue. He was an asshole who supported violent terrorist attacks against innocent people. Whether he merely "inspired" them or actively planned them, he was still a morally reprehensible monster and one who took active steps to kill innocent people. The domestic justice system could not deal with him because he fled to a warzone and surrounded himself with like-minded combatants, in doing so taking up arms against the American government. Fuck him. Fuck him in the ass with a Hellfire missile.

The only seriously troubling prospect if it creates a dangerous precedent. I have argued that the unique circumstances of his case and the very circumscribed situation allowing him to be killed do not. "Well, he didn't get a trial" has been the essence of the argument otherwise, which I reject because no trial was necessary given his confirmation of allegiance to Al Qaeda by going to Yemen and operating with them there. Then there's speculation that the government, ignoring its own justifications and statements, would have had al-Awlaki killed anywhere in the world for arbitrary reasons. Then there are the ridiculous comparisons of Al Qaeda to the Black Panthers or the militia movement. I have long since stopped taking this thread seriously because of the lack of perspective evidenced by many posters, the obvious desire to turn this into a thread castigating the barbaric Americans by our oh-so enlightened European posters, and the frankly absurd and paranoid projections of what the US government will do in the future.

Bakustra meanwhile has just underlined why a big chunk of the American public does not trust "liberals" to defend the country or to not sympathize with enemies of the United States, which is a huge political factor keeping the Republican Party viable. Oh, and since we're getting into absurd comparisons involving Nazis, does that mean that Bakustra feels sympathy for all the German war criminals executed in the USSR, Poland, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and etc without anything like a fair trial? For the SS guards and concentration camp personnel murdered by camp inmates as Allied forces stood by? For the SS in general, who were frequently subject to being shot out of hand or given no quarter by Soviet and American forces alike? I personally would go with fuck them, but my compassion does not flow boundlessly for all mankind.

[Crateria]

Then there are the ridiculous comparisons of Al Qaeda to the militia movement.

Whoever is comparing the militia movement to Al-Qaeda? That actually be an apt comparison: far right wing loony apocalyptic terrorists who practice violence and kill large numbers of Americans and thrive on one of America's biggest fears- government repression- which then makes government reprisals difficult.

[Bakustra]

So only two of you managed to grasp that I was asking a specific question of Purnell, about why it was bad to sympathize with al-Awlaki. His answer was that no, you shouldn't, because liberalsliberalsliberals. Also, he personally is A-OK with abrogations of justice if the person is bad enough. Yes, I do in fact feel some sympathy for people that are murdered, as I feel that they deserve it by virtue of being human. A war crime is a war crime, even against unrepentant Nazis, and so is unjust. If a man who killed somebody is himself murdered in prison, an evil has been done against him, and I feel some sympathy for him.

You can go through life blind and toothless, but you cannot expect me to follow that or to submit instantly to your insistence that the majority of Americans firmly believe in an eye for an eye. That is what you have advocated as a moral stance- such things as justice, fair trials, and not raping and murdering people are only to be reserved for the right sort. When it comes to the wrong sort, time to gun them all down and toss 'em in a mass grave! (You explicitly supported this. Don't back away from it now.)

Of course, you will distort this into my feeling equal sympathy for all people, either because you cannot understand nuance (which I dearly wish would be the case) or because you wish to use your pretense of neutrality to condemn those goddamn liberal pansies, suggesting that we as Americans might have standards beyond or wish to hold ourselves above petty revenge, which, again, you have advocated. Indeed, your whining about those Europeans objecting to this rings hollow, given your effort to drag the entire US down into the gutter where you reside.

But in the end it was nothing more than concern trolling, as you've demonstrated. It was an effort for you to pretend, "Oh, you don't really want to seem sympathetic to a terrorist, do you?" An effort to intimidate people against speaking up. Well, I at least take comfort in the disparity between the "realpolitik" you advocate and the black-and-white view of the world you have demonstrated.

[TheHammer]

Then there are the ridiculous comparisons of Al Qaeda to the militia movement.

Whoever is comparing the militia movement to Al-Qaeda? That actually be an apt comparison: far right wing loony apocalyptic terrorists who practice violence and kill large numbers of Americans and thrive on one of America's biggest fears- government repression- which then makes government reprisals difficult.

