Tagged: anwar al-awlaki Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • aziz 8:08 am on March 9, 2012 Permalink
    Tags: anwar al-awlaki,   

    Should the Batman kill the joker? High relevance to extrajudicial killing of Awlaki, et al…

     
  • aziz 6:39 am on September 30, 2011 Permalink
    Tags: anwar al-awlaki,   

    Anwar al Awlaki is dead. Best thing to say is simply, Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un and leave the rest to Allah.

    (though, I did have more to say)

     
  • abunoor 1:36 pm on November 20, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , anwar al-awlaki, , Gregory Johnsen, ,   

    Yemen expert Gregory Johnsen op-ed in New York Times on how the importance of Anwar al-Awlaki as a threat to the U.S. is being exaggerated and why this is backfiring.

    Glenn Greenwald points out that while exaggerating the threat posed by al-Awlaki may backfire in terms of actual terrorist recruitment in Yemen, it may serve its purpose domestically of supporting the Obama Administration’s entrenchment of Bush admin claims about extraordinary executive power, including the right to assasinate even citizens at will.

     
  • plimfix 8:57 am on November 6, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: anwar al-awlaki, , ,   

    The recent conviction of Roshonara Choudhry for the attempted murder of British Member of Parliament Stephen Timms is being hotly debated around the Internet. Much has been said about the influence of Anwar al-Awlaki’s YouTube videos on her radicalization. Among the more interesting responses has been a post by Asim Qureshi on Cageprisoners, defending Awlaki’s right, “not to be extra-judicially killed.”

     
  • abunoor 11:11 am on September 28, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: anwar al-awlaki, , , US government assasination of Muslims   

    Glenn Greenwald on Obama’s claim that Awlaki case should simply be dismissed on grounds of “state secrets:”

    Having debated him before, I genuinely didn’t think it was possible for any President to concoct an assertion of executive power and secrecy that would be excessive and alarming to David Rivkin, but Barack Obama managed to do that, too. Obama’s now asserting a power so radical — the right to kill American citizens and do so in total secrecy, beyond even the reach of the courts — that it’s “too harsh even for” one of the most far-right War on Terror cheerleading-lawyers in the nation. But that power is certainly not “too harsh” for the kind-hearted Constitutional Scholar we elected as President, nor for his hordes of all-justifying supporters soon to place themselves to the right of David Rivkin as they explain why this is all perfectly justified. One other thing, as always: vote Democrat, because the Republicans are scary

     
    • Dan 1:53 pm on September 28, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      So abu noor, what’s wrong with having a POS like Anwar al-Awlaki murdered? You think he’s a good role model for American Muslims, in spite of the fact that he supported the attempted bombing of an airliner by Umar Abdulmutallab?

      • Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 2:58 pm on September 28, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Shockingly enough Dan, no I don’t think the President, the U.S. government, or anyone else has the right to go around killing whomever they claim, rightly or wrongly, to be a “POS”

        Qu’ran 5:8 O you who believe! Stand out firmly for Allah and be just witnesses and let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety, and fear Allah. Verily, Allah is Well-Acquainted with what you do.

        • MikeLyons 6:27 pm on September 28, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Letting a President, any President of any party, have the power of assassinating an American citizen is a dangerous precedent that I am solidly against.

          Alwaki may be deserving of a dirt nap but it shouldn’t be up to a Presidential order

        • Dan 6:31 pm on September 28, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          So by that token, you agree that the ‘shariat’-obsessed wackos who bomb and murder innocent civilians fall under that as well right? I mean I’m sure you also don’t find it acceptable by Anwar al-Awlaki to call for the murder of Molly Norris, right? Or is that okay since after all, he is a Muslim and we shouldn’t be criticizing those who want to impose Islam forcibly throughout the world /sarcasm

          Because most conservative Muslims often turn a blind eye to the crimes of Islamists as long as Shariah is established.

