home

U.S. Drone Attack Targeted and Missed al-Awlaki

The U.S. seems to be getting carried away with its success in taking out Osama bin Laden.

Today it launched its first unmanned drone attack in Yemen, aiming for cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. It missed, but killed some other people, who it hopes are affiliated with AQAP.

Al-Awlaki, an American citizen, is on the U.S. kill or capture list. In charge of the Yemen mission: the Pentagon’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) and the CIA.

Does al-Awlaki do anything besides write encouraging e-mails? Britain seems to think his e-mails make him the likely successor to bin Laden.

< Friday Afternoon Open Thread | Pakistan Officials Say Khalid bin Laden , Not Hamza, Killed in Strike >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Did anybody (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat May 07, 2011 at 11:03:37 AM EST
    read Greenwald's take on this?

    Yes. (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sat May 07, 2011 at 04:27:34 PM EST
    Barack Obama and the Democrats (3.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Andreas on Fri May 06, 2011 at 07:36:01 PM EST
    It is necessary to stress again and again that these criminal acts are organised by Barack Obama, a Democrat.


    OBL (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by cal1942 on Sat May 07, 2011 at 12:03:08 AM EST
    was a combatant in a war as is al Awlaki.  The President, in his Constitutional duty as Commander-in-chief of the US armed forces, ordered an attack on a combatant.

    Parent
    Thats one way of looking at it... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Sat May 07, 2011 at 08:20:59 AM EST
    another is the president ordered for the execution via drone of a criminal suspect, which failed, executing others instead who we hope maybe did something to deserve it besides hanging out with a wanted man.  

    But I guess only lawmakers get to decide what is a crime...we can only call it right or wrong, totally different animal than legal/illegal. Legal/illegal has become a worthless arbiter of right/wrong.  Plenty of crimes that ain't wrongs, plenty of wrongs that ain't crimes.

    Parent

    Or it may be that International Law (none / 0) (#28)
    by christinep on Sat May 07, 2011 at 12:35:55 PM EST
    is what is also being followed here. The research is out there is you care to pursue a legal look. You might find that cal1942 has stated it correctly. Understandably, killing (even in a war) should be disturbing to humanity--to all of us--but, whether our country acts in accord with International Law as to the recent events discussed here is different than the feelings that may evoke.

    When andreas & others pounce with charges that the President is committing "criminal act," I think that it is reasonable to ask for some citations of law, etc. It is a strong charge; and, such a charge would seem to call for an attempt at legal proof apart from expression of one's personal feelings. Otherwise, we become a bunch of each-to-his-own name-callers.

    Parent

    They aren't criminal acts (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 07, 2011 at 07:37:26 AM EST
    And I'm fine with Al Awlaki being killed in a drone strike.  I have not one single qualm. I'm fine if our President continues to hunt him.  Can't imagine how we found him so fast since he has had no direct connection to Osama for years according to Pakistani intelligence :)

    Parent
    What's wrong with trying?? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by norris morris on Sun May 08, 2011 at 02:34:23 PM EST
    Since when is it wrong to hunt and attempt to destroy our declared sworn enemies?

    Everyone's upset that the WH "bungled" the messaging? It happens to every administration. A story told once changes from what actually happens, and when a story continues to be told it continues to change.  Same with our memories. We never remember anything exactly the same twice, and over again it changes moreso.

    Anyone childish enough to think that bin Laden would not have lunged with automatic and gun nearby [or who knows what else?] is in another universe. This was a kill mission as it should have been. He had declared himself an enemy, murdered our people, murdered Muslims, and continued to plot against us. Both Bush and Obama declared war on bin Laden. This is war remember?

    Should we have invited him under the "rules of engagement" as several  have suggested?
    What rules of engagements? He was a terrorist  leader mastermind who needed to be taken out.

    Thank our Seals for doing this. I'm amazed that no American was hurt and there was minimal collateral damage or catastrophe.

    Our armchair generals sound ridiculous

    Parent

    Re: Glenn Greenwalk (none / 0) (#14)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat May 07, 2011 at 08:45:46 AM EST

    There are certain civil liberties debates where, even though I hold strong opinions, I can at least understand the reasoning and impulses of those who disagree; the killing of bin Laden was one such instance.  But the notion that the President has the power to order American citizens assassinated without an iota of due process -- far from any battlefield, not during combat -- is an idea so utterly foreign to me, so far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable, that it's hard to convey in words or treat with civility.

    Glenn Greenwald Link

    Parent

    If they have declared war against us (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 07, 2011 at 08:53:30 AM EST
    plan attacks against U.S. citizens (and this is a war too....we are fighting an organized force that is trying to kill Americans and perform acts of terrorism on our soil or territories) their enemy combantant status trumps their rights as a citizen in my book.  It is that way ON U.S. soil too. I have certain rights UNTIL I attempt to break the law.  And lethal force can be used against dangerous murderers.  That's what I think.

    Parent
    Unless death penalty is imposed, lethal (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by oculus on Sat May 07, 2011 at 04:26:24 PM EST
    force may not be used against an alleged and/or convicted murderer.  Must be justified.  Otherwise law enforcement/detention facility officers/correctional officers may be charged with homicide.

    Parent
    They may be charged with homicide (none / 0) (#42)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 08:52:34 AM EST
    But come on oculus, how often is that ever even considered?  There must be some sort of gross negligence.  We don't expect our police officers to be sacrificial lambs that criminals get to slaughter until they run into a spot of bad luck.

    Parent
    Infrequently charged. Even less frequently (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Mon May 09, 2011 at 11:34:03 AM EST
    convicted.  I'm a purist--but you knew that.

    Parent
    A pure what? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:18:25 PM EST
    I do know that in your past work, you had to butt up against such situations continuously.  And I respect that.  Nothing easy about what you used to do, your butt is always in the hot seat.  I sort of know how that goes too these days.  I say things that I mean that draw flames :)

    Parent
    A purist as to alleged police use of force. (none / 0) (#45)
    by oculus on Mon May 09, 2011 at 12:58:00 PM EST
    Law enforcement should be held accountable, but need all the facts, not quick flame throwing.

    Parent
    It's not like you (none / 0) (#46)
    by Rojas on Mon May 09, 2011 at 08:02:20 PM EST
    were fighting with one arm tied behind your back.

    Parent
    Aside from e-mails (none / 0) (#18)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat May 07, 2011 at 10:11:03 AM EST
    what has he done in his 'war' against the United States?

    A parking ticket has more specifics than the order to kill him via remote control, IMHO.

    Parent

    Anwar al-Awalaki (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Sat May 07, 2011 at 10:57:08 AM EST
    is not even one of those number two's in the organizational chart--a mid-leveler whose apparent danger to us is his ability to speak English.  Assassination of this American citizen is questionable in its own right, but entrusting the operation to a drone seems, to me, to outweigh and be counterproductive to events now occurring in Yemen.

    Parent
    We don't really go after anyone (none / 0) (#31)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 07, 2011 at 03:48:37 PM EST
    based on some made up number.  We go after midlevel people more often because they are the ones who disrupting their roles has the largest organizational affect.

    Parent
    A planner and a trainer (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 07, 2011 at 11:25:31 AM EST
    Equals a General and a Sargent, this is a war.  There is an organized terrorist force and he is a planner and trainer.

    Parent
    I think they said the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Rojas on Sat May 07, 2011 at 11:39:57 AM EST
    about Vicky Weaver

    Parent
    Then charge him with treason (none / 0) (#23)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat May 07, 2011 at 11:27:16 AM EST
    and let him have his day in court.

    Parent
    He isn't in our jurisdiction (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 07, 2011 at 11:32:12 AM EST
    And he continues to plan and train.  He is free to turn himself in though. He can turn himself over to us and we will do that, or we will kill him.  I'm good either way.

    Parent
    Then treat him like the (none / 0) (#29)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat May 07, 2011 at 12:41:22 PM EST
    international criminal he is, and take the appropriate steps to find him and apprehend him.

    Parent
    There are no "appropriate" steps (none / 0) (#30)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 07, 2011 at 03:45:56 PM EST
    to apprehend someone who to us is an international criminal in Yemen. He isn't really a criminal though, he has declared and is waging a war against us.  His chosen weapon is terrorism.

    Parent
    Translation: (none / 0) (#34)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat May 07, 2011 at 05:17:40 PM EST
    "We might have to fight our way in there and back out to get him."

    What could the Yemeni government do if we did seize him and bring him back in irons? Declare a khat embargo on us?

    The more you treat him as an opposing force, the more that builds up his credibility as such to those predisposed to believe in him.