Um.... WHAT?

[Block]

Then there are the ridiculous comparisons of Al Qaeda to the militia movement.

Whoever is comparing the militia movement to Al-Qaeda? That actually be an apt comparison: far right wing loony apocalyptic terrorists who practice violence and kill large numbers of Americans and thrive on one of America's biggest fears- government repression- which then makes government reprisals difficult.

Other than McVey who was the lsat homegrown terrorist to kill lots of people?

[Shroom Man 777]

That US military person who stole anthrax specimens from a US military lab and mailed spores to people?

It's strange. I never really saw in the news about who the culprit behind that attack was. They never went out and said that "it was just some guy working in a US lab who did the attack". Yet the media just would not stop about Mohammedian bio-attacks. Imagine the media shitfit if it had been a foreigner or some Mohammedian responsible for that attack. But, nah, it was just some American who killed himself by ODing on tylenol or some shit.

[Bakustra]

95 percent of all terrorism in the US was domestic between 2002-2005. 300 people were killed by domestic right-wing extremist groups and individuals between 1990 and 2007. Anti-abortion terrorist groups have killed 7 people and performed over two hundred attacks since 1977. A Jewish terrorist organization, the Jewish Defense League, was the third-most prolific domestic terrorist group between 1977 and 2007, carrying out 55 attacks. Number two were Puerto Rican separatists (FALN) with 71 attacks, number four was an anti-Castro terrorist group (Omega-7) with 42 attacks, and number one was the New World Liberation Front, a Maoist group which carried out 83 attacks on the West Coast. Few of these killed people, but many of these groups, especially the Maoists and many other left-wing and ecoterrorist groups, aimed or aim not to kill people, but to cause economic damage.

EDIT: Sources here.

[Block]

95 percent of all terrorism in the US was domestic between 2002-2005. 300 people were killed by domestic right-wing extremist groups and individuals between 1990 and 2007. Anti-abortion terrorist groups have killed 7 people and performed over two hundred attacks since 1977. A Jewish terrorist organization, the Jewish Defense League, was the third-most prolific domestic terrorist group between 1977 and 2007, carrying out 55 attacks. Number two were Puerto Rican separatists (FALN) with 71 attacks, number four was an anti-Castro terrorist group (Omega-7) with 42 attacks, and number one was the New World Liberation Front, a Maoist group which carried out 83 attacks on the West Coast. Few of these killed people, but many of these groups, especially the Maoists and many other left-wing and ecoterrorist groups, aimed or aim not to kill people, but to cause economic damage.

EDIT: Sources here.

So in answer to the question asked, not the response you want to give, no one? My point was comparing Militia groups to Al-Qaeda makes no sense until those organizations start attacking American citizens. When they do it still wouldn't be the military's responsibility to deal with them, it'd be the FBI. That's a big part of what seems to be missed in this thread, there's a massive division between domestic policy and what happens overseas, especially in how the military is used.

[Crateria]

Whoever is comparing the militia movement to Al-Qaeda? That actually be an apt comparison: far right wing loony apocalyptic terrorists who practice violence and kill large numbers of Americans and thrive on one of America's biggest fears- government repression- which then makes government reprisals difficult.

Um.... WHAT?

Yeah, you heard me. I know, it's such a large bomb being dropped on your innocent self that it might be too much. Alas, we must realize there are connections.

If you mean you don't agree with "thrive on fears of government repression", I'll chalk that up to everyone saying about how our liberties are at stake (my self included though) by stuff in the topic and in a similar manner to Orwell saying about how pacifism on one side helps the other.

As Shroom noted, rather strange how the media is all apeshit about some Islamic fundie doing stuff then it turns out it's a militia-sympathizer. The enemy within is more dangerous in the long run than the enemy without, no? The traitors being able to damage the institution of government with their lies are more dangerous then the enemies at the gate?

