"Our highest priority is the US" Al-Awlaki's emails about bombing an airliner---

[msanthrope]

With all the hand wringing over Mr. Al-awlaki, I thought it might be a good idea to show the evidence presented in a British court during the trial of his co-conspirator, Rajib Karim, in the British Airway bomb plot. The emails were extensive, and showed Awlai's direct involvement in plotting terrorism.

Were we supposed to wait until he'd something else? He'd already sent the Christmas bomber.

Our highest priority is the US. Anything there, even if on a smaller scale compared to what we may do in the UK, would be our choice. So the question is: with the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US? If that is not possible, then what ideas do you have that could be set up for the uk?

...You should definitely take the opportunity, the information you could get would be very useful.

SNIP
As Awlaki's emails with Rajib Karim show, the al Qaeda cleric played a direct role in the airliner plot. Awlaki encouraged Karim to attack the US, settling for an attack on the UK only as a backup.

Awlaki explored Karim's ability to get a "package" (that is, bomb) on board a US-bound plane. This possibly foreshadowed AQAP's late 2010 cargo plane bomb plot. In that foiled attack, AQAP attempted to detonate two bombs shipped via cargo jetliners.

Read more: http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2011/03/anwar_al_awlakis_ema.php#ixzz1ZTd3Fo5N

I'm glad we stopped him. I just wish Bush had targeted OBL as successfully. It might have prevented the Iraq War.

[SidDithers]

1. K&R...nt

Sid

[msongs]

2. so foreign governments can now kill Americans if they conspire to bomb them. ok nt

[msanthrope]

7. If Cuba took out Posada Cariiles, I cannot imagine the pretzel logic that would be

employed here.

I would have had no problem if MI6 had gotten to Mr. Al-awlaki before us. You?

[sabrina 1]

Seems that way, or if they only think they are conspiring, or someone

sets them up to make it look like they were conspiring to kill someone. Emails are not hard to manipulate for people who do that sort of thing, and if there are no investigations or trials, then who's going to know whether the American actually sent the email or not? I hope no one here who is supporting this will complain when another country bombs a US citizen somewhere, and you can bet it will happen. We are showing them the way.

[msanthrope]

29. You think that Rajib Karim was wrongly convicted by the British courts then?

Is there any terrorist you think might have been rightly convicted???

[sabrina 1]

40. Anyone who received a fair trial is not part of this discussion.

We are talking about a president appointing himself judge and jury and ordering the killing of people who have not even been formally charged with any crime.

Was Rajib Karim charged with a crime, given his day in court, tried and convicted?

And the UK does not have the death penalty btw.

I will thank you NOT to accuse me of being a terrorist sympathizer. I believe that is against DU rules aside from being a completely false accusation.

I fully supported the trial and conviction of Sheik Rahman and his cohorts in NY where he charged, arrested, tried and convicted and sentenced to life in prison since NY did not have the death penalty at that time. The world did not end as a result of those trials, and the US demonstrated back then before we threw out the Constitution, that it respected the rule of law.

Additionally much information was revealed about the terror network which helped the intelligence community prevent other attacks.

Then Bush took over the country and all of a sudden our Constitution was tossed out and a US President declared he had the powers of a king, to order the deaths of other human beings without trial or conviction. We on the left vehemently objected to the Bush doctrine.

When did the left change its mind? Do we now owe Bush an apology, because we cannot cling to the anger at HIM, while condoning the same and even worse policies of this president. Someone needs to clarify what we stand for in this party.

[Taverner]

3. First of all, define what you mean by "sent" the Christmas bomber.

Did he fold him up in an envelope, put a stamp on him and drop him in a mailbox?

And let's just assume the worst, he ran a "Bombs-R-Us" depot in Pakistan, and met him, strapped a bomb to him and gave him a plane ticket.

Shouldn't we at least try him - or are we Judge Dredd, no trial, nothing - "I am de law!"

[msanthrope]

5. The Christmas Bomber was his 'student' according to Al-Awlaki--

Had visited him in Yemen.