    People are starting to see that now, starting to doubt whether there is such a thing--but that's only because Al Qaeda has been no-showing like the Second Coming. Libya was the latest place it was supposed to show up. Egypt before that. Remember Glenn Beck talking about the Caliphate? For that matter, remember Glenn Beck? God, there's another freak who you'd think couldn't exist. But he did, running on fumes, just like Al Qaeda. Beck is in the Second-Coming business himself, but his Jesus is Osama and he made his money predicting Squidward-
    with-a-beard would show up in Encino any day. The Egyptian revolution was just Al Qaeda in disguise as a few million yuppies. Libya was the same Osama-of-a-thousand-faces, this time as a mixed crowd of bored kids and their dads. Wherever it was, Cairo or Benghazi, it was Osama by another name.

    War Nerd 37: Is there An Al Qaeda?

    Parent

    I think the fact that (none / 0) (#41)
    by Militarytracy on Mon May 09, 2011 at 08:48:24 AM EST
    that we found Alwaki within days of removing all the info from Bin Laden's compound we could find, stands a chance of making it clear that there is an Al Qaeda that does reach from Afghanistan to Yemen.

    Any time we breach the borders of a region declaring itself sovereign there are always problems, as it shows of our recent breaching of Pakistan's borders to get Bin Laden.  It was important for us to gather whatever intel was there though because we have been fairly certain for years now that elements within Pakistan were protecting him.  In every mission though, those who will bear the responsibility and the scrutiny have to weigh the costs and benefits.  Alwaki is a fighter in a war first and foremost...before anything else, and he is not worth the risk to our special forces IMO to attempt to take alive and he is not worth the risk to our leaders to take such a risk either IMO.  If he gets a drone strike I'm just fine with that.

    Parent

    Re: (none / 0) (#49)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue May 10, 2011 at 12:22:43 AM EST

    stands a chance of making it clear that there is an Al Qaeda that does reach from Afghanistan to Yemen.

    I never disputed that, but he benefits by us calling him a leader of an organization that wars on us.

    Any time we breach the borders of a region declaring itself sovereign there are always problems, as it shows of our recent breaching of Pakistan's borders to get Bin Laden.

    Which is true of drone attacks as well, as well as the likelihood that we may have killed few, or even none, of the people who are leaders/associates/etc. of AQ with this last attempt.

    Parent

    Why the "1" from me on rating (3.60 / 5) (#6)
    by christinep on Fri May 06, 2011 at 09:12:29 PM EST
    Because the claimant should have sufficient proof before blatant statements that the President is committing "criminal acts." Enough already...prove it.

    Parent
    How do you "prove it" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Yman on Sat May 07, 2011 at 08:54:57 AM EST
    We all know the arguments for/against the conclusion that the drone attacks are criminal (or legal).  Same for targeted assassinations, which may or may not include the Bin Laden raid.  While I disagree, the OP was merely stating his/her conclusion based on facts known to everyone who's familiar with the subject.

    Parent
    Obama should have a fair trial (3.33 / 3) (#10)
    by Andreas on Sat May 07, 2011 at 02:33:33 AM EST
    He should have the right to defend himself in court - as other criminals like George Walker Bush and Henry Kissinger.

    Parent
    Not if he leaves U.S. jurisdiction (none / 0) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Sat May 07, 2011 at 11:30:40 AM EST
    and starts planning terrorist attacks and training terrorists and helping those attacks take place....sorry, but not even Obama would deserve such protections in my book.  And I love me some Obama today.  I'm practically an Obot until the endorphins of healing 10 long years of  sacrifice and 7 years of destruction military leadership wear off.

    Parent
    Why the 5 from me on the rating (3.00 / 2) (#9)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat May 07, 2011 at 12:12:11 AM EST
    to make up for christinep acting like an a** tonight.

    Parent
    I proudly take your definition, Saxon, IF (none / 0) (#27)
    by christinep on Sat May 07, 2011 at 12:22:50 PM EST
    you stand for calling the President a "criminal" just to get your jollies. Deep end talk is what that is.

    Parent
    I don't demonize my opponents (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun May 08, 2011 at 03:59:09 PM EST
    but you are still free to do so.

    Parent
    I did not use a perjorative term to describe (none / 0) (#37)
    by christinep on Sun May 08, 2011 at 06:07:16 PM EST
    your character. (Think back to the start of this thread: An individual said the President had committed "criminal acts." I responded, because it appeared to be a highly emotional statement, conclusionary & without proof...this is wrong, and it should be so noted. As for your later comment, you called me a perjorative name. While that does not bother me (coming as it did from someone purporting to defend a beyond-the-pale statement--at least, in terms of reasonable attribution), I think that it is important to look at the progression of the statements in question.  In short: It is my opinion that you are wrong in your assessment.