Block, simply because McVeigh's action has weakened the militia movement doesn't mean they're dead as a whole. The coming (second) financial crisis will be very bad for the nation and likely inspire their types to come out of the woodwork and take advantage of people's fears. And inevitably cause death of at least person. The militia movement is founded on violence (anti-governmental, strongly second amendment) for cripes sake

[Simon_Jester]

I won't much miss al-Awlaki. If the decision to kill him had been carried out in some aboveboard fashion- if we had a legal system that permitted a court to try him in absentia for treason, convict him, and sentence him with death- I'd be satisfied. I'd be satisfied if the decision to kill him had been made quickly as part of blatant 'battlefield' evidence like 'he's shooting at us.' I'd be satisfied enough if he'd been collateral damage, not specifically targeted, in an attack on someone else who was known to be dangerous in their own right- like a known Al Qaeda bomb-maker the Yemenis have been looking for.

What doesn't satisfy me is the combination of a cold-blooded decision to kill and a refusal to accept or even consider the oversight of such decisions.

That's why I worry that his assassination will create that precedent I keep talking about- mostly because the government rejects the idea that its actions in a case like this should be, or can be, subject to review. Al Qaeda is not the Black Panthers, Al Qaeda is vastly worse, considerably more dangerous, and I can happily accept that it's legitimate to do things to fight Al Qaeda that would be wrong to do when dealing with the Black Panthers.

But I also think that it's a very poor practice for the government to get into the habit of deciding to kill American citizens behind closed doors. I simply don't know whether a future administration will be restrained enough to resist the impulse to bring the whole machinery of the War of Terror to bear on domestic political problems.

And when people like Hammer tell me over and over that it can't happen because Al Qaeda is uniquely bad and al-Awlaki is uniquely obvious a target... again, I'm skeptical. This strikes me as insufficient historical perspective. It was only forty or fifty years ago that we had domestic political figures whom many in the American security apparatus saw as communist subversives little or no better than terrorists. The mindset of that world- where people routinely draw up enemies lists, where they will wiretap and shadow and insert agents into dissident groups because it's pure reflex for them to do so- is foreign to me.

I have not forgotten COINTELPRO, I don't think it can't happen again, and I don't like the thought of what the political and security operatives of this generation are learning from prosecuting the War on Terror on foreign soil. It would be nice to think that there is a very bright line which stops any of this from cross-pollinating from the CIA to the FBI. I still worry anyway.

[TheHammer]

Whoever is comparing the militia movement to Al-Qaeda? That actually be an apt comparison: far right wing loony apocalyptic terrorists who practice violence and kill large numbers of Americans and thrive on one of America's biggest fears- government repression- which then makes government reprisals difficult.

Um.... WHAT?

Yeah, you heard me. I know, it's such a large bomb being dropped on your innocent self that it might be too much. Alas, we must realize there are connections.

If you mean you don't agree with "thrive on fears of government repression", I'll chalk that up to everyone saying about how our liberties are at stake (my self included though) by stuff in the topic and in a similar manner to Orwell saying about how pacifism on one side helps the other.

As Shroom noted, rather strange how the media is all apeshit about some Islamic fundie doing stuff then it turns out it's a militia-sympathizer. The enemy within is more dangerous in the long run than the enemy without, no? The traitors being able to damage the institution of government with their lies are more dangerous then the enemies at the gate?

Block, simply because McVeigh's action has weakened the militia movement doesn't mean they're dead as a whole. The coming (second) financial crisis will be very bad for the nation and likely inspire their types to come out of the woodwork and take advantage of people's fears. And inevitably cause death of at least person. The militia movement is founded on violence (anti-governmental, strongly second amendment) for cripes sake

Actually what I was implying was that whatever it is you were saying was rather unintelligable. I'll let this quote from Billy Maddison explain it better:

"No where in your rambling incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. "

And when people like Hammer tell me over and over that it can't happen because Al Qaeda is uniquely bad and al-Awlaki is uniquely obvious a target... again, I'm skeptical. This strikes me as insufficient historical perspective. It was only forty or fifty years ago that we had domestic political figures whom many in the American security apparatus saw as communist subversives little or no better than terrorists. The mindset of that world- where people routinely draw up enemies lists, where they will wiretap and shadow and insert agents into dissident groups because it's pure reflex for them to do so- is foreign to me.

