General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Clearing up misconceptions regarding Anwar al-Awlaki [View all]
The Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed on September 30, 2011 by a missile fired from an unmanned drone. Two weeks later al-Awlaki's 16-year-old son was killed in a similar strike. Both were carried out by the CIA and authorized by secret orders signed by President Obama.
Critics of the al-Awlaki executions assert that they represent a serious Constitutional crisis - namely, that the President of the United States has claimed and used the power to execute U.S. citizens deemed to be enemies of the state based solely upon the President's discretion and without due process of law required by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Proponents maintain than Anwar al-Awlaki was an "operational leader" of AQAP who directed terrorist attacks against the United States and that his death represented a war casualty.
Jeremy Scahill is an investigative journalist who has spent the last decade reporting from Yemen and the Arabian Peninsula. One would be hard-pressed to find someone more knowledgeable of the politics and recent history of the region. Scahill published an article on The Intercept discussing the possible links between the Charlie Hebdo attackers and AQAP. In the article, he takes on the widespread misinformation regarding Anwar al-Awlaki that has been promulgated by U.S. intelligence service propaganda and their partners in the media:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/01/12/the-paris-mystery/
. . .
None of this is to say that Awlaki was not involved with direct plotting of acts of terrorism, but that there has been no actual evidence produced to support the claim. Awlakis assassination was ordered by President Obama despite the fact that Awlaki was not officially indicted by the U.S. on any charges of terrorism. His case was litigated by anonymous US officials in the media and his death warrant signed in secret by the U.S. president.
It is often asserted as fact that Awlaki directed or encouraged U.S. Army Maj. Nidal Hasan to carry out the massacre at Fort Hood, Texas in November 2009. But the actual evidence to support this does not exist. Awlaki did indeed email with Hassan, but those emails read like Hassan was a fanboy and Awlaki was politely dismissing him. Awlaki did, after the fact, praise Hasans actions, but he denied any claim of direct involvement. It would be uncharacteristic of Awlaki given his public calls for such actions to deny a role he would have been proud of playing.
. . .
Terrorism analysts and journalists often mention that Awlaki had contact with three of the 9/11 hijackers and, at times, imply he had foreknowledge of the plot. Awlaki was the imam at two large mosques, one in San Diego and later at one in Falls Church, Virginia. Three of the men, at various points did indeed attend those mosques, but the 9/11 Commission asserted that the future hijackers respected Awlaki as a religious figure and developed a close relationship with him but added that the evidence is thin as to specific motivations. What is seldom mentioned is that soon after 9/11, on February 5, 2002, Awlaki also met with Pentagon employees inside the Department of Defense when he was officially invited to lecture at the DoD. After being vetted for security, Awlaki was invited to and attended a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Armys Office of Government Counsel.
. . .
Awlaki is also frequently mentioned as the mastermind of the 2009 underwear bomb plot. But, again, this is far from a proven fact. Awlakis role in the underwear plot was unclear. After the failed bombing, Awlaki claimed that Abdulmutallab was one of his students. Tribal sources in Shabwah province told me that al Qaeda operatives reached out to Awlaki to give religious counseling to Abdulmutallab, but that Awlaki was not involved in the plot. While praising the attack, Awlaki said he had not been involved with its conception or planning. Yes, there was some contact between me and him, but I did not issue a fatwa allowing him to carry out this operation, Awlaki told Yemeni journalist Abdulelah Haider Shaye in an interview for Al Jazeera a few weeks after the attempted attack: I support what Umar Farouk has done after I have been seeing my brothers being killed in Palestine for more than sixty years, and others being killed in Iraq and in Afghanistan. And in my tribe too, U.S. missiles have killed women and children, so do not ask me if al-Qaeda has killed or blown up a U.S. civil[ian] jet after all this. The 300 Americans are nothing comparing to the thousands of Muslims who have been killed.
. . .
The U.S. government continues to maintain that Awlaki personally directed the Christmas Day bomb plot. Its source for that is an alleged confession given to investigators by Abdulmutallab immediately after he was apprehended. But that confession has serious problems. Marcy Wheeler, an independent journalist who has scrutinized this case more extensively than any other journalist, has written several analyses of this case. Abdulmutallab gave 3 confessions, Wheeler told me. The first on December 25, 2009, after he was captured. In that he attributed all his direction to Abu Tarak, which [the] DOJ would later claim was just a pseudonym for Awlaki, which is impossible. In Yemen, I asked many sources close to Awlaki if they had ever heard this nickname used or given to Awlaki. None had.
The second confession started on January 29, 2010 with the High Value detainee Intelligence Group established by President Obama in late 2009. Abdulmutallabs lawyer claimed the HIG interrogated his client after he had been held in solitary confinement. Within days, he implicated Awlaki in everything, including making a martyrdom video with AQs greatest English propagandist in Arabic, and final instructions, Wheeler adds. The prosecution willingly agreed not to rely on this confession after the defense said it had been made in conjunction with plea discussions.
The final confession, Wheeler says, was on October 12, 2011. Abdulmutallab publicly plead guilty to conspiracy and other charges. No one else, including U.S. citizen Awlaki was charged in the alleged conspiracy. In that plea, Abdulmutallab attributed earlier propaganda from Awlaki as an inspiration, but Abdulmutallab did not implicate Awlaki or anyone else as his co-conspirators, says Wheeler. In other words, Abdulmutallab confessed three times. In only one of those confessions did he implicate Awlaki, and that confession was the only one not presented at trial. Instead it was used in Abdulmutallabs sentencing.
Anwar al-Awlaki almost certainly made egregious anti-American statements, going so far as to praise terrorists for attacking U.S. targets. Even if this isn't protected speech as per Brandenburg v. Ohio (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/395/444), the central tenet of American justice - that one is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law - still applies. All of the "evidence" against al-Awlaki comes from anonymous CIA sources, and has been shown to be of dubious veracity. Further, al-Awlaki was not given an opportunity to view the evidence against him and the evidence was not subjected to cross examination in court. The result is that the myth of al-Awlaki's guilt has been allowed to propagate without challenge.
To claim the power to execute citizens without due process of law, based entirely upon a political leader's command, is the defining feature of a dictatorship. If we are going to accept this behavior as the legitimate action of a President, then what exactly are we justified in not accepting?