AQ Leader Anwar al-Awlaki Killed in Yemen

Assumed Thermal Equilibrium

HUGE news in the "Overseas Contingency Operation" (formerly known as the "War on Terror") US-born al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen this morning. Al-Awlaki was one of AQ's most effective operational leaders and recruiters prior to his death. He was the imam at the "9/11 mosque" (Dar al-Hijrah) in Falls Church, VA and associated with various terrorist incidents in the West (the failed "Underwear Bomber" attack, the shooting at Fort Hood, etc.). He was also associated with AQ's English-language publication, Inspire.

Reports indicate al-Awlaki took a dirt nap after he was hit by a Predator drone strike while traveling in a convoy of jihadists about five miles from the town of Khashef (approx. 90 miles from the capital Sanaa). US officials are now confirming his death.

Congrats to our troops and intelligence agents on another job well done...

 

Ya scooped me, Talon.....


This is great. I've written about this man many times. The govt even thinks he was involved in the planning of 9/11. He was prolly bad guy #1.

Yay.......

This is a major blow to Al-Qaeda.

Mr. Obama - you get NO credit for this. Our military and the CIA gets the credit. You'll still lose in 2012.
He's let the military and CIA do their job because he doesn't want to be bothered by the responsibilities of being POTUS. It gets in the way of parties and vacations.

 

This is great news, indeed. He was more of an effective leader and recruiter than the man who succeeded Osama bin Laden as head of AQ (Ayman al-Zawahiri).

The weekend is off to a wonderful start...

 

Anybody want to criticize the Bush Administration's war paradigm in combatting the Jihadist Internationale?

Evidently, President Obama doesn't have a problem with it. I'm glad he saw the light...

 

Yes Talon, he was high up in the terrorist world, but not a successor to Bin Laden.

 

The ACLU (American Communists Like Us) will not be happy:

"Al-Awlaki had been in the U.S. crosshairs since his killing was approved by U.S. President Barack Obama in April 2010. At least twice, airstrikes were called in on locations where al-Awlaki was suspected to be, but he wasn't harmed. The order against an American citizen raised alarm bells among civil liberties groups.

"What the government is doing is imposing the death penalty without trial," said Jameel Jaffer, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, in a November 2010 hearing in Washington."


http://news.yahoo.com/al-awlaki-voice-jihad-al-qaida-figure-113918616.html


_

 

May I have a second helping of Schadenfreude, please?

And?

 

That is a two-fer isn't it?

 

And the ACLU is confusing the criminal system with war.

 

I don't much care for "kill on sight" orders on American citizens.

Glad he is dead... but do not much like that part.

If he was just killed because they were "killing bad guys" I wouldn't care at all... but I do take issue with the order.

If you can assassinate him without a trial, there is no reason you can't kill me on sight without a trial.

Of course... this was Obama's order.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ers-killing-of-US-cleric-Anwar-al-Awlaki.html

 

It most certainly is that, Don.

 

Good news. Kill all of them SOB's.

 

Oh stop it. Yes, if you are out there in the Middle East somewhere living with the Jihadists and preaching Islamic Jihad against America. I don't care what country you come from, you are a terrorist and will be assassinated.

 

And the crime paradigm that the ACLU and the Clinton Administration pursued (and the Obama Administration occasionally pursues when it is politically expedient) contributed greatly to AQ's successful attempt to attack the US homeland on 9/11.

 

Yeah... sorry. Without a trial they can label me anything they want and kill me without having to provide evidence.

Can't stop it.

 

Ah yes, and we had Gorelick help investigate the Gorelick wall between the CIA and the FBI.

_

 

Sorry, we're at war, and the self-avowed terrorists who are still actively attempting to attack our country are legitimate military targets.

 

A neat little circle of unaccountability if I ever saw one.

 

Bravo.. well done.

 

Foreign combatants don't get a trial cuz they are NOT US Citizens and therefore NOT entitled to the same rights as US citizens.
Al-Awlaki was an enemy in a war against the United States. He got what he deserved. We're a little bit safer today than we were yesterday.

 

How does this work exactly? Sowe send in ground forces in to nigeria.to capture him, risk the lives of those ground forces to bring him back to the states to find him guilty of treason and put him to death anyway? Or do we fly in unmanned drones to take him out. The end result is the same but with much less risk to american lives. Tell me that is not the logical choice. You liberals make me sick sometimes. Expect us to stop in the middle of a fight and have a trial before we decide to shoot someone. What isnext? Should we enact some type of international law that states if the enemy is under manned qnd poorly armed we should even things out by sending them troops and supplies to make it a fair fight? Even last place whould get a shiney trophy right? No one is a looser....

 

I agree. If this person is killed in the act of attacking our military/country, them's the breaks. Completely legitimate.

An assassination order is another thing entirely.

 

So we should wait to be attacked first? Sounds like the same strategy that lost us the vietnam war. Worst military stategy ever. Let the enemy manuver all around you all they want and only fire at them when they attack. Even if they are on both your flanks and taking aim... Dont shoot first.. We dont want to hurt anyone!!

 

I know what you are saying Ctrl, but lets be honest...they can do this right now to anyone, and make it look like an accident where a trial and Evidence wouldn't be concern.

I think this was the right move. We shouldn't have to hamstring ourselves taking out high level AQ guys, simply because of where they were born.

 

I am not fond of straw man arguments.

I am suggesting that if he is a casualty of an attack on other targets, that is what you get for consorting with the enemy.

If we know his location, we attempt to forcibly detain him, if he is killed in an exchange, that is what happens.

What our government can not do, is label an American Citizen with a charge, and then assassinate him without affording him the rights granted under the constitution.

This is a bad precedent.

You get to disagree, but it is foolish imo. It is why we have the right to a fair trial, and the charge of treason exists. The system was designed to account for this circumstance, and assassination goes against everything I believe in... even if it is for a really really bad guy, as portrayed by the government and media.