          • shams 6:52 pm on September 28, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

            al-Awlaki is not a muslim if he calls for the deaths of the innocent.
            He is, however, a US citizen and has US citizen rights.

          • Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 8:22 am on September 29, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

            Dan, I’m not a “conservative” anything. Other than that, you prove yourself a waste of time to respond to.

          • shams 9:10 am on September 29, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

            if the US wants to assassinate US citizens, it should first strip them of citizenship.

            • Dan 3:08 pm on September 29, 2010 Permalink

              So why hasn’t Anwar Al-Awlaki renounced his US citizenship already?

              Abu Noor, don’t get offended just because you have a soft spot for this man. I guess in your mind any Salafi is a pious man even if he supports blowing up airliners. What a joke. Always condemning Obama for this, yet turning a blind eye to his call to murder Molly Norris. How’s that for hypocrisy coming from you?

            • Hitch 3:34 pm on September 29, 2010 Permalink

              Defending a person’s constitutional’s rights (here the 5th Amendment specifically) has nothing to do with having any affection for that person.

              That you imply otherwise reflects poorly on you, not on others.

            • Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 11:09 am on September 30, 2010 Permalink

              Dan, you simply have no idea what you are talking about, when it comes to me at least, among I’m sure many other topics.

              Believe me there are interesting questions to discuss here, and there are most certainly countless legitimate criticisms one could make of myself, including ones of hypocrisy, but the specific arguments you usually make are just made up and false. Which is why I said it’s not worth responding to you. It’s too bad, really, becasue I actually enjoy interacting with serious people who disagree with me.

              Peace.

            • shams 6:47 pm on September 30, 2010 Permalink

              does that include me?
              /hopes silently

            • Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 6:30 am on October 1, 2010 Permalink

              Most of the time, Shams

  • abunoor 1:25 pm on August 30, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: al-Awlaki, , anwar al-awlaki, Aulaqi, , ,   

    The ACLU and CCR have filed Al-Aulaqi v. Obama. Glenn Greenwald has a post on the lawsuit here.

     
  • abunoor 9:03 am on August 3, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , anwar al-awlaki, Center for Constitutional Rights   

    The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) have filed suit on their own behalves arguing that the attempt by the Obama Administration to make it illegal for any lawyer to represent Anwar al-Awlaki without U.S. government permission is unconstitutional. The organizations seek, once obtaining a ruling granting them permission to represent al-Awlaki, to take legal steps to enjoin the Obama administration from seeking to kill al-Awlaki without legal process.

    As the ACLU/CCR Brief puts it: “The notion that the government can compel a citizen to seek its permission before challenging the constitutionality of its actions in court is wholly foreign to our constitutional system” and “[a]s non-profit organizations dedicated to protecting civil liberties and human rights, Plaintiffs have a First Amendment right to represent clients in litigation consistent with their organizational missions.” The Brief also argues that it is a violation of Separation of Powers to allow the Executive Branch to determine in its sole discretion who can and cannot appear in and have access to a federal court.

    Today’s lawsuit seeks, on an emergency basis, an Order declaring the Treasury Department’s asserted power to be without statutory authority and/or in violation of the U.S. Constitution, and to bar the U.S. Government from imposing any penalties whatsoever (criminal or otherwise) on the ACLU and CCR for providing legal representation to Awlaki. Assuming the court issues such an order, the next step will be for a lawsuit to be quickly filed on Awlaki’s behalf to enjoin his targeted assassination.

     
  • mirelle 6:40 pm on July 12, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: anwar al-awlaki,   

    The female Seattle cartoonist who suggested the “Draw Muhammad Day” has been put on a hit list by Anwar al-Awlaki. The threat was apparently in the recent alleged al-Qaeda English language publication called “Inspire.” (This magazine was issued last month, but the PDF was damaged and only the first three pages were viewable. That has apparently been fixed.) The FBI says this is a “very serious threat.”