I've got no problem with being skeptical. And it would be great if we had a mechanism to try someone in absentia. However, I also think trials are for instances when the accused is no longer a credible threat to society. I still believe this is a unique circumstance, not a blank check. If the government does make a decision as it did with Awlaki, then they had damn well better be able to justify it. In this case I think they have. We should absolutely be vigilant in that regard, to make sure that this and any power vested in the government is not abused. However Awlaki isn't going to be the guy I go to bat for.

[Samuel]

That US military person who stole anthrax specimens from a US military lab and mailed spores to people?

It's strange. I never really saw in the news about who the culprit behind that attack was. They never went out and said that "it was just some guy working in a US lab who did the attack". Yet the media just would not stop about Mohammedian bio-attacks. Imagine the media shitfit if it had been a foreigner or some Mohammedian responsible for that attack. But, nah, it was just some American who killed himself by ODing on tylenol or some shit.

I don't think we ever caught him. We had a suspect, but he commited suicide so yeah, case closed I guess?

Also, he personally is A-OK with abrogations of justice if the person is bad enough.

Except as he has repeatedly argued, the attack was legitimate. Perhaps you are simply too stupid to read his posts- that would explain the complete lack of quotations on your part where he says the things you claim he does.

If the decision to kill him had been carried out in some aboveboard fashion- if we had a legal system that permitted a court to try him in absentia for treason, convict him, and sentence him with death- I'd be satisfied.

Anwar al-Awlaki was not killed for treason. I could go on about how you are wrong, but it would be simpler for you to actually read peoples posts. The answer to all your questions have already been covered in this thread.

[Bakustra]

Also, he personally is A-OK with abrogations of justice if the person is bad enough.

Except as he has repeatedly argued, the attack was legitimate. Perhaps you are simply too stupid to read his posts- that would explain the complete lack of quotations on your part where he says the things you claim he does.

does that mean that Bakustra feels sympathy for all the German war criminals executed in the USSR, Poland, Yugoslavia, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and etc without anything like a fair trial? For the SS guards and concentration camp personnel murdered by camp inmates as Allied forces stood by? For the SS in general, who were frequently subject to being shot out of hand or given no quarter by Soviet and American forces alike? I personally would go with fuck them, but my compassion does not flow boundlessly for all mankind.

Go right ahead and perform the necessary acrobatics to read that as anything other than an endorsement of war crimes as long as they're committed against the right people.

[Samuel]

Uh, no, that says he doesn't feel compassion for those people. Compassion as I would remind you is a wholy different concept then legitamacy. I don't read it as an endorsement of war crimes because it isn't. I honestly have no idea why you are too dense to understand that.

[Simon_Jester]

If the decision to kill him had been carried out in some aboveboard fashion- if we had a legal system that permitted a court to try him in absentia for treason, convict him, and sentence him with death- I'd be satisfied.

Anwar al-Awlaki was not killed for treason.

No, he wasn't. I know that. That's part of my point.

He was killed because he was a dangerous radical, or an inciter of terror, or an enemy combatant, or a lawful military target, or whatever the phrase du jour is for people the state thinks would be better off dead because they're associated with a group the state considers dangerous. There are a lot of phrases like that, and they seem to keep cycling round and round- our enemies are military targets, except when that would imply that we have to treat them as POWs in an armed conflict, at which point they become something else.

That's another thing I don't like- the way the War on Terror has acted to abolish legalities and replace them with a maze of interlocking terms that add up to "we do what we like."

But yes, I understand that al-Awlaki was not killed because he had committed a crime. He was killed because someone in the US government put him on an enemies list. We can make a pretty good guess as to why he wound up on an enemies list. Certainly there was no lack of effort on his part to wind up on one. He worked pretty hard to define himself as an enemy.

I am still not satisfied with any answer I can recall to the basic question:

Who assures us that these enemies lists are being drawn up responsibly? Who holds the people who make the lists accountable for what amounts to signing these people's death warrants? Why are they so allergic to accountability or review?

And where are people getting the serene confidence that this will not wend its way back into our domestic politics, as has happened in so many other countries suffering from civil unrest?

[MarshalPurnell]

Uh, no, that says he doesn't feel compassion for those people. Compassion as I would remind you is a wholy different concept then legitamacy. I don't read it as an endorsement of war crimes because it isn't. I honestly have no idea why you are too dense to understand that.

