PDA

View Full Version : Extra-Judicial Murder of American by America in Yemen - Anwar al-Awlaki



Peter Lemkin
09-30-2011, 12:18 PM
Islamist cleric Anwar Awlaki 'killed in Yemen'

Awlaki is said to be on a US hit list

US-born radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a key al-Qaeda leader, has been killed in Yemen, the country's defence ministry said.

Unnamed US officials confirmed the reports, but have not provided details.

Awlaki, of Yemeni descent, has been on the run in Yemen since December 2007.

The US had named him a "specially designated global terrorist" for his alleged role in a number of attacks and US President Barack Obama is said to have personally ordered his killing.

The defence ministry statement said only that he died "along with some of his companions".

It gave no further details of his death.

But tribal sources told AFP news agency Awlaki was killed in an air strike in the eastern Marib province, said to be an al-Qaeda stronghold.

An unnamed US official told the Associated Press he was killed by US drone strike. However, the cleric's body was said to be in Yemeni hands

BBC security correspondent Gordon Corera says the killing, if confirmed, is significant, because Awlaki is able to reach out to people susceptible to radicalisation through his use of the media.

The reported death comes amid concerns in Washington about the impact of Yemen's political crisis on its ability to go after al-Qaeda militants.

President Ali Abdullah Saleh is facing a widespread protest movement, along with an armed insurrection by renegade army units and tribal fighters.

Mr Saleh, who was injured three months ago when his residence was shelled, returned last week after treatment in Saudi Arabia.

He said in an interview published on Thursday that he will not stand down, as promised in a deal brokered by Gulf States, if his opponents are allowed to stand in elections to succeed him.
Targeted before

Awlaki is described by US officials as a key leader of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)

He has been implicated in the US army base killings in Fort Hood, Texas, the Christmas 2009 Detroit airline bomb attempt, and a failed bombing in New York's Times Square.

AQAP also claimed to have been behind a plot which sent two bombs in printer cartridges on US-bound cargo planes. They were intercepted in the UK and Dubai.

When he was imam of a San Diego mosque in the 1990s, his sermons were attended by two future 9/11 hijackers, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi.

He also lived in the UK from 2002-04, where he spent several months giving lectures to Muslim youth.

In a video posted in November last year he called for the killing of Americans, saying they were from the "party of devils".

Weeks later, he survived an air strike in Shabwa province in which at least 30 militants were killed.

He has been reported dead in the past following US air strikes on southern Yemen in December 2009 and November 2010. He was the target of a US drone attack that killed two al Qaeda operatives in southern Yemen on 5 May.

Magda Hassan
09-30-2011, 02:56 PM
The new OBL. I bet he will be resurrected for many outing yet to come. He could die many times over before they finally give him his traditional Muslim burial at sea.

Peter Lemkin
09-30-2011, 04:19 PM
The new OBL. I bet he will be resurrected for many outing yet to come. He could die many times over before they finally give him his traditional Muslim burial at sea.

The fact he is American is MOST significant, as Obama [not Bush] put him on a kill list, so it is not theoretical any more that an American citizen (born there...schooled there through university...not an immigrant[!], met with Obama and his staff after 911 in civil discussion) can be murdered without trial or due process....making all Americans as vulnerable as much outsiders as everyone else....it is very significant escalation. Now, they only have to do so and admit to it [they have done so and not admitted to it] on American soil...then there will be NO taboos left and anyone can be killed anytime without due process.....911 changed everything, or so they say and want us to swallow.....

Peter Lemkin
09-30-2011, 07:02 PM
JUAN GONZALEZ: Shortly before we went on the air this morning, senior U.S. administration officials confirm the killing of the radical Yemeni-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki in northern Yemen. The United States says Awlaki is one of the most influential Al Qaeda operatives on its most wanted list. News of the death was first announced by Yemen’s Defense Ministry in a text message sent to journalists the ministry wrote, "The terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed along with some of his companions," but did not provide further details. In a separate email statement, the Yemeni government reported Awlaki was targeted and killed about 90 miles east of the capital Sanaa. The statement said the attack was launched at 9:55 a.m. local time. Despite the Yemeni government’s claims its forces successfully targeted Awlaki in a raid near the capital, sources on the ground say he was likely killed in a U.S. air-strike. Awlaki was previously targeted in U.S. bombing of Yemen earlier this year. Well, for more, we turn to Glenn Greenwald, constitutional law attorney and political and legal blogger for salon.com. He joins us via Democracy Now! video-stream from Brazil. He first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom it had ordered assassinated without any due process. One of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki, despite substantial doubt among the Yemen experts about whether he had an operational role in Al Qaeda Glenn Greenwald, welcome to DEMOCRACY NOW!

GLENN GREENWALD: Good to be here.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well Glenn, your reaction, first of all, to this news and what it means in terms of any new precedence now set by this administration in the targeting of U.S. citizens?

