# Al-Awlaki Killed **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 30, 2011, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158 "2011-09-30T14:51:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 23
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/441 "2011-10-06T17:34:05Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I’m trying to find a better cite, but Wikipedia says the Michigan Militia was cleared of involvement with McVeigh and the bombing - and as noted, nobody except McVeigh and Nichols was charged. Minor correction- their friend Michael Fortier was charged with not notifying authorities about the bombing plot. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/442 "2011-10-06T17:34:10Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > They were where McVeigh was trained. _He was connected to them as much as Awlaki was connected to AQ_. Most people are well aware of the Michigan Militia. My italics. That’s a great point. The Michigan Militia has no connection to AQ nor did they participate in 9/11. Therefore, they cannot be attacked using the AUMF as legal cover. Even if they uprooted and moved to Canada, and Canada knowingly harbored them while they were attacking Michigan, you could not kill them with AUMF cover. AQAP, though, likely is connected to AQ/OBL. It’s leader was a former high ranking AQ member and so are many of his followers - they formed an AQ cell in Yemen. Awlaki came from a non-related (i think) terrorist cell (they were in Saudi Arabia fighting the Sauds and were forced into Yemen) and joined the “real” AQ Yemen cell. We now call those two combined groups AQAP. That’s a lil butchered, but about right. The point is, if in the future a cell of AQAP breaks off, is that still connected to AQ to fall under the AUMF umbrella? You’re now three times removed. It’s starts to get shaky (silly) and **gonzomax’s** point here is valid regarding AQAP, although I disagree with it. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2011, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/443 "2011-10-06T22:05:07Z")
Hello [Star Chamber](http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005). > [@](#): > > American militants like Anwar al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions, according to officials. > > There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel, which is a subset of the White House’s National Security Council, several current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate. > > … > > Officials said Awlaki, whose fierce sermons were widely circulated on English-language militant websites, was targeted because Washington accumulated information his role in AQAP had gone “from inspirational to operational.” That meant that instead of just propagandizing in favor of al Qaeda objectives, Awlaki allegedly began to participate directly in plots against American targets. > > “Let me underscore, Awlaki is no mere messenger but someone integrally involved in lethal terrorist activities,” Daniel Benjamin, top counterterrorism official at the State Department, warned last spring. > > The Obama administration has not made public an accounting of the classified evidence that Awlaki was operationally involved in planning terrorist attacks. > > **But officials acknowledged that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki’s hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy**. > > For instance, one plot in which authorities have said Awlaki was involved Nigerian-born Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, accused of trying to blow up a Detroit-bound U.S. airliner on Christmas Day 2009 with a bomb hidden in his underpants. > > There is no doubt Abdulmutallab was an admirer or follower of Awlaki, since he admitted that to U.S. investigators. When he appeared in a Detroit courtroom earlier this week for the start of his trial on bomb-plot charges, he proclaimed, “Anwar is alive.” > > \*\*But at the time the White House was considering putting Awlaki on the U.S. target list, intelligence connecting Awlaki specifically to Abdulmutallab and his alleged bomb plot was partial. Officials said at the time the United States had voice intercepts involving a phone known to have been used by Awlaki and someone who they believed, but were not positive, was Abdulmutallab. > \*\* > Awlaki was also implicated in a case in which a British Airways employee was imprisoned for plotting to blow up a U.S.-bound plane. E-mails retrieved by authorities from the employee’s computer showed what an investigator described as " operational contact" between Britain and Yemen. > > **Authorities believe the contacts were mainly between the U.K.-based suspect and his brother. But there was a strong suspicion Awlaki was at the brother’s side when the messages were dispatched.** British media reported that in one message, the person on the Yemeni end supposedly said, “Our highest priority is the US … With the people you have, is it possible to get a package or a person with a package on board a flight heading to the US?” Emphasis mine. Yeah, I don’t see how this could possibly be abused. As long as they _strongly suspect_ people of wrongdoing, that should be good enough. ---
**Author:** ![masterbeta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dec6dc/32.png) [@masterbeta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/masterbeta)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/444 "2011-10-07T00:48:44Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Not every Afghani national, no. But in time of war, what about every Afghani infantryman? Or every line officer in the Afghan National Air Force? They all become incidental targets as part of the authorized targeting of Afghanistan insofar as they engaged in direct hostilities against the United States. Even civilians who engaged in direct hostilities against the United States became targets so far as they continued to engage in those hostilities. However, this can be distinguished from specifically targeting individuals like Awlaki no matter where he is in the world and no matter what he is doing. IMHO the AUMF only permits the targeting of specific persons insofar as they planned, authorized, committed or aided the 9/11 attacks. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/445 "2011-10-07T00:59:46Z")
> [@masterbeta](#): > > They all become incidental targets as part of the authorized targeting of Afghanistan insofar as they engaged in direct hostilities against the United States. Even civilians who engaged in direct hostilities against the United States became targets so far as they continued to engage in those hostilities. > > However, this can be distinguished from specifically targeting individuals like Awlaki no matter where he is in the world and no matter what he is doing. But if we can target all those members of a country’s armed forces by dint of saying “they all become incidental targets”, then couldn’t we likewise target all such members of a given organization by saying they all become incidental targets? ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/446 "2011-10-07T01:28:23Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > His involvement wasn’t proved in a court But that’s the problem. Similar thing with all those Bin Laden audio tapes. Not one tape was ever independently confirmed to be in fact Bin Laden. Even the news articles would always say that there is no confirmation or put “alleged”. However, the whole world acted as in fact it was Bin Laden speaking. You seem to be in the group who thinks that it was him for real. Add to that hundreds of little similar misleading articles and tidbits and what happens is your whole discourse is seriously bent and moulded and you end up saying something like - yeah, I know it’s all made up but it’s true. It’s impossible to argue with that. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/447 "2011-10-07T01:41:23Z")
> [@masterbeta](#): > > I agree. Nevertheless not every Afghani national is a legitimate target merely by association. Yet for some reason people here appear to think every Al Qaeda member can be a legitimate target merely by association… I’m sure there are, of course, PLENTY of well-meaning individuals who only joined al-Qaeda for the health benefits and the 401k, and are just working out of the steno pool or are processing sexual harassment complaints all day. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/448 "2011-10-07T01:42:13Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > But that’s the problem. > > Similar thing with all those Bin Laden audio tapes. Not one tape was ever independently confirmed to be in fact Bin Laden. Even the news articles would always say that there is no confirmation or put “alleged”. However, the whole world acted as in fact it was Bin Laden speaking. > > You seem to be in the group who thinks that it was him for real. Add to that hundreds of little similar misleading articles and tidbits and what happens is your whole discourse is seriously bent and moulded and you end up saying something like - yeah, I know it’s all made up but it’s true. > > It’s impossible to argue with that. Do you have any thoughts to share on the “moon landing?” ---
**Author:** ![masterbeta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/dec6dc/32.png) [@masterbeta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/masterbeta)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 7:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/449 "2011-10-07T07:24:03Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > But if we can target all those members of a country’s armed forces by dint of saying “they all become incidental targets”, then couldn’t we likewise target all such members of a given organization by saying they all become incidental targets? Not necessarily because those Afghani soldiers and civilians are incidental targets based on their actions i.e. engaging in direct hostilities with the US and in some cases just their location i.e. military objects that the US military needed to destroy or capture to defeat Afghanistan. Similarly other members of Al Qaeda can be incidentally targeted and the masterminds behind 9/11 can be specifically targeted. So if Awlaki was targeted whilst participating in hostilities against the US or perhaps in an Al Qaeda training camp then his death would arguably be incidental. Singling him out for a drone attack is just not the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 11:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/450 "2011-10-07T11:23:39Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Do you have any thoughts to share on the “moon landing?” Are you saying it’s Neil Armstrong’s voice on that tape? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 11:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/451 "2011-10-07T11:52:01Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > But that’s the problem. A problem I’ve acknowledged. > [@](#): > > Similar thing with all those Bin Laden audio tapes. Not one tape was ever independently confirmed to be in fact Bin Laden. These two situations have exactly nothing in common. The issue with al-Awlaki isn’t that we can’t know what he did, it’s that there are requirements that a government meet a standard of proof of a person’s guilt before acting on its evidence. That wasn’t the case with Bin Laden. His public statements weren’t subject to some kind of legal scrutiny, and the only reason there was no “independent confirmation” the tapes came from him is because he didn’t want to provide that confirmation. I don’t think there’s any particular reason to doubt he was speaking on the tapes but that’s not proof. In any event the Bin Laden tapes weren’t particularly significant to our knowledge of his involvement in Al Qaeda, the embassy bombings, the September 11th attacks, and on and on. Tha tapes were blather. I ran into a lot of people who thought he was dead largely because they didn’t know he was still making tapes. > [@](#): > > It’s impossible to argue with that. So now we’re slandering Bin Laden with lies and accusations based on stuff he said? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 12:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/452 "2011-10-07T12:02:39Z")
> [@masterbeta](#): > > Not necessarily because those Afghani soldiers and civilians are incidental targets based on their actions i.e. engaging in direct hostilities with the US and in some cases just their location i.e. military objects that the US military needed to destroy or capture to defeat Afghanistan. Every member of the Afghani armed forces? They’re _ **all** _ (a) engaged in direct hostilities, or (b) located at spots that need to be destroyed or captured? I thought some of 'em were just, y’know, walking around in uniform, as Members Of The Military, which makes _ **them** _ the designated targets who need to be destroyed or captured if they won’t surrender – rather like Members Of Al-Qaeda? ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/453 "2011-10-07T13:40:18Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > A problem I’ve acknowledged. Yet, you keep hanging on to a set of conclusions arrived at via proof that is problematic. Commonality between Awlaki “problematic” proof and the “alleged’ Bin Laden audio tapes is that audio tapes were released on a steady basis for last 10 years to sustain and enforce exactly the “logic” you are using to justify and rationalize both killings. And the “logic” is in fact a copout where lack of independent due process is deemed unnecessary considering the amount of “other’ overwhelming evidence. And every time specific “other” evidence is shown to be also lacking due process new “other” evidence is cited. And, on and on and on. Totally ignoring that it’s not about evidence posted but evidence scrutinized. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 2:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/454 "2011-10-07T14:11:30Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > Yet, you keep hanging on to a set of conclusions arrived at via proof that is problematic. I don’t think the evidence supporting al-Awlaki’s connection to terrorism is problematic. I think the legal process that went into killing him is problematic. > [@](#): > > Commonality between Awlaki “problematic” proof and the “alleged’ Bin Laden audio tapes is that audio tapes were released on a steady basis for last 10 years to sustain and enforce exactly the “logic” you are using to justify and rationalize both killings. I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, although I have the sneaking suspicion it’s something moronic about there not being enough proof that Bin Laden was involved with the September 11th attacks just like other posters were saying al-Awlaki didn’t do anything except make YouTube videos- oh, and meet and communicate with half a dozen people who were plotting various terrorist attacks at the time he met them. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/455 "2011-10-07T14:21:47Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I don’t think the evidence supporting al-Awlaki’s connection to terrorism is problematic. I think the legal process that went into killing him is problematic. Hilarious. The primary question is did he deserve to be killed. To deserve that designation, the evidence has to be a tiny bit stronger than “having a connection” to terrorism. And the point is that there is no evidence available that makes him deserving of death penalty. > [@Marley23](#): > > I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, although I have the sneaking suspicion it’s something moronic about there not being enough proof that Bin Laden was involved with the September 11th attacks just like other posters were saying al-Awlaki didn’t do anything except make YouTube videos- oh, and meet and communicate with half a dozen people who were plotting various terrorist attacks at the time he met them. Sure, smear always works. Did you know that Awalki was a guest speaker with FBI in 2002? What’s your take on that… ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/456 "2011-10-07T15:14:59Z")
My take is he’s unlikely to be invited back. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/457 "2011-10-07T15:26:58Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > My take is he’s unlikely to be invited back. J. Edgar Hoover can invite him to the FBI’s field office in Hell. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/458 "2011-10-07T16:24:58Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > The primary question is did he deserve to be killed. “Deserving” turns it into a moral question and I’m going to avoid that. What I’m interested is whether or not he was a terrorist, and based on what I’ve read about his links to the September 11th attacks, the Fort Hood shooting, the attempted underwear bombing and another failed plot, I’m pretty well convinced on that score. > [@](#): > > Sure, smear always works. So what _are_ you trying to say? I notice you didn’t bother to clarify. > [@](#): > > Did you know that Awalki was a guest speaker with FBI in 2002? What’s your take on that… Between this and their failure to prevent the September 11th attacks, I’m beginning to question the FBI’s competence with regard to terrorism. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/459 "2011-10-07T17:39:42Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Between this and their failure to prevent the September 11th attacks, I’m beginning to question the FBI’s competence with regard to terrorism. Have you ever considered that FBI may be dealing with someone who is simply more competent? ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2011, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158/460 "2011-10-07T18:08:44Z")
> [@newcomer](#): > > Have you ever considered that FBI may be dealing with someone who is simply more competent? I am sort of flabbergasted that you missed the understatement in that post, so I’ll answer again in a way I hope you cannot possibly misunderstand: > [@newcomer](#): > > Did you know that Awalki was a guest speaker with FBI in 2002? What’s your take on that… Yes, I knew about that. The FBI didn’t know about the terrorists who were learning to fly planes but not bothering to learn how to land, so the fact that they extended a speaking invitation to a guy who had been an adviser to several of those same terrorists (and others, later) would not make me think any less of them even if it surprised me because they were completely fucking incompetent. Now, what were you trying to say here? > [@](#): > > Commonality between Awlaki “problematic” proof and the “alleged’ Bin Laden audio tapes is that audio tapes were released on a steady basis for last 10 years to sustain and enforce exactly the “logic” you are using to justify and rationalize both killings. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158.md?page=22) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/al-awlaki-killed/598158.md?page=24)