Because tossing lots and lots of mud and hoping some of it sticks, and constructing a forest of strawmen, is the only way Bakustra knows how to argue. He did this the last time we argued over the death penalty, too, and helped turn that thread into shit.

For the record, I would tend to consider bad things happening to bad men because of their bad actions to be the definition of karmic justice. I see no reason to waste sympathy on the reprehensible, especially those who have condoned and encouraged the murder of innocent people or who have murdered a bunch of other people. That does not mean I think war crimes are the way to deal with such people, but I am not going to feel any compassion for them when the price of their actions comes due. The failures of due process in the trial of Saddam Hussein didn't make him any less of an asshole, and the summary execution of Waffen SS personnel didn't make their list of atrocities any shorter, and Osama bin Laden being gunned down in the middle of the night didn't make him less responsible for 9/11. Fuck them.

Of course the killing of al-Awlaki was not a war crime but a legitimate act of war duly authorized by Congress. That has been the core of my argument from the very beginning. That I get Bakustra upbraiding me for not feeling sympathy for the Waffen SS is a good deal of why I can't take this thread seriously.

[Samuel]

He was killed because he was a dangerous radical, or an inciter of terror, or an enemy combatant, or a lawful military target, or whatever the phrase du jour is for people the state thinks would be better off dead because they're associated with a group the state considers dangerous.

You still aren't paying attention. He didn't become a target until he went to Yemen and actively provided aid to Al-Queda. Just being associated with them was not enough for the US to kill him as seen by the years he lived in the US without being arrested. I don't know how many times this has to be said.

(b) Definitions.— As used in this section—
(1) the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;

(2) the term “training” means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and

(3) the term “expert advice or assistance” means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.

[Crateria]

Actually what I was implying was that whatever it is you were saying was rather unintelligable. I'll let this quote from Billy Maddison explain it better:

"No where in your rambling incoherent response did you come close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. We are all dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul. "

Really? That quote was for you for not even trying to understand what I said, even though it was obvious as a tanker painted neon-orange and set on fire. A shame, Hammer, a shame. I compare Al-Qaeda to the militia movement, give a good comparison to how their formats are similar (far rightist terrorists who kill Americans or would like to kill Americans; batshit insane and violent and have recruiting methods based on the US government's attacks, and as of this post I give you that they are an umbrella term for a number of like-minded groups) I'll grant you that I should have been clearer. But I'm not JasonB. I don't write illegibly most of the time. I'll write better instead of lashing out like that, but you also have to understand what I'm saying the first time. If not, oh well. Can't help you there.

As for your posts as to Awlaki's death, like I said, I don't care anymore. Good, the fuckers dead as well as several being with him. Yay USA, blah blah blah. Too bad there'll be more of his kind and the US government will have to keep doing stuff like this, ignoring that even more will take their place as well. This isn't like WW2 were if we hammered the Japanese and Germans and assassinated their members we were closer to victory. When our own allies (Saudi Arabia for example) are Al-Qaeda lite and we have no choice but to fund them, it doesn't matter if all of Al-Qaeda or Taliban were killed tomorrow. WE'VE LOST THE WAR BECAUSE WE CAN'T WIN IT BY THE WAY IT IS CONDUCTED. MORE TERRORISTS ARE MADE AND AMERICA IS ETERNALLY VULNERABLE BECAUSE OF THAT.

U mad, bro?

[Eleas]

Of course the killing of al-Awlaki was not a war crime but a legitimate act of war duly authorized by Congress. That has been the core of my argument from the very beginning. That I get Bakustra upbraiding me for not feeling sympathy for the Waffen SS is a good deal of why I can't take this thread seriously.

You have repeatedly stated that it was legitimate and alluded to a legal process being held, sans evidence. You have not proven this by logic other than the notion of any member of an armed resistance being fair game or that it's been done before. When pressed, you revert to expressing how little sympathy you feel for their fate. It does give the impression of you defining their rights by how well you like them.

If the (international) legitimacy is not in question, then pray tell, which (international) definitions are you using? What clearly delineated rules permit the US to legally wage war against an enemy with no soldiers, according to international rules? In short, what underpins your iron certitude?

You still aren't paying attention. He didn't become a target until he went to Yemen and actively provided aid to Al-Queda. Just being associated with them was not enough for the US to kill him as seen by the years he lived in the US without being arrested. I don't know how many times this has to be said.

Interesting quote. I found another part of the same paragraph, also an interesting one:

Whoever provides material support or resources or conceals or disguises the nature, location, source, or ownership of material support or resources, knowing or intending that they are to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, a violation of section [..] or in preparation for, or in carrying out, the concealment of an escape from the commission of any such violation, or attempts or conspires to do such an act, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both, and, if the death of any person results, shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life. A violation of this section may be prosecuted in any Federal judicial district in which the underlying offense was committed, or in any other Federal judicial district as provided by law.

I'd be much obliged if you were to explain how this translates into grounds for a death warrant.

[Simon_Jester]

He was killed because he was a dangerous radical, or an inciter of terror, or an enemy combatant, or a lawful military target, or whatever the phrase du jour is for people the state thinks would be better off dead because they're associated with a group the state considers dangerous.

You still aren't paying attention. He didn't become a target until he went to Yemen and actively provided aid to Al-Queda. Just being associated with them was not enough for the US to kill him as seen by the years he lived in the US without being arrested. I don't know how many times this has to be said.

(b) Definitions.— As used in this section—
(1) the term “material support or resources” means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safehouses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel (1 or more individuals who may be or include oneself), and transportation, except medicine or religious materials;
(2) the term “training” means instruction or teaching designed to impart a specific skill, as opposed to general knowledge; and
(3) the term “expert advice or assistance” means advice or assistance derived from scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge.

So how does this, a crime not punishable by death, explain why he was killed? For that matter, when was he charged with this?

I thought he was killed because he was a lawful wartime enemy combatant-target or something along those lines. Which would make more sense, if I saw any sign that the state was going to show restraint in the future about defining people to be war-lawful combatant enemy targets. Or that someone might actually get in trouble for identifying the wrong people as combative targets lawfully held to be wartime enemies.

[MarshalPurnell]

You have repeatedly stated that it was legitimate and alluded to a legal process being held, sans evidence. You have not proven this by logic other than the notion of any member of an armed resistance being fair game or that it's been done before. When pressed, you revert to expressing how little sympathy you feel for their fate. It does give the impression of you defining their rights by how well you like them.

If the (international) legitimacy is not in question, then pray tell, which (international) definitions are you using? What clearly delineated rules permit the US to legally wage war against an enemy with no soldiers, according to international rules? In short, what underpins your iron certitude?

No, I have said a legal process was not required. Congress has defined Al Qaeda as an enemy the President is authorized to use military force against. Al-Awlaki was beyond question a member of Al Qaeda, having gone to Yemen to put into effect his self-declared intention of waging war against the Unites States. Ergo he was legitimate military target. No trial is necessary to engage such.

International law doesn't even enter into the equation. The invasion of Afghanistan was authorized by the UNSC under the UN Charter as a case of self-defense. Al Qaeda was, effectively, an auxiliary force for the Taliban and can be engaged as such. We have no particular need for authorization to operate in Yemen beyond the support of the Yemeni government, which has welcomed American involvement. Even if not, the US can invoke the right to self-defense by preemptive action under the UN Charter, as Al Qaeda has undoubtedly demonstrated both the means and the will to attack the United States. The particulars of how to treat captured Al Qaeda are ambiguous given the stateless nature of the organization, but it is blindingly obvious to any serious observer that military force is objectively required to fight Al Qaeda effectively.

[Samuel]

When pressed, you revert to expressing how little sympathy you feel for their fate.

What actually happened is that Bakrusta said all people are deserving of sympathy and MP said that he doesn't agree. But why let facts get in the way of bullshit?

So how does this, a crime not punishable by death, explain why he was killed? For that matter, when was he charged with this?

I included that because I thought you'd ask what the government considers material support. He was not charged with this (his crime was becoming an enemy combatant)- this is solely related to your fears that the government would use this as an excuse to kill other people.

My point was it isn't illegal to be a dangerous radical or inciter of terror.

[Andrew J.]

And where are people getting the serene confidence that this will not wend its way back into our domestic politics, as has happened in so many other countries suffering from civil unrest?

If the government was willing to murder political opponents in secret, legality wouldn't matter to it.