GLENN GREENWALD: Let’s begin with the fact Anwar al-Awlaki is a U.S. citizen. He was ordered assassinated by the President of the United States without presenting any evidence of any kind as to his guilt, without attempting to indict him in any way or comply with any of the requirements of the Constitution that say that you can’t deprive someone of life without due process of law. The president ordered him killed wherever he was found, including far away from a battle field, no matter what it was he was doing at the time. And if you’re somebody who believes that the president of the United States has the power to order your fellow citizens murdered, assassinated, killed without even a shred of due process, without having to have charged him with a crimes or indict him and prove in a court he’s actually guilty, then you’re really declaring yourself to be as pure of an authoritarian as it gets. Remember that there was great controversy that George Bush asserted the power simply to detain American citizens without due process or simply to eavesdrop on their conversations without warrants. Here you have something much more severe. Not eavesdropping on American citizens, not detaining them without due process, but killing them without due process, and yet many Democrats and progressives, because it’s President Obama doing it, have no problem with it and are even in favor of it. To say that the President has the right to kill citizens without due process is really to take the constitution and to tear it up into as many little pieces as you can and then burn it and step on it.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Well, for those in the audience not familiar with him, give us the sketch of who Al-Awlaki is and what the alleged terrorist plots that he was involved with are.

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, he, as I said, was born in the United States and went to college in the United States and, for a long time, was considered by the U.S. government and the media to be a moderate Muslim cleric. In fact the Pentagon invited him to a lunch in the wake of 9/11 in order to talk to him and other Muslim leaders about how to root out extremism in the Muslim community. The Washington Post had him host his own chat about the meaning of various Muslim holidays and the like. So, for a long time he was viewed as this, sort of, moderate figure. He became increasingly radicalized, like a lot of people have, over the last decade, as the United States has continued to slaughter Muslim men, women and children in multiple countries around the world, and he definitely became much more hostile in his sermons to the United States, and began arguing that it wasn’t just the duty but the right of Muslims to not just be passive receivers of violence by the U.S., but also to begin to attack the United States back as a means of deterring further violence. And so, he definitely became a great concern to the U.S. because he was so effective in communicating these ideas in English to large parts of the English speaking Muslim world. And, of course, expressing those ideas that the United States is engaged in aggression against the Muslim world and that Muslims have the right or even the duty to fight back rather than getting passively slaughtered, whether you agree with those ideas are not, or think they’re horrible ideas, they’re obviously rights you have to express under the First Amendment of the Constitution. The government began claiming that it wasn’t just his messages and his ideas that were bothering them and making them want to kill him, but the fact he started to have an operational role in various plots, such as the attempt by Abdulmutallab to detonate a bomb in a jet over Detroit over Christmas. They claim that he was involved in the attack by Nidal Hasan on the Fort Hood base that killed 14 American service members. The problem with that is that, there’s been no evidence presented that he’s actually been involved in any of those plots. He is not been indicted or charged. If he has been involved in those plots, then the solution is to charge him with those crimes, bring him before a court of justice, and prove his guilt; not simply to order him killed as though the President is judge, jury, and executioner.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Now, his father had attempted, or started a court proceeding to try to enjoin the Obama administration from carrying out any attack on his son. Could you talk about that and where that is?

GLENN GREENWALD: Sure, well, Awlaki, himself, was incapable of suing to vindicate his rights because, had he popped his head up at any time, as we proved today, he would have been killed by the Unites States government, which sought on several occasions before today to kill him. So, his father brought suit on his behalf, represented by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, asking a court to enjoin the President from murdering his son without due process, and in response the Obama administration made numerous claims, mostly arguing courts have no right to interfere in the decisions the president makes about who is an enemy combatant using standard Bush-Cheney theories about how this is a military operation that the court shouldn’t be involved in it. They argued that whom the president decides to assassinate is a state secret. And that courts have no business meddling in or judging or adjudicating the president’s choices in that regard. A federal court, several months ago, accepted the argument that this was really a political and military number, and not a legal or constitutional or judicial question for courts to resolve. Although, the judge said there are very difficult questions raised because of what an extraordinary step this is for the president to order American citizens killed. He said it’s really up to the Congress to stop it or for the president to make decisions on his own. That, I believe that is being appealed; the appeal is pending, but, obviously, it’s now it is too late. There’s no point in trying to obtain an injunction now that Awlaki has been killed by President Obama.

