drones is about? Why is the Obama Administration being so coy about this?

Or that those drone strikes were illegal under these standards?

Ibrahim al-Banna, also engaged in combat. He was not the target sought, but his death was senseless and horrible.

or so other people who happened to be there - in our part of town, we call that an act of terrorism.

More on this here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2423716

"Al-Awlaki was a propagandist and double-agent."

...how exactly does that change anything: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2424117

You're implying that he was a CIA agent and a terrorist.

Last edited Sun Mar 10, 2013, 09:09 AM - Edit history (1)

It's sort of a chicken or egg question:

Was he an AQ propaganda guy who got turned, or a US operative who went bad, or an agent in place for too long?

The only thing we know about al-Alwaki is he really was is a "catch and release" who we had in custody after 9/11 and returned to the wild. If you don't believe me, look it up. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=274634&mesg_id=278267

"It's sort of a chicken or egg question:

Was he an AQ propaganda guy who got turned, or a US operative who went bad, or an agent in place for too long?"

...the one consistent there that isn't speculation is that he was a terrorist and a traitor.

The circumstantial evidence indicates he worked both sides, and that we have long watched his every step, read every email, knew who he met. He was unquestionably the communications node in every major AQ terrorism operation against the US since 9/11.

Why kill him now? Why kill his minor child? Just a bit of housecleaning?

"The circumstantial evidence indicates he worked both sides, and that we have long watched his every step, read every email, knew who he met. He was unquestionably the communications node in every major AQ terrorism operation against the US since 9/11."

...to engage in a debate about your own speculation. I mean, you acknowledge that he was a terrorist and a traitor, but that shouldn't matter because you think he was a CIA agent?

What changed? Policy, I think. The term used was a "security review" following the so-called Underwear Bomb Plot. See, http://travel.state.gov/law/legal/testimony/testimony_4635.html

And, that goes back to two proximate terrorist attacks that involved persons who had contact with al-Awlaki, or those who appeared to be immediately around him. The Fort Hood shooting was a mass murder that took place on November 5, 2009, and then there was the highly untidy, nearly botched Underwear Bomber incident at Xmas 2009, which blew the lid off the operation, and seemed to really shake things up. That was followed for emphasis by the attempted car bombing of Times Square on May 1, 2010.

But, it was the Christmas Plot over Detroit that appears to have led to the White House decision to refocus counter-terrorism operations away from the use of agents provocateur and the attendant limitation of damage strategy (dud bombs) toward outright targeted killing of al-Alwaki. An article in today's NYT confirms that the President stepped in to change policy after the operation was blown after other passengers noticed the bomb-wearer, a Nigerian student, was assisted through Airport Security in Amsterdam by a well-dressed man. The fact that he was allowed on the plane, even though his name appeared in the look-out book, and was able to partially detonate the liquid explosives in his seat as the airliner approached Detroit was too much. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?google_editors_picks=true&_r=0

"No U.S. citizen has ever been on the CIA's target list, which mainly names al-Qaida leaders, including Osama bin Laden, according to current and former U.S. officials. But that is expected to change as CIA analysts compile a case against a Muslim cleric who was born in New Mexico but now resides in Yemen. "

...the hyperspeculation and attempts to rewrite history is a big part of the problem with this debate.

You and others have refuted the point made in the article yourself: "B.S. - A US Citizen was the first person killed by a Predator."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7611294#7611325

It's a point I've been trying to make, but it's often ignored.

Anwar al-Awlaki vs. Kamal Derwish
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x787226

"President Bill Clinton lifted the ban on CIA assassinations in 1998"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022426835

This is a debate that must be had, but it does no one any good to try to rewrite history. It's important to focus on the relevant questions: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022482960#post2

It's inappropriate and unconstitutional to intentionally target a US Citizen anywhere, inside or outside US territory, except in cases of clear, imminent threat.

The filibuster was valuable only to the extent that it focused wider attention on the issue; and it may have done as much damage as good, as it apparently had the effect of "poisoning the well" on the policy for many liberals. That's really a dreadful outcome, as now it is Democrats who appear to have embraced a cornerstone of the "Bush Doctrine" and are now attempting to justify targeted killings of Americans.

I'd much rather it was Senator Leahy who had raised a real public fuss over the true issues at stake, and not the diluted version offered by the junior pseudo-libertarian from Kentucky.

Wouldn't be the first time I've been disappointed.

I'm sure that kind of stuff happens but you're just guessing.

Reality is actually far stranger and more interesting than anything Ian Fleming ever wrote or Albert Broccoli put on the big screen.