Christmas bomber was my 'student': Yemeni cleric Awlaqi

(AFP) – Feb 3, 2010

WASHINGTON — Radical Yemeni cleric Anwar Al-Awlaqi has praised a Christmas Day attempt to blow up a US airliner and said the man accused in the attack was his "student," according to an interview published by Al-Jazeera.

The militant religious leader, accused of links to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, said he supported the attack.

He described alleged bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, who reportedly received training in Yemen, as his "student," but said that he did not direct the young Nigerian to launch the attack.

"I support what Umar Farouk did," he added, citing the deaths of Muslims in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as drone strikes in Yemen, to justify the foiled attack against a Northwest Airlines plane as it prepared to land in Detroit on Christmas Day.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5i3Hu2u8BDseTd1SWUPrRJ4zL11sA



******************

Mr Abdulmutallab reportedly told the FBI that one of his trainers in the camps was Anwar al-Awlaki, a US-raised Yemeni preacher who had become the English-language voice for young jihadists recruited in the West. Mr al-Awlaki exchanged e-mails with the US army major Nidal Malik Hasan before 14 of his fellow soldiers were shot dead on a base in Fort Hood, Texas, in November, while two of the 9/11 bombers attended his sermons in America before their attack.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6973007.ece


Under the AUMF of September 18, 2001, the President can order the killing of any member of Al-Qaeda engaged in acts of terrorism. I just wish Bush had done it.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. So charge him with a crime. Very, very simple.

Otherwise it's extrajudicial execution.

[msanthrope]

6. Not under the AUMF of September 18, 2001. He's a miltary target that need not

be charged with a crime.

[MNBrewer]

8. The AUMF of September 18, 2001 does no such thing

You keep saying that it does. Where in the resolution is targeted killing authorized?

[msanthrope]

13. The President is authorized by the AUMF to prevent future terror attacks from al-Q under the War

Powers Act--


(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.
b) War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.



The pursuit of Al-Q is a military matter, according to this resolution. The President can order targeted killings of military targets.

[MNBrewer]

18. targeted killings of military targets are not authorized in this

[msanthrope]

28. Of course they are. The President is authorized to take

necessary and appropriate force. That includes killing those we cannot capture, as we would any sworn enemy. Had Mr. Al-awlaki turned himself in to authorities, we would not be able to touch him under the same rules of war.

I suggest you read Protocol 1 of the Geneva Convention--articles 43 and 51. This is allowed.

For example, if we could not capture OBL, we could certainly kill him.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. "cannot capture"

Well, now. There's an interesting bar for you to meet in proving he needed to be killed.

Please demonstrate that we couldn't capture him.

[Badsam]

9. Not that I care, but how does our Gov.

explain or justify killing the other people with him?

[jberryhill]

15. This situation meets normal LE deadly force criteria

Police will use deadly force in ordinary situations where there is ongoing deadly criminal activity and apprehension cannot be accomplished without significant risk of death or serious harm.

This is done in, for example, hostage situations on a regular basis, and I have never seen any threads on DU about it.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. I don't care if he was total scum.

It matters not. I do not violate principle to cater to expedient whims of the moment.

[louslobbs]

12. +1 but many do n/t

Lou

[msanthrope]

16. The War Powers act has been with us for some time....you may not agree with it,

but it is law.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I absolutely do not agree with it.

Lets say this guy was innocent, just as a hypothetical. What then? If evidence comes to light that he was framed, or mis-identified, what then?

What about the next person they put on the knock list? About 25% of the people that have been released from death row had signed confessions. Did not and could not have committed the crimes, and evidence later exonerated them.

I do not believe the power to kill should be in the hands of one person in the government. However well-intentioned and careful that person may be.

[treestar]

26. I don't think the list is that carelessly made

There could be a mistaken identity. That is a risk.

But I would say it's pretty sure they know who the people are. Most of us are not familiar with them but the CIA surely would be.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Why no public trial in absentia?

Why only allegations, no hard evidence available to us?

[msanthrope]

34. Because he had one, in Yemen, and the judge declared he should be taken,

dead, or alive.

He was convicted for inciting the murder of a French citizen.....failed to show.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Which has what to do with the US placing him on a kill list?

