Rebane's Ruminations
October 2011
S M T W T F S
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  

ARCHIVES


OUR LINKS


YubaNet
White House Blog
Watts Up With That?
The Union
Sierra Thread
RL “Bob” Crabb
Barry Pruett Blog

George Rebane

AlAwlaki A lot of people are hyper-ventilating about the CIA’s recent killing of a couple of prime ragheads, Al-Awlaki and his pal Samir Khan.  Both were US citizens when they died from a direct hit by a Hellfire missile.  Both spent a major part of their adult lives in the Al Qaida leadership planning and successfully goading other radical Muslims to murder innocent Americans.  President Obama took justifiable pride in terminating these two killers.

Al-Awlaki and Khan were long-time self-declared and confirmed enemies of western civilization, and everything we stand for.  They made war on us, and thus were enemy combatants active in a region rife with people like themselves.  Why these traitors were still US citizens is a question we can deal with another time.  But can the government actively pursue and kill people like these without violating some yet to be defined moral principles?  I would argue a definite yes.

The government daily pursues and purposely kills US citizens for cause and by mistake.  And these dead are pikers when compared with the likes of Al-Awlaki.  There is no moral outcry when a SWAT team breaks into the wrong civilian home and mows down its resident(s) – they got the wrong address, next case please.  We have no problem incinerating people by the dozens in places like Waco.  There is no special due process brought to bear for a police sniper to kill a pregnant woman whom he sees through a curtained window of a mountain cabin in Montana.  And these kinds of killings – on purpose, accidental, in error, you name it – go on constantly.  We do give a nod to the relatives, and say we’re sorry when “mistakes were made”.

But now to agonize over the morality of finally killing this Al Qaida sumbich, after publicly hunting him for the last several years, seems a little beyond ludicrous – ‘Oh crap, we finally hit what we’ve been shooting at; did we now do a bad thing?’  If it was wrong and immoral, why wasn’t the hunt for him called off when it was first launched and announced in all the media?  Wasn’t the hunt itself and the several missed attempts to nail him then already immoral?  Or is this anguish a part some other agenda that deserves our attention?

[3oct2011 update]  Berkeley law professor John Yoo writes in today’s WSJ that “American citizens have never been considered immune from lethal force when they take up arms against their country.”  In his piece ‘From Gettysburg to Anwar Al-Awlaki’ he takes a broader historical look at how our government has used lethal force against its citizens.

Posted in , , ,

103 responses to “Morally Killing Al-Awlaki (updated 3oct2011)”

  1. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Most Americans differentiate between killing a civilian and killing a enemy soldier. These Al Queda scumbags are soldiers of the terrorist state we are at war with. They declared war on us, we responded. I am never disappointed by the left’s angst over these actions. It is good theater. I can’t believe what they tell themselves in their interpretation of the Constitution. Obama and his minions deserve the credit for getting these head cutters of the planet.

    Like

  2. RL Crabb Avatar

    These scumsuckers are no different than the creep they just offed in Fort Bragg. Mad dogs and murderers deserve no mercy, or due process.

    Like

  3. bill tozer Avatar
    bill tozer

    Glad we fried the raghead with some good old Hellfire Missiles. The soldier who was selected to push the button is luckier than a lottery winner. Of course there might be some who disagree with incinerating the guy who planned the December underwear bombing attempt among other failed bumbling deeds designed to murder hundreds of women and children. Yep, NPR hailed the raghead as an articulate moderate who could bridge the gap between the extreme ragheads and the peace lovin’ Muslim. Yep, NPR will miss their golden boy. Did not the Fort Hood wacko exchange e-mails with AlAWAlAWAKI free free free before his rampage? But the football game is on, so talk to ya later.

    Like

  4. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Of course murderers deserve due process. So do traitors. Now, I am sympathetic to most of what Ron Paul actually said, but this isn’t an issue of civil or criminal law, it’s martial law.
    We do have a Constitution. He was a native born citizen of the USA. I don’t have a big problem with an assassination of an American directing foreign terrorist strikes against us, but some Constitutional window dressing would have been apropriate.

    Like

  5. Greg Goodknight Avatar
    Greg Goodknight

    Of course murderers deserve due process. So do traitors. Now, I am sympathetic to most of what Ron Paul actually said, but this isn’t an issue of civil or criminal law, it’s martial law.
    We do have a Constitution. He was a native born citizen of the USA. I don’t have a big problem with an assassination of an American directing foreign terrorist strikes against us, but some Constitutional window dressing would have been apropriate.

    Like

  6. Michael R. Kesti Avatar
    Michael R. Kesti

    I have little to no problem with this assassination, as they were self-proclaimed enemy combatants and I find that status trumps any notion of due process as traitors. They were enemies, ready, willing, and able to again attack.
    I am disappointed with you, though, George. I would think that you could do better than justifying military operations with SWAT teams’ errors. Further, dismissing qualms concerning the kill because there were none concerning the hunt seems non sequitur as the hunt was not the front page news that were the kills.

    Like

  7. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    What is the process for declaring someone a traitor or terrorist?
    I would really like to hear from our friends on the left.

    Like

  8. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    Buh-bye, Bin Ladin wannabes.
    Drones, coming to a neighborhood near you.

    Like

  9. Steve Frisch Avatar
    Steve Frisch

    Many of us who those here would define as ‘the left’ were profoundly disturbed by the events of Ruby Ridge and Waco. I, for one, believe both incidents were unwarranted, even if done legally, and do not support such an overwhelming use of force when alternatives existed. The key question is the one D. King asked, what is the process? The point that we do not know is profoundly disturbing. I am on record supporting the action in Yemen, but think the larger question is do we want any President to have the right to assassinate US citizens without a clear process for third party oversight? I consider such action a dangerous precedent if these questions are not answered.

    Like

  10. George Rebane Avatar

    Good points SteveF. Third party oversight for assassination of US citizens should clearly be exercised. However, it is not clear that it is not exercised at this time. What we need (and I think you imply with “clear process”) is that we citizens should know what such clear process is. But does that also mean that the exercise of the known clear process should also be publicized? I think not, else our ‘foreign policy’ alternatives become severely limited.
    In the case of Al-Awlaki the oversight of his killing was pretty much global, and most certainly the stated intention and repeated attempts were known to ALL branches and agencies of our government. This was not the case in Waco where even the press were kept almost a mile away from the scene of the slaughter.

    Like

  11. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    I don’t necessarily think the process relative to individuals or timing needs to be publicized. Certainly the people on the list does not need to be publicized. But the process, be it a panel of judges who can keep a secret with congressional oversight, or whatever, needs to be approved in advance. I agree that we certainly don’t want info out there that can compromise operations or people.
    I can honestly tell you George, that although I think both the Branch Davidians and Randy Weaver were dangerous in their own ways, and clearly breaking laws with dangerous intent, I think the appropriate response on both would have been to starve them out rather than shooting them. IN both cases they were in locations where they could be isolated and did not pose a serious threat to any innocent neighbors. But I don’t want to be an apologist for the Davidians either–it seems quite clear that they were ready to shoot, well equipped to shoot, and ready to die, and they are equally responsible for the horrendous loss of life.

    Like

  12. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    How is this different than the thousands of CIA sponsored assignations that have been an illegal part of our foreign policy options for the last 50 years?

    Like

  13. Barry Pruett Avatar

    In order to avoid this situation in the future and provide “due process” to the American-born terrorist, the USA could attempt to expatriate terrorist who are natural born citizens under 8 U.S.C. § 1481. While I am neither advocating for or against expatriation nor opining on the issue at all, after expatriation of the individual/terrorist the executive branch does not run into the problem of killing a US citizen, as the individual will have received due process prior to expatriation.
    Just a thought…

    Like

  14. Barry Pruett Avatar

    Below is a SURVEY OF THE LAW OF EXPATRIATION written by JOHN C. YOO
    former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Office of Legal Counsel…likely the same Yoo who is the Berkeley professor who wrote the article in the WSJ (I did not check).
    http://www.justice.gov/olc/expatriation.htm

    Like

  15. Mikey McD Avatar

    Branch Davidians in Waco TX were brutally murdered by an impatient, blood thirsty, incompetent and immoral FBI. The Branch Davidians were not a threat to society.

    Like

  16. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    Barry,
    Why not trial in absentia; If found guilty, the judge can sentence him to death by Hellfire, which sounds retro but isn’t.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHPVDRXKGfc

    Like

  17. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    The Branch Davidians were not a threat. The pastor was a little goofy but most survivalists have a anti-government bent anyway. Randy Weaver lost a son and a wife (and an unborn child) and was exonerated and then compensated by the Federal government. He was set up on a weapons charge by the Feds. They were completely at fault. The point though is what if we have a President that is a bloodthirsty SOB and willy-nilly decides to exercise assassination. I seem to recall a Executive order forbidding assassination of foreign leaders but am unfamiliar with the protocol on a terrorist American soldier. Clinton wrung his hands and Sandy Berger decided not to shoot Osama when he was in the crosshairs for fear of legal issues. Perhaps there is a policy we all don’t know about that was formulated and vetted by the lawyers to make sure Obama is not tried for murder or war crimes. My guess is there is. It is too risky in our nation of laws to not have one to protect this kind of decision.

    Like

  18. Brad Croul Avatar
    Brad Croul

    The FBI recently raided Gibson guitar works, armed with automatic weapons, looking for contraband wood products.
    The FBI ($%#@ing bunch of idiots)

    Like

  19. Ben Emery Avatar

    This sets a very dangerous precedent, an executive branch determining who is a terrorists and having the ability to end that persons life without due process, very dangerous. I don’t like it and our nation is in a steep decline where I can barely recognize it- Supreme Court decided elections, Pre-emptive strikes, torture, spying on its own citizens, the three ring circus at the airports, drones, secret prisons, everything about the patriot act, and so on…
    It is easy to hold convictions/ principles in good times but a true test of those convictions/ principles are during the hard times, we are failing as a nation.

    Like

  20. Mikey McD Avatar

    I can’t help but believe that foreign oil is once again to blame for a slippery slope moral (anti-constitutional) decision.
    #1- drill here, drill now (comes with lucky-strike extras like drastically reducing the cost of oil (COL) and increasing domestic employment, strengthening the US dollar, boosting exports, etc)
    #2- Any University with an ounce of Federal Funding and a science department must be focusing on alternative energy research(with exceptions such as cures for disease [ED treatments don’t count], etc)
    Notice that OBAMA WILL NOT SAY HE GAVE THE ORDER TO KILL HERE (SHORT VIDEO ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE): http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65035.html

    Like

  21. Ben Emery Avatar

    Mickey,
    I agree with you on the premise that oil has to do with our highly intensified police state and US military imperialism. It has more to do with pay back for big contributors to our political parties ensuring government policies and contracts guaranteeing massive profits.
    Are you proposing that the US could remove itself of the world market for oil? We consume somewhere in the pall park of 20 million barrels a day. Are you familiar with EROI? How do you account for the increasing cost of extraction?

    Like

  22. D. King Avatar
    D. King

    “#2- Any University with an ounce of Federal Funding and a science department must be focusing on alternative energy research(with exceptions such as cures for disease [ED treatments don’t count], etc)”
    Bingo Mikey.
    Don’t give up Ben!

    Like

  23. Mikey McD Avatar

    Ben, I concede that big corporations (HAL, etc) continue to use our dependence on foreign oil to push profits. However, I think the US could be a major player in the oil markets and crush the middle east terrorists by 1) adding supply to the market (from domestic wells) 2.) decreasing US and others’ demand for foreign oil. The LAW of supply and demand would drive prices down drastically.
    The cost of extraction would plummet once our oil service firms brought our infrastructure back to the US (currently they are ‘deployed’ around the globe).
    We could starve the beast(s) by drilling here, now.

    Like

  24. Mikey McD Avatar

    http://www.anwr.org/Background/How-much-oil-is-in-ANWR.php
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660227927/Oil-shale–Colorado-Utah-deposits-rival-OPEC-reserve.html
    “Colorado and Utah have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kuwait, Libya, Angola, Algeria, Indonesia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates combined…new methods to separate the oil from the stone for as little as $30 a barrel.”

    Like

  25. Ben Emery Avatar

    Again, I don’t think the argument is is there enough oil but how much it costs to extract and process it. This includes external costs as well. The easy oil is on the decline and the cost will only increase. We need to have a thousand sources of energy including fossil fuels. Diversity is security against a total collapse. I say save the high energy yielding fossil fuels for the import things that will help move us into the future while developing alternatives for the millions of little things.
    Basically it is a short term vs long term investment debate. Drill her Drill now is short term and investing in multiple different alternatives would be long term in my opinion. Until our elected officials muster up the strength to get the Fed and big banks under control our nation will continue to struggle. I say lets invest long term while this money supply issue plays itself out.

    Like

  26. Mikey McD Avatar

    “and the cost will only increase”- can you support this comment?
    By increasing supply and decreasing demand (on foreign oil) the price per barrell/gallon would drop.

    Like

  27. Mikey McD Avatar

    One day the market will require the use of fantasy energy. Until then we need to lead (NOW) us out of our dependence on the middle east… comes with lucky-strike extras like increasing domestic employment, strengthening the US dollar, boosting exports, decreasing inflation).
    As I stated earlier Universities (not the mention the Dept of Energy) need to help us by researching fantasy energy.

    Like

  28. Ben Emery Avatar

    “and the cost will only increase”
    The easy oil is gone, which means it will cost more energy to get the same amount of energy out. This equates to a cost increase.
    These two articles don’t agree on the definition of peak oil but do agree an increase in cost and energy for the future.
    http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-Issues/2010/1111/International-Energy-Agency-says-peak-oil-has-hit.-Crisis-averted
    http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=49&articleid=20100427_49_E2_Someti913433
    “The easy oil is gone,” Fattahi said. “Now we really have to get in there and bring the oil to the surface in a hard way.”

    Like

  29. Dixon Cruickshank Avatar
    Dixon Cruickshank

    Mr Emery that is what free markets are all about – when costs get too high they stop – when they become profitable again they drill – pretty simple stuff. In the past the Saudis would just turn the tap on and flood the market with cheap oil and crush our domestics – can’t do that anymore

    Like

  30. Mikey McD Avatar

    I don’t agree that the easy oil is gone. I do believe that the market would do more to suppress the price (and cost) of oil than wars and spotted owls.

    Like

  31. George Rebane Avatar

    Gentlemen, your arguments about ‘easy oil’, ‘peak oil’, and costs are all resolvable fantasies. Turn the oil companies loose, and see where they will produce and at what price they will sell. OPEC is not going to roll over and play dead, therefore, what our oil companies do is the real deal as opposed to ongoing debates about theories and ideologies.

    Like

  32. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Turn the oil companies loose?
    What does that mean George.

    Like

  33. George Rebane Avatar

    “Turn the oil companies loose …” = Let them extract American fossil fuels, create products that will sell, and allow them to compete on the world’s energy markets.

    Like

  34. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    What are the restrictions that are currently in place that prevent that from happening?

    Like

  35. Ben Emery Avatar

    Here is a 2009 Op Ed I wrote about some facts on oil drilling (just after the Drill Baby Drill campaign). What we have seen since is the democratic party loyalists are just as blind. Here is the entire piece.
    I say it all the time do not let my disapproval of the republican party fool you into my approval of the democratic party. Although not equal there is plenty of blame to go around.
    Why do Republicans vote against their own best interests?
    I’m neither Republican nor a Democratic Party member but can’t figure out the Republican Party’s loyalty to corporations and the dishonesty toward their constituents.
    But even more confusing is the loyalty members show to their disloyal party.
    The facts on oil and gas companies along with their land and drilling permits can be found at resourcescommittee.house.gov/images/Documents/drilling_facts.pdf.
    1) More than 91 million acres of public lands and sea have been leased.
    2) Only 23 million acres are being used, which leaves 68 million acres leased but not being used.
    3) More than 28,000 drilling permits have been given, and more than 10,000 aren’t being used.
    4) ANWR has less retainable oil than the National Petroleum Reserve of Alaska (NPRA), which has drilled wells (but capped) and has the largest known oil reserves on the outer continental shelf — and isn’t being developed.
    5) Government study shows that ANWR, if drilling started there today, wouldn’t be into peak production until around 2025. It would reduce the cost of a barrel of oil by $0.57 cents and a gallon of gasoline by $0.14 cents, according to a U.S. Dept. of Energy report at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/hr/pdf/sroiaf(2005)04.pdf.
    6) Since 2001, the top five oil companies have made more than $550 billion in profits.
    On June 10, 2008, Republicans filibustered two bills relating to the energy crisis:
    1) Windfall profit tax on the top five profit earners (Exxon Mobil Chevron, Shell, BP America, and ConocoPhilips), which made $36 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2008.
    2) A bill that would have extended the tax incentive for alternative energy, efficiency and conservation.
    Just the day before, President Bush was stating another false claim about the affect drilling in ANWR would have on our current crisis, which is predominately about the devaluing of the U.S. dollar under his administration.
    Another huge factor is oil speculation, which would have been addressed in the windfall profits tax if passed.
    President George W. Bush:
    “The United States has an opportunity to help increase the supply of oil on the market, therefore taking pressure off gasoline for our hardworking Americans, and I’ve proposed to the Congress that they open up ANWR, and open up the continental shelf, and give this country a chance to help us through this difficult period (June 9, 2008).”
    Another outrageous claim that was being propagandized was that China is drilling for oil off the coast of Florida while we could not.
    Vice President Dick Cheney:
    “(O)il is being drilled right now 60 miles off the coast of Florida. We’re not doing it. The Chinese are in cooperation with the Cuban government (June 12, 2008).”
    Minority Leader John Boehner:
    “Right at this moment, some 60 miles or less off the coast of Key West, Florida, China has the green light to drill for oil in order to lower energy costs in that country… Do congressional Democrats really trust the Chinese that much more than Americans? (June 11, 2008).”
    Both of these claims are lies. When will Republicans start holding their party responsible for misleading them into voting against their own best interests?

    Like

  36. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Thanks Ben for the details. Grandiose statements are one thing details are something else. Details are the true talking points.

    Like

  37. Mikey McD Avatar

    Neat op/ed piece. It does not disprove the LAWS of supply and demand and makes no comment on the peace attained through drilling here, now. It is surprising that someone who claims to be pro working class cherry-picks soundbites to keep them unemployed, paying high prices and beholden to foreign enemies.
    http://www.deseretnews.com/article/660227927/Oil-shale–Colorado-Utah-deposits-rival-OPEC-reserve.html
    “Colorado and Utah have as much oil as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, Nigeria, Kuwait, Libya, Angola, Algeria, Indonesia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates combined…new methods to separate the oil from the stone for as little as $30 a barrel.”
    http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X

    Like

  38. Ben Emery Avatar

    Mickey,
    The point was there are plenty of opportunities for oil industry to drill for oil but they are holding off. Throwing all presumed environmental impediments out the window to spur more drilling isn’t needed. The other point is OPEC controls how much oil is on the world market, it isn’t 100% of the oil is always on the market.

    Like

  39. paul emery Avatar
    paul emery

    George, Mikey
    I keep asking what exactually do you propose we do to “Turn the oil companies loose …”

    Like

  40. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    George, I would agree the oil companies should have unfettered right to find and drill baby drill all the oil there is.

    Like

  41. paul emery Avatar
    paul emery

    With what environmental considerations?

    Like

  42. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    Isn’t it clear Paul? It should be done with as little environmental consideration as possible. Any regulation is too much for these guys. The market will punish companies for environmental degradation, right?
    Here is the awful truth, the oil, gas and coal on public lands are the property of the people of the United States. The profit from extracting those resources does not even pay for the review and remediation of the damage on those public lands. Energy companies are returning hundreds of billions of dollars a year to their shareholders, a select few, while the people who own the resources are getting next to nothing.
    This is ‘crony capitalism’ at its worst. We are paying welfare to the big 5 and pretending its a ‘free market’ approach.
    The biggest welfare queens in the country are the American businesses that participate in this farce.

    Like

  43. stevenfrisch Avatar
    stevenfrisch

    By the way, I am not quite sure how we drifted from constitutional principles guiding punishment of US citizens engaged in terrorism, to energy policy, but I thought we had a remarkable amount of consensus from widely divergent viewpoints that allowing the President of the United States to assassinate citizens without oversight was a pretty bad precedent.

    Like

  44. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Paul, of course there are eco standards.
    Regarding subsidies for the oil companies. I believe they are tax credits for exploration. When a mineraL is extracted it doesn’t just go into the vacuum of space. It is mined, transported, refined and made into some useful product. Such as gold in these computers, fertilizer for crops and insecticides to guard them (our world’s food supply). And millions of other things. If the mining, timber and grazing is on the “public” lands then there are many benefits to the people of the country. In every step of the raw material ending up as a finished product there are a plethora of jobs, most are good paying middle class jobs. Even the washing machine sold at Sears, made of all those raw materials, makes the salesman money to raise his family. Only people who live in a caudled box of fantasy ideas would not understand this. America became the greatest country on the planet because of the innovation of its people and the discovery of oil and its use as the product to allow freedom to prosper. The left thinks the pie is one size whole we know the pie will grow larger.

    Like

  45. Ben Emery Avatar

    Steve,
    I agree with you and the Obama administration has been setting very dangerous precedents by the continuation of Bush policies. You and I have commented before on this issue at Sierra Foothills Report.
    When does the inherited illegal policies of Bush become Obama’s?

    Like

  46. Ben Emery Avatar

    Todd,
    Just leave it up to the big boys and they will take care of us. When has the peoples interest ever been the goal of the bigs in any industry?

    Like

  47. Mikey McD Avatar

    Would drilling here increase domestic employment, yes.
    Would drilling here bring down gasoline prices, yes.
    Would drilling here decrease the magnitude and frequency of US/Middle East conflicts (DEATH), yes.
    Would drilling here increase the value of the US Dollar, yes.
    Would drilling here provide a catalyst (one of many needed) to boost our failing Keynesian/socialist economy, yes.
    Would there be negative environmental impacts, yes. Follow-up… should we be more concerned about POSSIBLE environmental impacts than all of the above.
    http://www.amazon.com/How-Economy-Grows-Why-Crashes/dp/047052670X

    Like

  48. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    We are talking about oil. Please tell us all BenE how the people’s interest in served if there is no oil or oil so costly only rich people can afford it. Why would you harm a persons ability to buy reasonably priced gasoline and keep them from moving freely around the country? I am amazed. Oil has allowed people odf all income groups to be mobile, why would you be impairing that?

    Like

  49. Todd Juvinall Avatar
    Todd Juvinall

    Mikey, you hit the nail on the head. Excellent!

    Like

  50. Paul Emery Avatar
    Paul Emery

    Nobody seems to want to answer this very simple question
    “What exactually do you propose we do to “Turn the oil companies loose …”
    It’s all cheap talk without specifics.

    Like

Leave a comment