JUAN GONZALEZ: And the Bizarre irony of the government in Yemen which is clearly illegitimate by any international standards, facing a huge popular rebellion among its own people, being involved, to some degree or other, with the United States in this killing?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, President Saleh, who, of course, has been slaughtering his own citizens by the dozens over the last several months, and is still, you know—-has been a longtime ally of the United States. The State Department has issued some very meek statements, suggesting that there should be a democratic transition. But, we’ve continued to work with President Saleh, the U.S. government has, to try and kill those people that we want dead in Yemen, including Awlaki, and this is widely viewed as an attempt by President Saleh to, sort of, offer an olive branch to the United States; we will help to kill the American citizen within our borders whom you want dead in exchange for your continuing to support our regime. Of course, the United States has been trying to claim to the Arab world that it is on the right side of the Arab Spring, and yet just yesterday, of course, in Bahrain, numerous medical professionals, doctors, nurses, ambulance drivers, were imprisoned for the crime of treating protesters who were shot by government forces just two weeks after the U.S. government announced that it plans to ship to Bahrain huge amounts of new weapons. Here, our long time ally, President Saleh, is not only now slaughtering his own citizens, but helping the United States government murder its own. So, it’s a pretty difficult sell to people in the Muslim world to claim that we’re on the right side of the Arab Spring when we not only continue to embrace the people who kill their own citizens, but now kill our citizens as well.

JUAN GONZALEZ: I want to read to you a quote from the editor of The Yemeni Post, Hakim Al Masmari. He said, "The Yemeni government will face a lot of criticism, especially in the south, for allowing US drones to attack Yemeni civilians. But it will not be a blow to Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula from any perspective. We don’t feel they will suffer, because Awlaki did not have any real role in Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula."

GLENN GREENWALD: Right,well, one of the bizarre aspects of this is that media and government reports have tried to sell Awlaki is some kind of grand terrorist mastermind. There’s even lots of articles you can find online and major publications describing him as the new Bin Laden. The United States government needs a terrorist mastermind to replace Bin Laden to justify this type of endless war that President Obama, the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner, is insisting on not just continuing, but escalating. And for a while, Awlaki was the person to going to serve that function. But, the problem is, if you the read experts in Yemen, like Gregory Johnson and others, they mock the idea Awlaki was some kind of a leader of Al Qaeda and even question whether he had any operational role at all in any of these plots. He was clearly a cleric who developed some audience and was popular, particularly among English-speaking Muslim youth because of his ability to communicate with them. But, the idea that he was some high up in Al Qaeda or this is a blow to the operational capability of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is absolutely ludicrous. And if you read Yemen experts, you’ll see that that’s true. The problem is that American political culture is such that evidence doesn’t make a difference. Trials and due process are very pre-9/11. What we believe is that if the president stands up and says, someone is a terrorist, that’s all we need to know; they are therefore there are guilty because the leader has accused him of being that, and as long as the Aides then go and leak to the media, which they have done, that he played a significant operational role and was a big Al Qaeda leader, we won’t need to see evidence. We’ll just stand up and blindly click our heels and accept it’s true, and then cheered the fact he’s been murdered based on as unproven claims.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Glenn, what can people who are concerned about this extraordinary extension of the powers of a president to basically ignore any kind of due process with our American citizens, what can they do?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, one thing that is obvious, is that voting for Democrats as opposed to Republicans doesn’t help. In fact, if you read The New York Times article from 2010 confirming that Awlaki is on the hit list, it makes clear that there’s been no instances where George Bush ordered American citizens targeted for assassination, that this is extraordinary and perhaps an unprecedented step under the Democratic president. What people in the Arab world did, when their leaders did things like imprison them, let alone kill them, and their fellow citizens without trials, is they went out into the streets and protested and demanded that it stop. It’s hard to see how voting for one of these two parties is going to end these extraordinary excesses in violations of the constitution; it clearly doesn’t. Something outside of that system is necessary to address it. That’s been proven. So, I think if Americans cared about the constitutional rights the pretended to care about under George Bush, Democrats in particular, they would be very vocally protesting and objecting to this. But, the problem is that, the opportunity to use these issues as a means to undermine Republican politicians is now gone, and so, many people who, three years ago, were pretending to care about these things, no longer do. So, the question that American citizens have to ask themselves, is whether they believe in the principles of liberty and rights that they have learned were protected by the Constitution? That’s just a piece of paper—-the Constitution—-it cannot protect those rights, only the citizenry can ensure that those rights are not trampled on; and the question is whether citizens actually believe in those.

JUAN GONZALEZ: Finally, Glenn Greenwald, we’re getting reports that U.S. government confirming that it was a joint operation with the Yemeni government. Your sense of whether you believe this was a drone strike largely carried out by the United States?

GLENN GREENWALD: Well, there’s no question I believe that the United States played a significant role. I mean, the United States have been wanting to kill Awlaki for a long time. The Yemeni government has not wanted to kill him, in part, because if it does, it will trigger lots of unrest and resentment, and that’s the last thing, especially at this point, that it wants. So, I believe that this has been done by an air strike, certainly the Yemeni government would not have the ability to carry that out on its own. The fact U.S. government confirmed so quickly that he was dead and accepting responsibility, I think, is fairly definitive proof that the U.S. played a very significant role, if not the lead role, in extinguishing the life of its own citizen without due process.