To someone who's been studying these things for three decades, al-Awlaki appears to be a classic double-agent. He's been at the center of too many of these incidents for too long -- al-Alwaki was the chaperone for the Flt. 77 hijackers for many months after the CIA CounterTerrorism Center (CTC) tracked them from an AQ planning summit in Malaysia and "lost track" of them after they entered the US in January 2000. He then took care of al-Midhar and al-Hazmi, and they followed him from San Diego to Northern Virginia, and they met with the other principal 9/11 hijackers -- yet the Feds let him go after 9/11 and again, a second time, after he was arrested upon returning to the US a couple years after 9/11.

He was also in contact with the Shoe Bomber, the Ft. Hood killer, and the Underwear Bomber, and the was also linked to the attempted bombing of Times Square and the toner cartrage plot to bring down a FedEx cargo plane.

The only question is how witting his role was as the spider at the center of the CIA (and/or) DIA and FBI CT web(s). Mike Scheuer, the head of the CIA CTC that Tenet replaced in 1999 with his own guys, Cofer Black and Rich Blee (who ordered the FBI liaison officer at CTC to withhold a warning cable that the Flt. 77 hijackers had entered the US), has said so himself. See, below.

Loyal partisans should never ask...but the kind of questions responsible citizens should ask.

"Shh...those are the kind of questions Loyal partisans should never ask...but the kind of questions responsible citizens should ask. "

...nice straw man there. I suppose pretending that people are afraid of "questions" is a good diversionary tactic for anyone who doesn't want to engage in an actual discussion.

Note, there is a response to the poster's comment, and I concur.

My post was very detailed on the topic of the hypothetical that conflates the U.S. with Afghanistan. Still, I'm trying to understand what critics of the President's drone policy are really after: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022480661

Have a good day.

Snide remarks should be able to withstand criticism.

It's an ugly trait to assign unsavory motives to those you disagree with.

On three threads in a row you've chimed in to take a swipe at this poster without offering anything other than the ugliness.

Since this poster seems almost unflappable, may I suggest it is you that has looked small and petty in these instances? Rather than tearing down this poster it seems you are just lowering others estimation of you.

"She/he is known for the blue links of death and posting always in defense of the Obama administration regardless, with one exception. That one was so shocking it was noted."

Maybe you should quit substituting personal attacks for discussion. It makes one look silly.

In the ignore list too, but the both of you are way too entertaining and textbook as to how propaganda works.

To be called a personal attack I am sure

But I've gotta say I'm with you on this drone issue, for several reasons.

First, what is it that makes the pearl-clutchers so freaked out about DRONES that they are terrified one is going to be lighting up Houston or L.A. with Hellfire missiles? Hell, if the government -- whether this Administration or the preceding one -- wanted somebody dead, they'd probably just find a bit more discrete way of doing it.

Second, any administration that actually lit up a Houston cafe with a Hellfire would be asking for a world of trouble. I don't even think George Bush would have done that. President Obama certainly wouldn't. It would be far, far too inefficient. Would either one of them use that against, say, a militia training camp up in the woods that was plotting another Okahoma City massacre? Perhaps. But the likelihood is that we'd never know about it.

Frankly, I think some people are worrying a little too much about this.



Bake

Agree, the premise is absurd. The constant asking for an answer to a hypothetical question and then, as the OP article does, stating that it's hypothetical and unlikely is ridiculous. Put another way: He said "no" and we know it's "no," but why can't he give us some hypothetical scenarios in which that "no" would be "yes."

The 'Why?' gambit

Go get me 'name of book'

Why?

Because I need it

Why?

Its part of my homework

Why?

The teacher told us to write about it.

Why?

*
Guaranteed to drive people up the wall after some time(though I often wondered why so many actually kept answering the why's time and time and time again)

No matter what statements his Administration makes, there are some who will pop up and say, over and over again, "What do you mean by that?"

And when you get an answer to that question, another level is breached. "Okay but what do you mean by that?"

It's really fucking ridiculous.

I personally demanded far more accountability from Bush, and I feel seriously compromised just being a part of the whole political charade in this country.

com·bat [v. kuhm-bat, kom-bat, kuhm-; n. kom-bat, kuhm-] Show IPA verb, com·bat·ed, com·bat·ing or ( especially British ) com·bat·ted, com·bat·ting, noun
verb (used with object)
1.
to fight or contend against; oppose vigorously: to combat crime.
verb (used without object)
2.
to battle; contend: to combat with disease.
noun
3.
Military . active, armed fighting with enemy forces.

at the time and its meaning is as fluid as unfrozen water. See, that was easy.

They would have to be or it makes no sense.

Also all combatants are engaged in combat by definition.

So it's just anybody deemed an enemy combatant.