Senior al-Qaeda figure al-Awlaki killed in U.S. airstrike

[News_Editor]

Senior al-Qaeda figure al-Awlaki killed in U.S. airstrike

2011-10-01 04:16:53 GMT+7 (ICT)

SANAA, YEMEN (BNO NEWS) -- A U.S. drone strike in Yemen on early Friday morning killed several al-Qaeda members, including senior figure Anwar al-Awlaki, Yemeni and U.S. officials said. Few details were immediately released.

The drone strike happened on early Friday morning in the Yemeni governorate of Al Jawf, northeast of the capital of Sana'a. At least two prominent members of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) were killed in the strike, according to the Yemeni government, but the total number of casualties was not immediately known.

Among those killed was U.S.-born radical Islamic preacher Anwar al-Awlaki who had become a senior figure in the al-Qaeda militant organization in recent years and was on the CIA's list of targets for assassination. He is believed to have been involved in a number of terrorist plots.

"The death of Awlaki is a major blow to al Qaeda's most active operational affiliate," said U.S. President Barack Obama. "Awlaki was the leader of external operations for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. In that role, he took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans."

U.S. officials believe Awlaki was involved in the failed attempt to blow up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as it was landing at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport in Romulus, Michigan. He is also believed to have directed the failed attempt to blow up U.S. cargo planes in 2010 and was in close contact with Nidal Malik Hasan who killed 13 and injured 29 at Fort Hood in Texas.

"He repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda," Obama said. "The death of al-Awlaki marks another significant milestone in the broader effort to defeat al-Qaeda and its affiliates."

Nonetheless, Obama said that al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula remains a 'dangerous' though 'weakened' organization. "Going forward, we will remain vigilant against any threats to the United States, or our allies and partners," the U.S. leader said. "But make no mistake: This is further proof that al-Qaeda and its affiliates will find no safe haven anywhere in the world."

The U.S. attack comes just months after another U.S. airstrike in the Nisab District of Shabwah Governorate killed two al-Qaeda mid-level leaders. But al-Awlaki, who was the target of the airstrike, managed to escape unharmed.

One of the other casualties in Friday's airstrike was U.S.-born al-Qaeda member Samir Khan who was one of the editors of Inspire, an English-language online magazine produced by al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. The seventh issue of Inspire was released earlier this week and contained an article written by Khan.

In the article, Khan discussed media issues and criticized the American government for 'allowing' hate speech against Islam. "Besides the many other political and military blunders, America had done one thing which was a part and parcel of their democracy: let their hate mongering preachers and right-wing groups loose on Islam; this is the inherent problem with a democracy," he wrote.

Khan added: "They hypocritically say they love the Muslims and Islam and then stab us in the back saying, 'And our freedom allows us to malign your religion; what a great and free country this is!' Although the government is not directly linked to these individuals and groups, the fact that their laws allow such people to preach blasphemy against our religion - keeping in mind that it was during a time when America needed the Muslim world's support the most - it caused their glass house to shatter from the inside."

Khan, who was unknown to the outside world until the first publication of Inspire, also said 'the Muslim world holds America with suspicion'. "It is not rare to find in a typical Muslim household in America, for example, that has at least one member that holds something against the American government, even if that person is inherently secular," he said.

The al-Qaeda member also described how he attended mosques in over ten states across the United States, claiming that he saw large groups of Muslims with anti-American sentiments. "We exhibit Islam and they (America) exhibit man-made failure. This battle is going to continue until they find themselves powerless under our dominion," Khan said.

The deaths of al-Awlaki and Khan come only months after global al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden was killed in the Pakistani city of Abbottabad. Bin Laden was killed on May 1st by special U.S. forces during a secret operation which had not been approved by the Pakistani government.

It also comes only months after Fazul Abdullah Mohammed, the presumed leader of al-Qaeda in East Africa, was shot dead by Somali Transitional Federal Government (TFG) forces at a checkpoint in Mogadishu. Fazul, who was killed in early June, was also a key suspect in the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings that left hundreds killed.

And earlier this month, senior al-Qaeda member Younis Al Mauritani was one of three suspected terrorists arrested in the suburbs of Quetta, the largest city and the provincial capital of Pakistan's Balochistan Province. Officials said Al Mauritani was mainly responsible for planning and conduct international operations and had been personally tasked by Bin Laden to focus on hitting targets of economical importance in the United States, Europe and Australia.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2011-10-01

[Ulysses G.]

Another evil terrorist receives justice.

[Steely Dan]

Believe it or not some of our enemy within are whining he didn't receive due process - just as Al Qaeda's victims never do.

[Ulysses G.]

Unbelievable that anyone is worried about due process for a terrorist who has contributed to the deaths of many innmocent people. No wonder the West is going down the drain.

[flying]

Unbelievable that anyone is worried about due process for a terrorist who has contributed to the deaths of many innmocent people. No wonder the West is going down the drain.

Will agree that the west is going down the drain,....Will also agree it is in no small part due to contributing to the deaths of innocent people.

Well that & robbing them (citizens) & others (non-citizens)blind

Still it wont even pay the interest on their debts.

Karma & gravity....they both suck

[Steely Dan]

Speculation here that the U.S received a tip off as to Al-Awlaki's whereabouts due to a power struggle within Al-Qaeda.

http://www.debka.com/article/21350/

The article also mentions that the genius of liberating Libya has now given Al-Qaeda a Mediterranean port, I suspect this will come back to haunt us in due course.

[Scott]

Discussion over news links is off-topic. If you wish to discredit the source of information, feel free to provide your own source.

Off-topic post removed.

[up-country_sinclair]

He is believed to have been involved in a number of terrorist plots......U.S. officials believe Awlaki was involved.....He is also believed to have directed

A US citizen was murdered abroad by the US military because some "believed" he was a terrorist. Shame they didn't bother to follow the constitution and hold a trial to determine his guilt or innocence.

I personally have no idea as to his guilt or innocence, but needless to say, this is a very slippery slope.

[up-country_sinclair]

Another evil terrorist receives justice.

Justice? What, in the biblical sense?

Do you respect the US Constitution? Do you think the US military should be able to kill US citizens abroad without even a trial to determine guilt or innocence?

Believe it or not some of our enemy within are whining he didn't receive due process - just as Al Qaeda's victims never do.

So this is the standard were now holding the US to: What Al Qaeda does?

If so, Al Qaeda already won.

And as far as 'the enemy within' remark, it's very telling when those who strive to protect and defend the Constitution are referred to as "the enemy".

[flying]

A US citizen was murdered abroad by the US military because some "believed" he was a terrorist. Shame they didn't bother to follow the constitution and hold a trial to determine his guilt or innocence.

I personally have no idea as to his guilt or innocence, but needless to say, this is a very slippery slope.

Slippery indeed

[Steely Dan]

Another evil terrorist receives justice.

Justice? What, in the biblical sense?

Do you respect the US Constitution? Do you think the US military should be able to kill US citizens abroad without even a trial to determine guilt or innocence?

Believe it or not some of our enemy within are whining he didn't receive due process - just as Al Qaeda's victims never do.

So this is the standard were now holding the US to: What Al Qaeda does?

If so, Al Qaeda already won.

And as far as 'the enemy within' remark, it's very telling when those who strive to protect and defend the Constitution are referred to as "the enemy".

It's very telling that those who would desire western civilization to collapse and with it the constitution are defended by some people using the argument that we didn't follow the constitution.

[HeavyDrinker]

Fair point SJ...I think....

I'm off to the pub...

[up-country_sinclair]

It's very telling that those who would desire western civilization to collapse and with it the constitution are defended by some people using the argument that we didn't follow the constitution.

Where to begin?

1. I haven't read a single post on this thread defending the man in the OP. There are, however, a few of us defending the US Constitution. It speaks volumes that you're not one of them.

2. The crux of your response is wholly nonsensical. The US Constitution protects the rights of all US Citizens--whether they want it to collapse or not. Do you know even the slightest thing about the Constitution or constitutional law? I don't have the time or inclination to educate you, but in short, the sixth amendment guarantees a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; and the accused should be able to see evidence and witnesses against him/her; the accused should be able to produce his/her own evidence/witnesses and have access to a lawyer.

Whatever his faults/crimes, this man was a US citizen and he did not receive the fair trial that was supposed to be guaranteed.

3. You didn't respond to my query above: Is Al Qaeda now the standard that the US holds itself to? Or were you just shooting from the hip without really thinking things through?

Edited October 1, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Jingthing]

Obama did it -- YIPPEE!

If Bush did it -- Bad Bush

Smart move, two term President Obama.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Jingthing

[bungalowbob]

America can hold the most nuclear weapons in the world and be the only country to actually use them and they are " a nuclear deterrent " if any other country has them or wants them they are always " Weapons of mass destruction "

The Good Ol USA can actively assassinate people around the world often killing innocent men, women and children in the process regardless of location and this is always " Justice " yet when anybody else does it it is " terrorism "

Something is very wrong with this way of thinking me thinks and may explain a great deal of the problems the world is facing at the present time!

Didn't Obama make out he was against all this war and killing before getting elected ?

[flying]

Didn't Obama make out he was against all this war and killing before getting elected ?

Oh lordy don't start down that trail

It would be easier to list the things he promised to accomplish that he actually did accomplish.

That would be none, zero, zip

His new re-election slogan will be

We thought we could...or Yes We Can't

Hope & Change This Time For Sure...

Four More Years to tell you how it’s all George Bush’s fault

Chains We Can Believe In

Obama 2012, W.T.F.

Edited October 1, 2011 by flying

[Steely Dan]

It's very telling that those who would desire western civilization to collapse and with it the constitution are defended by some people using the argument that we didn't follow the constitution.

Where to begin?

1. I haven't read a single post on this thread defending the man in the OP. There are, however, a few of us defending the US Constitution. It speaks volumes that you're not one of them.

2. The crux of your response is wholly nonsensical. The US Constitution protects the rights of all US Citizens--whether they want it to collapse or not. Do you know even the slightest thing about the Constitution or constitutional law? I don't have the time or inclination to educate you, but in short, the sixth amendment guarantees a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; and the accused should be able to see evidence and witnesses against him/her; the accused should be able to produce his/her own evidence/witnesses and have access to a lawyer.

Whatever his faults/crimes, this man was a US citizen and he did not receive the fair trial that was supposed to be guaranteed.

3. You didn't respond to my query above: Is Al Qaeda now the standard that the US holds itself to? Or were you just shooting from the hip without really thinking things through?

Let's just say the constitution is a great thing just so long as a little pragmatism is applied. Had the U.S authorities put in a request to the Yemeni authorities to arrest the suspect there is a high possibility that Al-Qaeda would have found out and effected an escape. I suppose a calculation was done that this was likely and his escape was likely to lead to more U.S deaths, with the constitutional rights of resultant victims ignored. The same principle applied to Bin Laden.

There is also the small matter of constitutional rights being suspended due to pressing security concerns as Japanese living in the U.S discovered after Pearl Harbor. But then again some people would rather we fight at a perpetual handicap in order to sooth their synthetic moral outrage.

Of course there is no pleasing some people, if he had been given a trial you would have been whining about it being rigged. Nope, spit your dummy out with pleasure I applaud the U.S actions and expect that Obama will get far less heat from this than Bush would have done.

[WarpSpeed]

Obviously though you espouse a knowledge of the constitution yet you forget (conveniently to try to make your strawman argument) this is a time of war and he is a member of the enemy camp just as if he was any other "traitor" in any other war and has been treated as such..

This person was a known verbal participant and admitted advocate of jihad against America, all none believers and it's citizens and a high ranking member of Al Queda this put him knowingly and willingly in the cross hairs of the US military as an enemy combatant that is part of a group that has declared and waged war on the US regardless of his citizenship.

So, therefore he waved his right to the protections of the constitution he so despises that is designed to protect loyal citizens of the US and not "traitorous" terrorist threats of the US either from within or from without..

Another one bites the dust... May he enjoy his virgins in hell...

[WarpSpeed]

Didn't Obama make out he was against all this war and killing before getting elected ?

Oh lordy don't start down that trail

It would be easier to list the things he promised to accomplish that he actually did accomplish.

That would be none, zero, zip

His new re-election slogan will be

We thought we could...or Yes We Can't

Hope & Change This Time For Sure...

Four More Years to tell you how it’s all George Bush’s fault

Chains We Can Believe In

Obama 2012, W.T.F.

I do give Obama credit for having the brass and following through with the job that Clinton disregarded which has created the untenable current world climate, levels of insecurity and loss of those rights for which are the prime concern here..

The Bush admin paved the way and now Obama is at least following through, shame it's after the fact now though and so many innocent people had to die in a process that could have been avoided and could have been done much more surgically in Clinton's time..

[Jingthing]

Didn't Obama make out he was against all this war and killing before getting elected ?

Not at all! He pledged to get out of Iraq as that was a huge Bush mistake, and that is happening. He pledged to step up the war in Afghanistan and directly against Al Queda. That happened. Two terms, get used to it.

Next ...

[Ulysses G.]

Another evil terrorist receives justice.

Justice? What, in the biblical sense?

Do you respect the US Constitution? Do you think the US military should be able to kill US citizens abroad without even a trial to determine guilt or innocence?

Yes, if they are enemy combatants and terrorists which is the case here. Killing him saved a lot of lives.

[chuckd]

It's very telling that those who would desire western civilization to collapse and with it the constitution are defended by some people using the argument that we didn't follow the constitution.

Where to begin?

1. I haven't read a single post on this thread defending the man in the OP. There are, however, a few of us defending the US Constitution. It speaks volumes that you're not one of them.

2. The crux of your response is wholly nonsensical. The US Constitution protects the rights of all US Citizens--whether they want it to collapse or not. Do you know even the slightest thing about the Constitution or constitutional law? I don't have the time or inclination to educate you, but in short, the sixth amendment guarantees a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury; and the accused should be able to see evidence and witnesses against him/her; the accused should be able to produce his/her own evidence/witnesses and have access to a lawyer.

Whatever his faults/crimes, this man was a US citizen and he did not receive the fair trial that was supposed to be guaranteed.

3. You didn't respond to my query above: Is Al Qaeda now the standard that the US holds itself to? Or were you just shooting from the hip without really thinking things through?

The sixth amendment has nothing to do with this case. The sixth amendment relates to criminal prosecution, which is not the situation being discussed here.

If you want to cite the Constitution in the Al Awlaki case you would be better disposed to cite the fifth amendment which states in part citizens shall not be..."deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;"

I really don't think Al-Awlaki or Citizen Kahn will be missed by many people, myself included. Apparently there were other terrorists in the car so I consider the two American deceased as collateral damage. They just happened to be along for the ride and should have stayed at home. Come to think of it, maybe friendly fire would cover it as well.

I'll let the ACLU take over the case from here. Obama may have already committed impeachable offenses but this is hardly one of them.

[up-country_sinclair]

Another evil terrorist receives justice.

Justice? What, in the biblical sense?

Do you respect the US Constitution? Do you think the US military should be able to kill US citizens abroad without even a trial to determine guilt or innocence?

Yes, if they are enemy combatants and terrorists which is the case here. Killing him saved a lot of lives.

So the govt. simply has to say that someone is a terrorist and that's good enough for you?

I guess in some cases people really do get the government they deserve.

[Ulysses G.]

Another evil terrorist receives justice.

Justice? What, in the biblical sense?

Do you respect the US Constitution? Do you think the US military should be able to kill US citizens abroad without even a trial to determine guilt or innocence?

Yes, if they are enemy combatants and terrorists which is the case here. Killing him saved a lot of lives.

So the govt. simply has to say that someone is a terrorist and that's good enough for you?

Anyone who has seen his hundreds of hateful videos promoting violence against innocent people and terrorism knows that he got what he deserved.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

Didn't Obama make out he was against all this war and killing before getting elected ?

Not at all! He pledged to get out of Iraq as that was a huge Bush mistake, and that is happening. He pledged to step up the war in Afghanistan and directly against Al Queda.

True. Although there has been some recent talk about the number of troops which will remain in Iraq after 2012.

[up-country_sinclair]

Killing him saved a lot of lives.

So the govt. simply has to say that someone is a terrorist and that's good enough for you?

I guess in some cases people really do get the government they deserve.

Anyone who has seen his hundreds of hateful videos promoting violence against innocent people and terrorism knows that he got what he deserved.

So US citizens who promote violence and terrorism deserve to be killed by the US govt. without a trial?

[Ulysses G.]

If they are also enemy combatants, terrorists and traitors they do.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[chuckd]

Killing him saved a lot of lives.

So the govt. simply has to say that someone is a terrorist and that's good enough for you?

I guess in some cases people really do get the government they deserve.

Anyone who has seen his hundreds of hateful videos promoting violence against innocent people and terrorism knows that he got what he deserved.

So US citizens who promote violence and terrorism deserve to be killed by the US govt. without a trial?

If they advocate the violent overthrow of the US government, it is called treason and they are traitors. Traitors are subject to extra-judicial punishment during wartime.

However, I imagine Constitutional Lawyers with considerably more knowledge on the Constitution than anybody on this forum possesses have already addressed the matter.

Following is an article out today on the subject. Apparently Obama got approval from AG Holder for his actions.

____________________________________________________________

Secret U.S. memo sanctioned killing of Aulaqi

By Peter Finn, Saturday, October 1, 1:03 AM

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 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.

“What constitutes due process in this case is a due process in war,” said one of the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss closely held deliberations within the administration.

The administration has faced a legal challenge and public criticism for targeting Aulaqi, who was born in New Mexico, because of constitutional protections afforded U.S. citizens. The memorandum may represent an attempt to resolve, at least internally, a legal debate over whether a president can order the killing of U.S. citizens overseas as a counterterrorism measure.

Read article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_story.html

[WarpSpeed]

Another evil terrorist receives justice.

Justice? What, in the biblical sense?

Do you respect the US Constitution? Do you think the US military should be able to kill US citizens abroad without even a trial to determine guilt or innocence?

Yes, if they are enemy combatants and terrorists which is the case here. Killing him saved a lot of lives.

So the govt. simply has to say that someone is a terrorist and that's good enough for you?

I guess in some cases people really do get the government they deserve.

Oh puuuuulease!!!! No, he was there in the car having tea and crumpets with some good ole boys and discussing the NASCAR Championship ...

[WarpSpeed]

If they are also enemy combatants, terrorists and traitors they do.

He seems to be having trouble with that concept..