Bin Laden Mission Evokes More Questions Than Answers

[tekisui]

Source: Salon

(snip)

Alas, real life is not one of Hollywood's many Pentagon-sponsored flicks -- and as hard as President Obama tried to portray last week's events as proof "that America can do whatever we set our mind to," the mission and its cloudy aftermath have raised troubling questions about the "whatever" part. Among the most important of those queries are:

-- Is it legal for a president to issue extrajudicial "kill only" orders -- that is, orders to kill but not capture a suspect, even if that suspect surrenders? United Nations investigators are now asking this very question after Reuters cited an Obama administration official in reporting that U.S. troops were "under orders to kill (bin Laden), not capture him."

Tellingly, the revelation of the possible "kill only" order came as the administration was retracting claims that bin Laden was armed and resisting arrest, and just as the British press reported on bin Laden's 12-year-old daughter alleging that her father was first captured alive and then summarily executed.

-- Who is the president now prohibited from executing sans due process? At first glance, the answer might seem to be "anyone not named Osama bin Laden." Except, days after the bin Laden mission, Obama ordered the assassination of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki, even though Awlaki hasn't been charged with -- much less convicted of -- a crime. If this is now acceptable, whom else can the president order killed without judicial review?

more: http://www.salon.com/news/osama_bin_laden/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/05/13/bin_laden_mission_evokes_more_questions_than_answers

[Doctor Hurt]

1. "raised troubling questions" for whom?

not for me. I ain't troubled in the least.

[Robb]

2. Factually incorrect. Awlaki was charged in the UK and Yemen last year.

[tekisui]

3. He hasn't been tried in the US, and the US is the party targeting him with strikes.

[Robb]

4. He hasn't been tried anywhere.

But he has been charged in two countries. Something this article has wrong.

[tekisui]

6. Fair enough, but the question remains about the legality of sentencing one

to death absent a trial, and carrying out that sentence with strikes that will inevitably cause some innocent people to lose their lives.

I have a hard time with summary execution and an even harder accepting that civilians must be sacrificed to carry it out.

[Robb]

7. No, the question is why ask about "unanswered questions" when you don't have simple facts straight?

[tekisui]

8. These are still valid questions regardless.

[Robb]

9. So is "why don't Americans exercise more?"

[JTFrog]

10. +1

[SDuderstadt]

12. And, a number of those questions have been addressed...

contrary to the factual errors in the OP:



https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?20...

[tekisui]

13. Bad link.

[SDuderstadt]

14. Try this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=1090007&mesg_id=1093939

[tekisui]

16. Did you read the opinion?

It didn't really answer any of the questions posed. It was a motion to dismiss ruling. The entirety of was that al-Awlaki's father lacks standing and can't bring the charges, that the state can't be sued, the the threat of a killing is not an actionable claim and that the court finds that the subject is a political question that they can't answer.

[Canuckistanian]

5. K&R

For the rule of law.

[leveymg]

11. What is most troubling to me is that those targeted for "kill not capture", along with waterboarded

"high value" detainees are those who knew the most about AQ's support network and global patrons. It seems obvious that if the real object of these operations was to shut down the financial and support network that makes terrorist operations possible, the US would go out of its way to capture alive for interrogation those who know the most about these details.

Managers of the program would also make damn sure that the methods used to capture and interrogate such detainees did not damage their ability to accurately recall details. Under this criteria, waterboarding (partial drowning which kills brain cells) is obviously out, as is prolonged sleep deprivation (which can also result in memory impairment). Yet, the approach actually taken to these major AQ figures has been the one that quite predictably yields the least accurate information or destroys the evidence. See, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/09/22/785150/-AP:-CIA-Torture-Damaged-Brains,-Recall-of-9-11-Suspects

It's not like I'm the only one who has said this about the efficacy of certain types of "enhanced interrogation techniques." The FBI also objected to waterboarding and psychological torture of AQ detainees for the same reason.

The unanswered question is: why kill the most important witnesses and destroy the evidence, when there is a choice? See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/334

As for al-Awlaki, he has had the most remarkable history of being the hub or connecting spoke in the wheels of AQ operations and miraculously being subsequently let go by the authorities or sidestepping the bullet. He's facilitated more actual and attempted terrorist attacks on American targets than anyone else, going back to his role as "spiritual advisor" for the Flt. 77 hijackers, overseeing them in San Diego and then traveling cross-country to join them in the DC area in the months before 9/11. He's like a lightening rod for terrorists - they always manage to find him, and vis-a-versa. Given his apparent usefulness, I am not surprised that he continually gets "thrown back" and escapes attempts to kill him. Please, see, related, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/02/940661/-Wikileaks-reveals-9-11-Team-Bhijack-team-got-away

[mmonk]

15. Should I comment in this thread?

Nah. ;-)