     
  • mirelle 12:57 pm on May 23, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: , anwar al-awlaki,   

    Someone is really begging for martyrdom at the hands of a US drone missile, I think:

    CAIRO — An American-Yemeni cleric whose Internet sermons are believed to have helped inspire attacks on the U.S. has advocated the killing of American civilians in an al-Qaida video released Sunday.

    Anwar al-Awlaki has been singled out by U.S. officials as a key terrorist threat and has been added to the CIA’s list of targets for assassination despite his American citizenship. He is of particular concern because he is one of the few English-speaking radical clerics able to explain to young Muslims in America and other Western countries the philosophy of violent jihad.

     
    • aziz 8:54 am on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      intended as a serious question: does the US Constitution actually forbid killing citizens without trial in any circumstance?

      i think once you letthe state kill citizens in any scenario – even a legal trial – youve opened the door to this. so i find most of the hand wringing unpersuasive. I find it absurd to be against killing by the State under scenario A but not scenario B.

      • Abu Noor 9:13 am on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Aziz, this is one of the most baffling comments I’ve read in some time. If one can assess the death penalty after a trial in which one’s evidence of guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt according to the unanimous verdict of a jury of his or her peers at which he or she has the right to the assistance of counsel, the right to subpoena witnesses in his or her favor, the right to cross examine any witnesses against him or her, and then have a second phase of the trial after guilt has already been determined beyond a reasonable doubt to have a separate hearing at which the defendant can present any mitigating factors that argue against the death penalty…to say that there is no difference between that and the right to assasinate citizens at whim is just hard to get a handle on.

        I don’t know if you’re making some kind of fundamental anti-death penalty argument or some kind of philosophical anarchist position that any impositionof government power, whether by a absolute dictator or a functioning criminal justice system are all fundamentally the same and equally unjustifiable.

        If I actually thought that you were making any of the above, I might be somewhat sympathetic but based on your past opinions, I doubt that’s the case so I guess you’re just basically saying you don’t care much about al-Awlaki.

        As I said, quite a baffling comment.

        • aziz 9:36 am on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          this goes back to an earler argument and thread we had here at TI a while back. let me find the thread and you will see why I am striongly opposed to the State having teh jurisdiction over human life, and why I believe that having conceded that jurisdiction, we are essentially already lost, to an deep enough extent that extrajudicial killing is essentially as irrelevant as not wearing seatbelts has to drunk driving.

          • Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 10:15 am on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

            Aziz, I would say most of the people who are against extrajudicial killing are probably also against the death penalty, certainly as it is applied in the U.S. today, so even in your view, they are not being inconsistent.

            I have to say that if anyone takes a close look at the criminal justice system in this country, one will observe an enormous amount of troubling injustice (and it is worse in many other countries I know)…I for one think an undue emphasis is put only on the death penalty and the other injustices are too often ignored.

            I still find it hard to see how any of this leads to one being less concerned about claims by the state that the protections that are written into the constitution can be thrown out the window completely.

            • aziz 11:23 am on May 24, 2010 Permalink

              I would say most of the people who are against extrajudicial killing are probably also against the death penalty,

              woah, Anu Noor. thats demonstrably not true. Ive started plenty of threads at dkos and ther places where theres plenty of people who support one and not the other.

              You have to take my argument on its merits, anyway. Even if you were right it would be irrelevant.

            • Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 11:33 am on May 24, 2010 Permalink

              And what is your argument Aziz? Really I am at an absolute loss. As long as a society has the death penalty then any other discussion about civil liberties or individual rights whatsoever is just unpersuasive handwringing?

              Aziz, I’m not going to defend the death penalty in the U.S. so I fear my participation in this thread is a waste of time, but really I am more and more confused about what your point is.

              So your position is that if one supports the death penalty after a trial with all the protections I’ve mentioned above, then one has to support assasination on demand? That’s just silly. Does that mean if you believe the constitution allows imprisoning people after trial and conviction that you have to be in favor of kidnapping as well.

            • aziz 11:53 am on May 24, 2010 Permalink

              So your position is that if one supports the death penalty after a trial with all the protections I’ve mentioned above, then one has to support assasination on demand? That’s just silly. Does that mean if you believe the constitution allows imprisoning people after trial and conviction that you have to be in favor of kidnapping as well?

              this is a not-unexpected rhetorical gambit that indicates I am still failing to explain my position here. I get this exact same question a lot. This is not what I am arguing at all.

              my position is that the defense against extrajudicial killings must be rooted in something more than “heres a line that we drew arbitrarily; dont cross it”

              The bottom line is that you draw a line: no killing of citizens ever! well, ok if theres a jury. Because juries are magical. I too am drawing a line: no killing of citizens ever! well, ok if its a citizen in a foreign country, actively plotting thd eath of other fellow xitizens, and essentially unreachable by the normal judicial system because he is being sheltered by genuine enemy combatants who do not observe any of the norms of warfare or international law.

              I see my position as more defensible. You will now of course assert that there is a slippery slope, but Obama has not issued death warrants for his political critics. He hasnt even signed death warrants for actual criminals operating on american soil. The case of Awlaki is sufficiently an outlier that i there’s a slope here, it’s got a pretty negligible grade. And in fact you’re on far steeper a slope because you’ve already granted that the state can kill indiscriminately. I am arguing for far more, not less, restrictions on killing of citizens than you are. Which is fine! we can agree to disagree.

              ==

              as an aside, there is a need for we, muslim Americans, to come up with a less schizophrenic approach to these issues – preferably grounded in hadith and Islamic jurisprudence – than just blindly following Progressives around.

            • Abu Noor Al-Irlandee 12:03 pm on May 24, 2010 Permalink

              Aziz,

              Absolutely NO WHERE in this thread have I stated my support for the imposition of the death penalty by the U.S.

              I have stated that the demand for people to have all the rights the constitution affords to those accused of crimes by the government cannot be waved away by reference to the existence of the death penalty regardless of one’s position on the death penalty.

      • abunoor 12:39 pm on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Aziz,

        At least I understand better what you are saying now. I think it is a separate issue from the topic at hand, however.

        As to your call for American Muslims to develop positions on American legal and political issues that are based in Qur’an and Sunnah, I would tend to sympathize with you but I think it is an immense project, and to be honest I don’t think it is one that has much chance of success.

        I’ll think about this however, I am trying to conceptualize a coherent response to where the community is now. To be honest, I believe the ship has already sailed on preserving a legitimate and full commitment to the sacred sources for Muslims in the west, but nothing is forever and even if I’m a lone voice in the wilderness I want to be saying something coherent.

      • abd-ul-satya 6:43 pm on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        “does the US Constitution actually forbid killing citizens without trial in any circumstance?”

        Yes. Article I, Section 12 prohibits Congress from declaring anyone guilty of a crime without a trial. The 10th Amendment prohibits Congress from doing anything that it is not specifically empowered to do. There’s certainly nothing in the Constitution that specifically authorises the federal government to go around killing American citizens outside of the context of criminal law.

        The 14th Amendment also guarantees that citizens cannot be deprived of their lives without due process of law, but it only limits states in this regard.

    • Abu Noor 9:17 am on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      I think you should go back to saying that al-Awlaki is a coward. Or saying that those thought to be “terrorists” should have their citizenship stripped and then of course the U.S. can do whatever it wants to people who are not citizens.

      Those arguments don’t make any sense either but at least those are the agreed upon talking points.

      • Shams al-Nahar 9:20 am on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        as long as al-Awlaki is a citizen he is entitled to due process.
        i don’t see a debate.
        If Obama sanctioned an assassination on an american citizen, he is just wrong.

        • mirelle 3:31 pm on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          I think that’s pretty much where I’m at too.