[msanthrope]

30. Innocent people do not issue public fatwas against female cartoonists via a press release.

Seriously--do you have ANY evidence that an innocent man died?

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Burden of proof.

It's not mine to prove he was innocent. It's absurdly easy for me to prove he was denied due process, though.

[JuniperLea]

19. Self preservation trumps all

Humans are like that. I don't believe in killing at all, but I can't guarantee that I wouldn't if my life or the life of someone I loved was being threatened. Humans have this self preservation mode that cannot be controled by the individual.

As much as I hate killing, I can't agree with what you're saying.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. Who would he have killed that day, if he were captured instead of bombed?

Anyone? Seems unlikely to me.

[JuniperLea]

23. That's very weak tea...

When the guy has killed and has sworn to kill again. What does it matter if it was that day or the next week? Seriously weak.

[AtheistCrusader]

24. He killed someone?

Who?

[Cali_Democrat]

11. Great. Why wasn't this evidence used to formally indict him?

What's wrong with due process in this case? The case is rock solid, right?

[msanthrope]

14. Because action under the War Powers Act doesn't require an indictment. nt

[Harmony Blue]

20. He lived in the States for many years....

under your premise why didn't they apprehend him while in the States? Furthermore, why was he allowed to leave the States?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Why was extradition not requested by the FBI when they interviewed him in Yemeni custody in 2007?

Pretty much all they have on this guy is allegations, and a conviction for soliciting a prostitute in San Diego in 1996.

[msanthrope]

31. How do you know they didn't request it? Further, you do realize he has been convicted of

incitement to murder, right????

Not just allegations....

[AtheistCrusader]

42. In whose court? A Yemeni court, or an American court?

On what planet does a conviction in a Yemeni court, of a American Citizen, result in authorization by the President of the United States, to kill said person?

His conviction on that charge, in that nation, has literally not one damn thing to do with whether it is appropriate for him to be denied due process by Americans.
I'm not sure if I should be sickened, or insulted that you even tried that line of argument.

[Harmony Blue]

32. Another good point

something is rotten in Denmark for sure.

[msanthrope]

33. Left in 2002. Maybe he was under the radar 'til then, nt

[Harmony Blue]

35. That makes the U.S. look either incompetent

or they had flimsy evidence, and they couldn't stop him from leaving.

[msanthrope]

36. Or maybe, things like the Christmas underwear bombing were'nt going to happen

for another 7-8 years.

Should we have preemptively arrested him in 2002?

[Harmony Blue]

37. If they knew he was a threat

why did they let him leave the country?

Edit: This isn't a situation where a USF professor leaves the country and becomes the leader of PIJ which shocked all intelligence experts in the West. They KNEW what this guy was doing and what he was up to all the way back to 2002, so why wasn't he held in custody?

[msanthrope]

38. I have no idea why the Bush administration fucked up. But I'm glad Obama fixed it. nt

[msanthrope]

39. I have no idea why the Bush administration fucked up. But I'm glad Obama fixed it. nt

[louslobbs]

17. +1 Due process is so not in anymore. If we really had due process, the Koch brothers would have

been investigated, arrested, tried and convicted by now for crimes against Democracy, humanity, fraud, bribery and murder by proxy. I'd like to see the government, pick up just one person who thinks it's ok for this kind of assassination and fly them to Gitmo, without charges, without representation, without family contact or any contact for that matter with anyone except their guards, and held for an indefinite amount of time, yet to be determined.......by the government. That's all it would take to change most peoples minds I would think. But then again, I could be wrong.

Lou

[Bonobo]

45. You just don't get it, It isn't about Al-Awlaki.

It is about the U.S. and the rule of law and the degrading of the the constitution and the separation of powers.

It is about being judge, jury and executioner.

As one misguided DU'er recently said -- "It's that simple."

[JCMach1]

46. Would DU have been upset if the North could have bombed Jefferson Davis, Lee, and Jackson

while meeting in the same building and ended the Civil War that much sooner?

Let me guess, we should have held out for indictments...
:banghead: