PDA

View Full Version : Prominent US-born al-Qaida cleric killed in Yemen



Teh One Who Knocks
09-30-2011, 11:23 AM
By AHMED AL-HAJ, Associated Press


http://i.imgur.com/suW3D.jpg

SANAA, Yemen – Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S.-born Islamic militant cleric who became a prominent figure in al-Qaida's most active branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits to carry out attacks in the United States, was killed Friday in the mountains of Yemen, American and Yemeni officials said.

The Yemeni government and Defense Ministry announced al-Awlaki's death, but gave no details. A senior U.S. official said American intelligence supports the claim that he had been killed. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.

Yemeni security officials and local tribal leaders said the was killed in an airstrike on his convoy that they believed was carried out by the Americans. They said pilotless drones had been seen over the area in previous days.

Al-Awlaki would be the most prominent al-Qaida figure to be killed since Osama bin Laden's death in a U.S. raid in Pakistan in May. In July, U.S. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta said the Yemeni-American was a priority target alongside Ayman al-Zawahri, bin Laden's successor as the terror network's leader.

The 40-year-old al-Awlaki had been in the U.S. crosshairs since his killing was approved by President Barack Obama in April 2010 — making him the first American placed on the CIA "kill or capture" list. At least twice, airstrikes were called in on locations in Yemen where al-Awlaki was suspected of being, but he wasn't harmed.

Al-Awlaki, born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents, was believed to be key in turning al-Qaida's affiliate in Yemen into what American officials have called the most significant and immediate threat to the Untied States. The branch, led by a Yemeni militant named Nasser al-Wahishi, plotted several failed attacks on U.S. soil — the botched Christmas 2009 attempt to blow up an American airliner heading to Detroit and a foiled 2010 attempt to main explosives to Chicago.

Known as an eloquent preacher who spread English-language sermons on the internet calling for "holy war" against the United States, al-Awlaki's role was to inspire and — it is believed — even directly recruit militants to carry out attacks.

U.S. officials believe he went beyond just being an inspiring spiritual leader to become involved in operational planning for al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, as the Yemen branch is called. Yemeni officials have said al-Awlaki had contacts with Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the accused would-be Christmas plane bomber, who was in Yemen in 2009. They say the believe al-Awlaki met with the 23-year-old Nigerian, along with other al-Qaida leaders, in al-Qaida strongholds in the country in the weeks before the failed bombing.

In New York, the Pakistani-American man who pleaded guilty to the May 2010 Times Square car bombing attempt told interrogators he was "inspired" by al-Awlaki after making contact over the Internet.

Al-Awlaki also exchanged up to 20 emails with U.S. Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, alleged killer of 13 people in the Nov. 5, 2009, rampage at Fort Hood. Hasan initiated the contacts, drawn by al-Awlaki's Internet sermons, and approached him for religious advice.

Al-Awlaki has said he didn't tell Hasan to carry out the shootings, but he later praised Hasan as a "hero" on his Web site for killing American soldiers who would be heading for Afghanistan or Iraq to fight Muslims. The cleric similarly said Abdulmutallab was his "student" but said he never told him to carry out the airline attack.

In a statement, the Yemeni government said al-Awlaki was "targeted and killed" 5 miles (8 kilometers) from the town of Khashef in the Province of al-Jawf. The town is located 87 miles (140 kilometers) east of the capital Sanaa.

The statement says the operation was launched on Friday around 9:55 a.m. It gave no other details.

The Yemeni Defense Ministry also reported the death, without elaborating, in a mobile phone SMS message.

Local tribal and security officials said al-Awlaki was travelling in a two-car convoy with two other al-Qaida in Yemen operatives from al-Jawf to neighboring Marib province when they were hit. They said the other two operatives were also believed dead. They spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk to the press.

Yemen, the Arab world's most impoverished nation, has become a haven for hundreds of al-Qaida militants. The United States has been deeply concerned that militants will take advantage of the country's political turmoil to strengthen their positions. In recent months, militants have seized control of several cities in Yemen's south.

A previous attack against al-Awlaki on May 5, shortly after the May raid that killed Osama bin Laden, was carried out by a combination of U.S. drones and jets.

The operation was run by the U.S. military's elite counterterrorism unit, the Joint Special Operations Command — the same unit that got bin Laden. JSOC has worked closely with Yemeni counterterrorism forces for years, in the fight against al-Qaida.

Top U.S. counterterrorism adviser John Brennan says such cooperation with Yemen has improved since the political unrest there. Brennan said the Yemenis have been more willing to share information about the location of al-Qaida targets, as a way to fight the Yemeni branch challenging them for power. Other U.S. officials say the Yemenis have also allowed the U.S. to fly more armed drone and aircraft missions over its territory than ever previously, trying to use U.S. military power to stay in power. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.

beowulf
09-30-2011, 08:37 PM
:tup: works for me

Teh One Who Knocks
09-30-2011, 10:39 PM
There are liberals (including Ron Paul) all over all the news networks whining that it was illegal to just take this guy out :roll:

FBD
10-01-2011, 12:59 PM
sorry bub, you go to war against the USA, we put you in your place. there is a bit of a matter of constitutionality, but this is killing someone who is conducting warlike operations against the country. he'd have been picked up by now if he were here and we could have given him his due process, but that wasnt an option.