        • abd-ul-satya 6:53 pm on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Actually, Article I, Section 12 doesn’t say anything about citizens. Therefore, the federal government may not kill anyone except as a result of a criminal trial or during a bona fide military action. Of course, it’s not always clear what’s bona fide and what isn’t, and that is exactly the loophole that the Bush administration specialised in abusing.

      • aziz 9:38 am on May 24, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

  • mirelle 10:45 am on May 14, 2010 Permalink
    Tags: anwar al-awlaki,   

    And in the “Gee, Ya Think?” department, we have this: U.S. Approval of Killing Cleric Causes Unease (about Anwar al-Awlaki). You know, I thought the US was a country of laws, not of men.

     
    • abunoor 11:03 am on May 14, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Justification for murder in the Obama Administration:

      Administration officials take the view that no legal or constitutional rights can protect Mr. Awlaki, a charismatic preacher who has said it is a religious duty to attack the United States and who the C.I.A. believes is actively plotting violence. The attempted bombing of Times Square on May 1 is the latest of more than a dozen terrorist plots in the West that investigators believe were inspired in part by Mr. Awlaki’s rhetoric.

    • abunoor 11:05 am on May 14, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Bush Admin: You don’t want the smoking gun to come in the form of a mushroom cloud.

      Obama Admin (on why they can’t seek to arrest Awlaki if they have proof of crimes): “What do you do cover your ears and wait for a truly devastating explosion in Times Square?”

    • shams 11:42 am on May 14, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      Cole is pissed off at least.
      here’s my fireflied comment.
      well….i’ve read some of al-Awlaki’s speechifying, and i say some of the same things.
      like…..until America acknowledges responsibility for our intransigent bone-headed evangelical christofascist foreign meddling the terrorism and asymetrical warfare in MENA simply aren’t going to stop.
      IOW, we built the Reaver factory and continue to supply it with spare parts.
      Should I be assassinated by my country for speaking the truth?

    • ghabuntu 11:57 am on May 14, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

      “…who has said it is a religious duty to attack the United States” Morons like that are a disgrace to Allah SWtT, the Glorious Qur’an, the Holy Prophet and all the great Ulama of Islam. Such people only issue such stupid and baseless “fatwas” based on their nafs, seeking some worldly favor or stature. May Allah SWT save Islam and the unsuspecting Muslim Umma from the Ulama’e Soo’ of today.

      • shams 12:50 pm on May 14, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        yah, hes schtoopid, but hes still a citizen.
        this about ‘merican law.
        not al-Islam a’tall.

      • abunoor 3:34 pm on May 14, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        I may agree with much of what you say about some particular statements of al-Awlaki, but I find the claim that he is seeking some worldly benefit with his opinions hard to fathom. He has been imprisoned, tortured and now lives on the run in Yemen (although apparently with some tribal support) with a bounty on his head from the most powerful military force in the world.

        If he would not have expressed some opinions, he could be a very popular imam living comfortably in a wealthy suburb of the United States and giving sermons in the U.S. capitol, as he had in the past…so no, I don’t see how one can say he is doing it for worldly gain.

        • shams 10:04 am on May 15, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          well…essentially Al-Awlaki just got targetted for assassination because of hate-speech. I guess its ok wid me if America collectively wants to do that, but can we please also whack Beck, Malkin, Perry, Coulter, Limbaugh, Palin and DeMint for similiar treasonous and seditious hate speech?
          consistancy uber alles. ;)

      • thabet 10:42 pm on May 14, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

        Yeah, I have to agree with Abu Noor here.

        AFAIK, ‘ulama-e-soo‘ is a charge usually directed at Muslim scholars who ingratiate themselves with worldly powers. Whatever else Al-Awlaki may be, I don’t think he falls into that category.

        • Pretty Pink Unicorns 1:24 pm on May 15, 2010 Permalink | Log in to Reply

          Well, he ain’t an Alim-e Haqq.

          But then again black-and-white colorings are not a thing I like to make. It encourages a certain unpleasant state of mind that ends up justifying violence…

c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel