U.S. Targeted Awlaki in Missile Strike (Yemen)

[Tx4obama]

Source: The Wall Street Journal

A U.S. drone strike in Yemen Thursday was aimed at killing Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born radical cleric who is suspected of orchestrating terrorist attacks on the U.S, but the missile missed its target, according to Yemeni and U.S. officials.

The drone strike comes less than a week after a U.S. Navy SEALs killed Osama bin Laden at a compound in Pakistan. Had the drone strike in Yemen been successful, the U.S. would have killed two of the top three most-wanted terrorists in a single week.

Mr. Awlaki has emerged as the charismatic frontman of an al Qaeda branch based in Yemen, which the U.S. considers the most active terror group in the world. With bin Laden's death, some officials believe Mr. Awlaki and his group now represents the gravest threat to the U.S.

White House and Pentagon officials declined to comment on any strikes in Yemen.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703992704576307594129219756.html

[postulater]

1. That's what you get when you send a drone to do a seal's job.

[leveymg]

2. How may of these $400,000 missiles have we thrown at him? Remarkable luck.

He must still be returning actionable intelligence.

[DissedByBush]

7. None as far as I know

Hellfires cost under $60,000. You might be thinking of the Tomahawk.

Still a lot cheaper than a helicopter, or the potential loss of one of our military members.

[Thrill]

3. Was it an intentional miss to get him moving?

.

[Downwinder]

4. Have to get it done before the hunting lease runs out.

[dballance]

5. OMG, Is there ANY Country in the Mid-East We're Not Bombing?

[Tx4obama]

6. Yes, there are a HELL of A LOT that we are NOT bombing. n/t

[harun]

8. Nothing like assasinating U.S. citizen's abroad.

Although I am seeing many here will cheer it on.

[Downwinder]

9. Easier domestically in light aircraft.

[Chan790]

13. The option to surrender has never been taken away from him.

It's pretty simple that. All he's got to do is surrender if he wants to live.

[sabrina 1]

16. Surrender? To a country that tortures detainees? Other

countries, like Canada eg, will no longer hand over accused terrorists to the US because of our torture policies.

Nobody in their right mind would voluntarily surrender to a nation with the reputation the US has.

And you don't believe any longer in evidence of wrong-doing, of due process, of charges and convictions? How many more assassinations and executions before the world finally decides we are now a rogue nation and other countries begin to rescind their extradition agreements with us?

I love how people on internet boards type these things. That's like advising someone to hand themselves over to Saddam Hussein if they were accused by him of being a spy. Just proves the old adage 'talk is cheap' and nowhere more so than on the internet.

As far as we know, this guy has done nothing more than preach anti-American rhetoric. He is American, he is protected by the first Amendment.

If he surrendered he would be tortured and possibly killed, as so many others, many of them innocent, have been while in US custody, much to the shame of this country.

That stain on this nation has yet to be washed away. As long as it remains, no person belongs in the custody of the US. And no country will turn over detainees to us as long as we continue to act like outlaws.

[Chan790]

20. He can surrender to whomever he wants...

I want him off the streets. It's not that hard to do even, you walk up to the gates of virtually any European nation's embassy and say to the guard "My name is Anwar al-Awlaki, an international fugitive sought by Interpol for information in connection with a series of terrorist actions around the world." They'll take care of the rest.

He can choose whom he wants to be detained by, but as long as he's a fugitive engaged in asymmetrical warfare and targeting civilians by his own gleeful and constant admission? No, I think he's a perfectly legitimate target of any effort to kill or capture.

[sabrina 1]

24. So you agree with Bush's 'unitary executive' theory?

When did we on the left change our position on this most important issue? I never got the memo.

As for turning himself in to other nations, he should look for protection against the country now viewed by the world as the biggest threat to world peace. And he should make sure to go to an entity like the European Court of Human Rights, an entity that is highly respected around the world, and sadly this organization's most respected judges were attacked by THIS administration as revealed in the Wikeleaks documents.

Why is the US attacking respected Human Rights Orgs who rightly criticized the torture policies of the US of which there is no doubt? Why is the US not taking care of its own torturers, who are now all over TV claiming that torture succeeds? Would you turn yourself into a country who allows its torturers to teach college course on law? Would you expect any kind of justice from a country that conducts trials in secret and refuses to allow the accused to the right of Habeas Corpus??

And what 'terrorist actions' is he guilty of?? Obama has issued a royal edict to kill this man. We need evidence, NOT allegations before assuming the guilt of any person. But especially when a head of state issued a fatwa against them.

At least we used to. Back when Bush was president :cry:

This drone attack killed two innocent people. I believe that violates International Law. Maybe it is we who need to be stopped, and hopefully it will not be by the means we are using, but rather under a civilized system that involved due process before we are declared guilty as a nation, of committing war crimes.

[Chan790]

27. Clearly...

we've never crossed paths before.

I'm hawkish. :hi: We literally have no basis for common ground on this or nearly any military or foreign policy issue.

(Isn't being a big-tent party that rejects the concept of single-issue ideological litmus tests great?)

[sabrina 1]

28. So the answer is 'yes'. You are a supporter of Bush's

unconstitutional, unitary executive policies. It's strange how it would have been impossible to find anyone on this or any other democratic board who would said that before the 2008 election, but now it is acceptable to support those illegal policies? I really am not keeping up with how this party has changed, it seems. And this was not what I understood by 'change'.

You are correct, I would have no basis for agreement with anyone who supports Bush policies. I am a Democrat because I do not support Republican/rightwing warmongering and the anything goes to oppress other nations and take their resources because we need them, but pretend it's all about 'security'. This tent as far as I know is not THAT big. There is another tent where, if I subscribed to those policies, I would be.

What exactly does 'hawkish' mean in the context of the Democratic Party platform? I'm not into labels, I prefer ordinary words used by ordinary people to discuss things like this.

[Chan790]

30. Hawkish...

generally dismissive of the anti-war crowd. I wish they'd all go become Greens so we could more easily ignore them as irrelevant. I think they're factually wrong on the necessity of the mission and their judgment is incorrect on the morality of the mission.

And no, I've always been this way vocally, even here. I opposed Iraq because it was a distraction from Afghanistan. I think it's morally reprehensible to not destroy Al Qaeda or the Taliban. I have no illusions about what I support & I believe in objective right and wrong. There is nothing liberal in the least about pacifism, it's capitulation to our weakest and most apathetic natures to stick our heads in the sand and deny the existence of the real world. There is a quote commonly misattributed to Edmund Burke that reads:

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"

Burke might not have said it but it is nonetheless true, yet-still the anti-war crowd advocates doing nothing. They're as bad as the American isolationist movements that preceded into both World Wars.

[sabrina 1]

31. That sounds familiar. Every cliche in the book.

You object to the American people questioning the reasons for going to war, and misinterpret that to mean 'pacifist'. Afghanistan was a lie, Iraq was a lie. So many lies. Since we're quoting people, a Republican president once said that it was the duty of citizens to question their government, especially in times of war.

It's not good to 'have no illusions' about your 'support' for what a government does. It shows a certain weakness, a need to feel protected, and that weakness is what governments and terrorists prey on. They are only too happy to have a citizenry composed of sheeplike, fearful, people. War enriches the elites in society, and these two wrong wars have made many people very rich. They thank you for your unquestioning trust in their decisions.

I wish all the weak, fearful people would go join the party of scared sheep so the rest of us, unafraid as we are, could get this country back on track and strong and free from fear once again.

OBL did a number on at least half this country. He must have been watching gleefully from his hideaway as the country cowered in fear and launched too very costly wars, the destruction of our rights and the loss of our morality, as he predicted would happen btw, draining its resources, financially not to mention the human cost. You all gave him everything he wanted.

I would have never cowered in fear of someone like that. 'Doing nothing'?? What exactly did these wars accomplish? I believe in doing something that gets results.

So Hawk means 'let's go throw a temper tantrum somewhere to show how tough we are'! Let's 'kill' people, innocent people, that will make us safe! Funny, that's what the Bush gang did and we are no better off ten years later, mired down in two useless and wasteful wars and we are told, still threatened. So tell me, how long should we keep this going, before we feel 'safe' again? You can kill a man, like OBL, but you can't kill an idea. It takes a better idea to do that. Congrats, you got to do it your way, maybe we will get to do it the right way some day.

[Chan790]

32. I'd say we have an impasse then. n/t

[totodeinhere]

22. So you maintain that under President Obama the US continues to use torture?

President Obama has specifically rejected torture.

Do I wish that he would bring members of the Bush Administration who allowed torture to justice? Yes I do. But I totally reject your insinuation that Barack Obama allows torture. It is a shame that I have to read things like this on a Democratic message board.

[EFerrari]

34. The Red Cross found that McChystal had a black site at Bagram.

It is still open.

[alarimer]

25. So many liberals need to prove they are macho or something.

Or at least not the wimps they are (wrongly) pointed out to be.

THIS is why I wished they had attempted to take bin Laden alive, because now they feel they have the right to go after anyone anywhere.

But it is especially egregious to do this to an American citizen, without any sort of due process at all or even charges filed.

This is a horrendous abuse of Presidential power.