    Parent
    Re Demonize (none / 0) (#38)
    by Harry Saxon on Sun May 08, 2011 at 06:13:34 PM EST

    I did not use a perjorative term to describe (none / 0) (#37)
    by christinep on Sun May 08, 2011 at 06:07:16 PM EST
    your character.

    Did you notice I used the word opponents, plural?

    responded, because it appeared to be a highly emotional statement, conclusionary & without proof.

    I dunno about the last part:

    Unless death penalty is imposed, lethal (5.00 / 1) (#32)

    by oculus on Sat May 07, 2011 at 04:26:24 PM EST

    force may not be used against an alleged and/or convicted murderer.  Must be justified.  Otherwise law enforcement/detention facility officers/correctional officers may be charged with homicide.

    I don't have to sympathize with Andreas' POV to ask that he be given a fair shake, that's my version of The American Way, YMMV.

    Parent

    Apples to oranges, perhaps (none / 0) (#39)
    by christinep on Sun May 08, 2011 at 06:31:16 PM EST
    Certainly, the American way has been & always should be a trial in a court of law to determine guilt or innocence in a criminal manner. But, the clear discussion here & in every paper & every media outlet centers on the killing of an admitted killer in a declared war--by himself & his group--against our country. Once again: The rules of engagement (I think most researchers would say) involve war & combatants. Elimination in that context is a military context; and, pursuant to the 9/18/2001 authorization for the President to use military force in pursuing the professed terrorists & pursant to generally recognized principles of International Law regarding military combatants, the US had every right and obligation to proceed as it did.

    Ergo, to throw around terms regarding our actions as "criminal" is rather uncalled for (my nicest term.) It is one thing not to agree with the methodology employed by the government; it is quite different to speak in a written way incautiously, and incorrectly, tossing around terms of aspersion toward our top government official as "criminal."

    Yep, I do feel strongly about this one.

    Parent

    Your defensiveness (none / 0) (#40)
    by Harry Saxon on Mon May 09, 2011 at 02:35:01 AM EST
    undermines your position, did you know that?

    Parent
    How could I...because no defensive posture (none / 0) (#47)
    by christinep on Mon May 09, 2011 at 08:53:37 PM EST
    nor feeling here at all.  Instead, something tells me that you love the last word.

    Parent
    Great minds think alike :-) (none / 0) (#48)
    by Harry Saxon on Tue May 10, 2011 at 12:10:29 AM EST
    My party right or wrong (none / 0) (#17)
    by Rojas on Sat May 07, 2011 at 09:27:48 AM EST
    When will the first drone strike on US soil occur? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Fri May 06, 2011 at 08:26:01 PM EST
    Anyone?  

    What's the over/under on years?

    Months?

    I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 06, 2011 at 08:31:19 PM EST
    but this chick is really tired of drone attacks. I think that's why the capture of OBL was so successful, there were NO drones.

    Parent
    yup. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by nycstray on Fri May 06, 2011 at 08:37:01 PM EST
    these drone/bombing things just seem to kill people they 'hope' are 'bad' after the fact.

    I wonder how much we will hear about this and how 'straight' they will get their story in this case . . . </jaded>

    Parent

    And they (none / 0) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Fri May 06, 2011 at 08:38:47 PM EST
    always seem to miss that one person that they were targeting.

    Parent
    I thought that was a given (none / 0) (#7)
    by nycstray on Fri May 06, 2011 at 10:20:15 PM EST
    so I didn't go there :P {aka I deleted my snark/b*tch comment before posting. restraint can test the nerves}

    Parent
    At least (none / 0) (#19)
    by Harry Saxon on Sat May 07, 2011 at 10:18:59 AM EST
    we aren't picking off people in the AQ middle management, as under the GWB years  ;-)

    Parent
    Unarmed ones... (none / 0) (#13)
    by kdog on Sat May 07, 2011 at 08:30:24 AM EST
    have already been deployed in Miami, all it would take is a wanted man hiding over here instead of over there to strap a bomb on one...right? Not that far a leap once you're in the summary execution business.  

    Hopefully our right to bear arms includes the right to bear a drone missile defense system home & garden edition.

    Parent