beowulf
10-01-2011, 01:54 PM
satisfying but not as satisfying as knowing some guy in black has shown him the rude end of a 9mm before slotting the twat with a few rounds in the head http://i51.tinypic.com/dmwd5k.jpg

samarchepas
10-01-2011, 02:12 PM
satisfying but not as satisfying as knowing some guy in black has shown him the rude end of a 9mm before slotting the twat with a few rounds in the head http://i51.tinypic.com/dmwd5k.jpg

It was a drone that killed him....not some guy in black with a 9mm ;) (a Missile is more effective :lol: )

beowulf
10-01-2011, 03:33 PM
It was a drone that killed him....not some guy in black with a 9mm ;) (a Missile is more effective :lol: )

thats what i mean.......a drone is an easy way to get him.......up close and personal is more satisfying

FBD
10-01-2011, 04:56 PM
it still would have been proper is he was at least tried in absentia first before it was "deemed"

Teh One Who Knocks
10-01-2011, 06:06 PM
it still would have been proper is he was at least tried in absentia first before it was "deemed"

So you're the one advising Eric Holder I see :-k

Teh One Who Knocks
10-01-2011, 06:58 PM
thats what i mean.......a drone is an easy way to get him.......up close and personal is more satisfying

I can kinda go either way on that...yeah, it would be nice to see the fear in their face just before they get a bullet in the forehead, but it is also kinda cool knowing that they were just kinda sitting there, whether in a building or in a vehicle, and knowing they never heard anything and then they were just suddenly in a million pieces :lol:

http://i.imgur.com/LePmU.jpg

FBD
10-02-2011, 03:52 PM
So you're the one advising Eric Holder I see :-k

if I were advising him, it would involve a razor and his wrist :razz:

that doesnt get around the fact that the proper way to do this would have been to try the bastid, even if it was a military court, due process is due process, it wasnt followed. how else ya want me to respond? sure the sumbich needed a rocket up his rear, but you cant just have a gov lawyer say "we'd be able to get this won no problem, so let's just proceed since its a slam dunk anyway."

I know, I know...its just odd when deep and I agree on something :lol: I think RP could have articulated a little better and sounded like less of a quack, questioning operational involvement and such, but the core of what he said is correct.

Godfather
10-02-2011, 06:10 PM
"Obama is, in short, the Rambo of drone warfare and so it is not fair to accuse him of being soft on terrorists."

-Peter Feaver



:lol: True or not, that quote is awesome

Acid Trip
10-03-2011, 04:29 PM
More on this story. Apparently the Justice Department sent a secret memo to the Obama administration authorizing them to kill him.

The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans

The Department of Justice produced it prior to the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. But they won't release it.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/politics/obama%20fullness%20plane.jpg

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/

Outside the U.S. government, President Obama's order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. "The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials," the newspaper reported. "The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said."

Isn't that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It's secret. Classified. Information that the public isn't permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.

Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they're asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn't a military secret. It isn't an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress' post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, "The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."

Obama hasn't just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set. It's time for the president who promised to create "a White House that's more transparent and accountable than anything we've seen before" to release the DOJ memo. As David Shipler writes, "The legal questions are far from clearcut, and the country needs to have this difficult discussion." And then there's the fact that "a good many Obama supporters thought that secret legal opinions by the Justice Department -- rationalizing torture and domestic military arrests, for example -- had gone out the door along with the Bush administration," he adds. "But now comes a momentous change in policy with serious implications for the Constitution's restraint on executive power, and Obama refuses to allow his lawyers' arguments to be laid out on the table for the American public to examine." What doesn't he want to get out?

FBD
10-03-2011, 04:54 PM
sure, sure...its right next to the secret memo saying "there is no case against the black panthers, we'd best drop it immediately" :lol:

circa 2007
http://biggovernment.com/files/2011/10/zulu.jpg

http://biggovernment.com/files/2011/10/obama.jpg

Teh One Who Knocks
10-03-2011, 05:38 PM
if I were advising him, it would involve a razor and his wrist :razz:

that doesnt get around the fact that the proper way to do this would have been to try the bastid, even if it was a military court, due process is due process, it wasnt followed. how else ya want me to respond? sure the sumbich needed a rocket up his rear, but you cant just have a gov lawyer say "we'd be able to get this won no problem, so let's just proceed since its a slam dunk anyway."

I know, I know...its just odd when deep and I agree on something :lol: I think RP could have articulated a little better and sounded like less of a quack, questioning operational involvement and such, but the core of what he said is correct.

Dude, you want to bring an enemy combatant back to the US and put him on trial....you are definitely advising Eric Holder :nono:

As I stated in another thread, the day you declare war against the United States is the day you give up your rights as a citizen of this country. You can't advocate the death of Americans, recruit people to kill Americans, and help plan the attacks to kill Americans and then expect to hide behind the Constitution.

FBD
10-03-2011, 09:22 PM
ah, okay...you're just extrapolating my position, I was wondering how the heck you were making that equivalence :lol:

my point was simply that if you are going to do such things as
-strip citizenship
-kill motherfuckers with drones

if they are *right now* afforded constitutional protections, those need to be addressed (e.g. via trying in absentia in a military court or some other formal happening) before you can just strip citizenship and kill mofos.

I dont want to bring that sumbich here. We can "invite him here for his trial," since he is technically due one, but if he doesnt show up then that shouldnt be any reason not to proceed. This is of course quite different than bringing a non citizen enemy combatant to NYC for a civilian trial.