5 ms·

You mean, you can't imagine the US government executing its own citizens for speaking out against the government in a foreign country without trial? http://en.w

by lambda 13y ago

You mean, you can't imagine the US government executing its own citizens for speaking out against the government in a foreign country without trial? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anwar_al-Awlaki

Steko 13y ago
The idea that Anwar al-Awlaki was only guilty of 'speaking out against the government' is bananas.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Anwar al-Awlaki may have been a terrorist or he may not have been, however he wasn't tried in a court of law so he wasn't guilty of anything. The above statement looks very awkward but we shouldn't advocate extra-judicial killings.
  - mpyne 13y ago
    On the other hand, America would have shown no regard for the citizenship of the enemy in the equivalent situation of a German-American serving in the Nazi armies. Congress has told the President to use military force to eradicate Al Qaeda, al-Awlaki was in AQ, so even that isn't what you make it seem.
    - markdown 13y ago
      I am a guy in a 3rd world country. Your government could assassinate me tomorrow, and then simply say that I was in Al Qaeda. They have proof of this, but of course they can't reveal that information for reasons of "National Security". You think this is OK, because your Congress has given the president authority to kill anyone who (according to whoever is holding the trigger) is involved in that organisation. Fuck you.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        "Military force" doesn't actually mean indiscriminate killing is OK, otherwise we wouldn't consider My Lai a massacre. So my government would have to, at the very least, demonstrate that you actually play some operational role within AQ where a targeted killing of you would appreciably impair the military capacity of AQ. This was the logic used by the U.S. to send what was essentially a kill mission against the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto during WWII, but it probably helped end that war faster so people don't seem to complain as much about that one, for some reason. But either way, if you're a non-U.S. citizen in a 3rd world country then for whatever reason you're not someone that our civil libertarians in the U.S. care about, as they only care about the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. I'm assuming when you say that they have proof that you are implying that the government is pretending they have proof but won't show it. If you're actually in AQ and involved in the violent death and destruction of Muslims, Americans, civilians and our allies throughout the world then I can't honestly say that I'd feel too sorry for you...
        jacquesm 13y ago
        If 'you' (not you personally) really thought My Lai was a massacre then there would have been some more serious sentencing around that event. From the relevant wikipedia page: "While 26 U.S. soldiers were initially charged with criminal offenses for their actions at Mỹ Lai, only Second Lieutenant William Calley, a platoon leader in Charlie Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but only served three and a half years under house arrest." Putting this event forward as an example of how well the US deals with military excesses is really not clever. See Fallujah for a more recent example.
        mpyne 13y ago
        My point is not that the U.S. "deals well" with military excesses. Like most other nations we have a hard time coming to grips at the time of an atrocity with the blood on our hands. We do usually come around though, such as My Lai which is now considered a massacre even by the U.S. Army, which now uses My Lai (among other notable crises) as a case study in their officer training curriculum at West Point. The massacre is taught as a "massacre" in our history books, and our guilt is not shirked or avoided. On the other hand you'll even today see people claim that the German Heer (Army) wasn't so bad during WWII, that they were simply a professional army that wasn't involved in atrocities like the actual villains such as the Nazis, the Waffen SS, and the Gestapo. It's not actually true; senior German Army officers were just as involved in atrocities as the rest, even if they didn't participate in the worst extremes. I won't say that the current German Army training curriculum and senior leadership don't look at that aspect of their own history (in fact I'm sure they do), but if more armies had been like America's over the past 100 years world history would have been very different. My point instead related to the comment about Anwar al-Awlaki. He was playing a military game and was treated as such, nothing more or less. If he didn't want to be treated by military rules then he shouldn't have joined a quasi-military organization that ended up at war with the U.S. But once it became a martial conflict different rules apply, including the Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Conventions.
- olefoo 13y ago
  Anwar-alAlaqui was a lot closer to being an Alex Jones, or Glenn Beck type of figure than being some terrorist mastermind; he was basically killed for calling for spiritual struggle against the United States Government. There's not much in the way of evidence that he was more than a loudmouth with a youtube channel. And while I wouldn't feel to broken up if Glenn Beck's RV were taken out in the parking lot of the Preakness; I would still object on principle if it were the US Government doing it, rather than one of his creditors.
  - Steko 13y ago
    "There's not much in the way of evidence that he was more than a loudmouth with a youtube channel." That he recruited and trained Abdulmutallab (underwear bomber) alone puts him several categories out of "loudmouth" status. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-...
    - mpyne 13y ago
      And also IIRC he had contact with Major Nidal Hasan before Hasan killed all those soldiers at Ft. Hood. PSYOPS is a military specialty just as much as shooting rifles and digging ditches...
octo_t 13y ago
This close after the leak? Surely give it some time before snatching him, this is such a hot story right now that people are going to draw this conclusion... (Although obviously China etc might also want him for a few "questions")

by lambda 13y ago

Steko 13y ago

The idea that Anwar al-Awlaki was only guilty of 'speaking out against the government' is bananas.

ihsw 13y ago
Anwar al-Awlaki may have been a terrorist or he may not have been, however he wasn't tried in a court of law so he wasn't guilty of anything. The above statement looks very awkward but we shouldn't advocate extra-judicial killings.
- mpyne 13y ago
  On the other hand, America would have shown no regard for the citizenship of the enemy in the equivalent situation of a German-American serving in the Nazi armies. Congress has told the President to use military force to eradicate Al Qaeda, al-Awlaki was in AQ, so even that isn't what you make it seem.
  - markdown 13y ago
    I am a guy in a 3rd world country. Your government could assassinate me tomorrow, and then simply say that I was in Al Qaeda. They have proof of this, but of course they can't reveal that information for reasons of "National Security". You think this is OK, because your Congress has given the president authority to kill anyone who (according to whoever is holding the trigger) is involved in that organisation. Fuck you.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      "Military force" doesn't actually mean indiscriminate killing is OK, otherwise we wouldn't consider My Lai a massacre. So my government would have to, at the very least, demonstrate that you actually play some operational role within AQ where a targeted killing of you would appreciably impair the military capacity of AQ. This was the logic used by the U.S. to send what was essentially a kill mission against the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto during WWII, but it probably helped end that war faster so people don't seem to complain as much about that one, for some reason. But either way, if you're a non-U.S. citizen in a 3rd world country then for whatever reason you're not someone that our civil libertarians in the U.S. care about, as they only care about the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. I'm assuming when you say that they have proof that you are implying that the government is pretending they have proof but won't show it. If you're actually in AQ and involved in the violent death and destruction of Muslims, Americans, civilians and our allies throughout the world then I can't honestly say that I'd feel too sorry for you...
      - jacquesm 13y ago
        If 'you' (not you personally) really thought My Lai was a massacre then there would have been some more serious sentencing around that event. From the relevant wikipedia page: "While 26 U.S. soldiers were initially charged with criminal offenses for their actions at Mỹ Lai, only Second Lieutenant William Calley, a platoon leader in Charlie Company, was convicted. Found guilty of killing 22 villagers, he was originally given a life sentence, but only served three and a half years under house arrest." Putting this event forward as an example of how well the US deals with military excesses is really not clever. See Fallujah for a more recent example.
        mpyne 13y ago
        My point is not that the U.S. "deals well" with military excesses. Like most other nations we have a hard time coming to grips at the time of an atrocity with the blood on our hands. We do usually come around though, such as My Lai which is now considered a massacre even by the U.S. Army, which now uses My Lai (among other notable crises) as a case study in their officer training curriculum at West Point. The massacre is taught as a "massacre" in our history books, and our guilt is not shirked or avoided. On the other hand you'll even today see people claim that the German Heer (Army) wasn't so bad during WWII, that they were simply a professional army that wasn't involved in atrocities like the actual villains such as the Nazis, the Waffen SS, and the Gestapo. It's not actually true; senior German Army officers were just as involved in atrocities as the rest, even if they didn't participate in the worst extremes. I won't say that the current German Army training curriculum and senior leadership don't look at that aspect of their own history (in fact I'm sure they do), but if more armies had been like America's over the past 100 years world history would have been very different. My point instead related to the comment about Anwar al-Awlaki. He was playing a military game and was treated as such, nothing more or less. If he didn't want to be treated by military rules then he shouldn't have joined a quasi-military organization that ended up at war with the U.S. But once it became a martial conflict different rules apply, including the Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Conventions.
olefoo 13y ago
Anwar-alAlaqui was a lot closer to being an Alex Jones, or Glenn Beck type of figure than being some terrorist mastermind; he was basically killed for calling for spiritual struggle against the United States Government. There's not much in the way of evidence that he was more than a loudmouth with a youtube channel. And while I wouldn't feel to broken up if Glenn Beck's RV were taken out in the parking lot of the Preakness; I would still object on principle if it were the US Government doing it, rather than one of his creditors.
- Steko 13y ago
  "There's not much in the way of evidence that he was more than a loudmouth with a youtube channel." That he recruited and trained Abdulmutallab (underwear bomber) alone puts him several categories out of "loudmouth" status. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-...
  - mpyne 13y ago
    And also IIRC he had contact with Major Nidal Hasan before Hasan killed all those soldiers at Ft. Hood. PSYOPS is a military specialty just as much as shooting rifles and digging ditches...

octo_t 13y ago

This close after the leak? Surely give it some time before snatching him, this is such a hot story right now that people are going to draw this conclusion... (Although obviously China etc might also want him for a few "questions")