[sabrina 1]

10. What crime, other than spewing anti-US rhetoric

has Awlaki been charged with, or even accused of? Has he killed anyone, organized a known terror attack eg?

And how is this legal in any sense of the word under US law or International law?

So, our new policies are to just send drones to kill people. No need for charges or trials or convictions anymore?

I guess Bush was right, that quaint old piece of paper formerly known as the Law of the Land really is just a 'piece of paper' in the 'post 9/11 world' after all.

And people say OBL did not win!

[msanthrope]

11. Fort Hood, Christmas Underwear Bombing, Times Square, 9/11.

The wikipedia page on him is exhaustive with well-researched links to his own writings and postings.

Your ignorance of his self-proclaimed deeds doesn't make the case for him.

[sabrina 1]

12. I am well aware of all of those incidents. I am not aware

of any actual evidence that he ordered them or had anything but relatively distant connections to those who were charged. Do you have some links to concrete EVIDENCE of anything other than they knew him and are presumed to have been inspired by his rantings?

Your willingness to approve of the execution of human beings and to give that power to one man, based on mere allegations without concrete proof of guilt, or trial or conviction, strikes me as far more egregious than being unaware of the kind of evidence warranted by a sentence of death, even a legal death sentence, let alone one that is unconstitutional.

So where is this evidence other than rantings and ravings, something which was furiously defended on this board not so long ago as being protected by the 1st Amendment.

We used to pretend at least, to respect the rule of law, at least we Democrats did.

[EFerrari]

14. The Center for Constitutional Rights put out this statement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1060368

[sabrina 1]

15. Thank you, just commented and rec'd.

I guess my request for some justification for this outrageous action is not going to be answered.

But I am relieved to see that the entire country has not become suddenly mute on the subject of our Constitution. I would hope that members of Congress would start doing their jobs, but that would probably be a false hope.

So now what do we do? We know Republicans will not restore the rule of law, and now it seems, Democrats will not be doing it either. They sounded so sincere in the campaign, about restoring the rule of law etc.

So, what will this president be running on this time? Restoring the rule of law is off the list, among other things.

I know this much, I will not support any politician who violates their oath of office.

[joshcryer]

17. I take it you'll be defending Posada?

[sabrina 1]

18. This is what you can take. I will not be supporting

the death penalty, which I oppose anyhow, but that's another issue, I will not support the DP for anyone without charges, a trial and conviction. Nor do I support giving the power to order the killing of US citizens or anyone else to one man no matter who it is. We had a revolution to separate this country from the Monarchy and we spent eight years opposing Bush's attempt to give himself these kinds of powers.

[joshcryer]

19. It just sounds like you've put the bar so high that people are without criticism...

...unless they've been tried and convicted. Awlaki got away the same way Boche got away. Technicality, he was going to be arrested.

I for one thing the world would've been a better place if Boche or Posada got theirs before they were able to act.

But I agree archaic drones are not the way to go about it.

[sabrina 1]

23. Well, if abiding by the rule of law, and being opposed to Bush's

'unitary executive' theory is a high bar, someone should have told us that throughout the eight years of Bush when there was not a single Democrat I ever encountered who supported giving Bush the right to order the killing of an American citizen with no imput from Congress or anyone else. This was in fact a huge issue for the 'left' during Bush's illegitimate reign. I cannot turn around now and support something that we so vehemently opposed for the last eight years.

We have no idea what Awlaki is supposed to have done, other than rant and rave against the US. Yet, we are expected to support his execution. I don't think it is too high a bar to ask for SOME evidence that a man should be condemned to death before accepting a presidential edict just because this time it is our party doing it.

What was accomplished by this attack? The drone killed two innocent people. So two more deaths for no reason, while at the same time the US hypocritically issued a statement to Syria criticizing THEM for killing innocent people. No wonder no one pays attention to what the US has to say anymore.

[msanthrope]

33. Apparently you are willing to forego looking at the actual evidence repeatedly presented

by poster "Robb" who has meticulously documented the result of the Karim trial in Britian. There, evidence of al-Awalki's operational role is undisputed.

Robb has posted the emails several times. Why do you refuse to read them?

[alarimer]

26. It doesn't matter what he is alleged to have done.

This is horrendous abuse of Presidential authority, no matter what. Terrorists are criminals, not warriors. This whole "war on terror" meme is destroying the values and principles of this country.

Our country has gone down the toilet.

[hack89]

21. Good. nt

[Robb]

29. The fiction that Awlaki only "spoke out" was shattered in March.

It was in part Awlaki's emails back and forth, all quite specific details in planning the British Airways bombing, that helped a British court convict Rajib Karim.

Awlaki is active in planning attacks, and is a legitimate military target because of it.