Bernice Moore
10-01-2011, 02:13 AM
http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?storyid=%7B45fafc4b-96af-4294-b7df-737b898fe9de%7D
CIA (http://www.menafn.com/qn_news_story.asp?storyid=%7B45fafc4b-96af-4294-b7df-737b898fe9de%7DCIA) DRONE STRIKES, DEATH WITHOUT TRIAL

Ed Jewett
10-01-2011, 05:29 AM
Thursday, November 4, 2010

GS-13 Anwar Al Awlaki - Invited To Pentagon After 9/11 - Terrorist? Or Pentagon / CIA Employee? Same Thing!





http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZOwnzvDYQ40/TNNIgxaTRRI/AAAAAAAABVY/ajzEbcBpJx8/s1600/al-awlaki+rumsfeld+redactednews.jpg (http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ZOwnzvDYQ40/TNNIgxaTRRI/AAAAAAAABVY/ajzEbcBpJx8/s1600/al-awlaki+rumsfeld+redactednews.jpg)



Achmed the Dead Terrorist al-Awlaki, who died in December 2009 in a Yemen airstrike, we
are told, seems to be using the same metaphysical ethereal youtube service as bin Laden to
get his messages out to the masses of future terror cells managed stateside by the FBI.












Al-Qaeda Mastermind Invited To Pentagon After 9/11
Paul Joseph Watson | Thursday, October 21, 2010 | Al-Qaeda terror mastermind Anwar Al-Awlaki, the man who helped plot the aborted Christmas Day bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, the Times Square bombing attempt, brainwashed the 7/7 bombers, had pursued a Doctorate in Education from the CIA's favorite University, George Washington in DC and who also preached to the alleged September 11 hijackers, dined at the Pentagon just months after 9/11 documents obtained by Fox News show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKyGD5TQFa8&feature=player_embedded

American-born cleric Awlaki’s role as a key figure in almost every recent terror plot targeting the United States and Canada, coupled with his visit to the Pentagon, only confirms our long stated position that Awlaki is a chief terrorist patsy-handler for the CIA – he is the federal government’s premier false flag agent.


Whoops! Anwar al-Awlaki of the famed Toner Cartridge of Mass Destruction Died in '09

http://newsbizarre.com/2009/12/anwar-al-awlaki-dead.html
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2009/12/24/imam-linked-ft-hood-rampage-believed-al-qaeda-killed-airstrike/
http://theintelhub.com/2010/11/04/anwar-al-awlaki-the-ninja-reported-dead-in-2009/
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/200912246820930737.html

“Documents exclusively obtained by Fox News, including an FBI interview conducted after the Fort Hood shooting in November 2009, state that Awlaki was taken to the Pentagon as part of the military’s outreach to the Muslim community in the immediate aftermath of the attacks,”states the report (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/10/20/al-qaeda-terror-leader-dined-pentagon-months/).
Click here (http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/awlaki.pdf) to read a portion of the documents.
Awlaki was vetted before he was invited to attend a luncheon at the Pentagon in the secretary of the Army’s Office of Government Counsel. His appearance at the meeting was deliberately engineered despite Awlaki’s ties to three of the alleged 9/11 hijackers – Nawaf al-Hazmi, Khalid al-Mihdhar and Hani Hanjour – who were identified as the suicide pilots that slammed Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6_hE2oJK8Oo&feature=player_embedded





http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZOwnzvDYQ40/TNNIvbedJhI/AAAAAAAABVc/eR_XD5DzyFI/s320/al_awlaki_0113.jpg (http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ZOwnzvDYQ40/TNNIvbedJhI/AAAAAAAABVc/eR_XD5DzyFI/s1600/al_awlaki_0113.jpg)


Anwar Al-Awlaki




Following the Fort Hood shooting it was also revealed that shooter Major Nidal Malik Hasan (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6521758/Fort-Hood-shooting-Texas-army-killer-linked-to-September-11-terrorists.html) had been in contact with Awlaki before the rampage. Awlaki preached to both Hasan and the 9/11 hijackers at the Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia in 2001.
Awlaki also met with Christmas Day underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and acted as “the middle-man between the young Nigerian and the bombmaker.” As we have thoroughly documented (http://www.prisonplanet.com/if-abdulmutallab-trained-with-al-qaeda-why-did-the-u-s-government-let-him-on-a-plane.html), the Delta Flight 253 incident was staged from start to finish. The US State Department allowed Abdulmutallab to board the plane (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17505), aided by a well-dressed Indian man, despite the fact that he was on a terror watch list and had no passport.
The Christmas Day incident was a boon for companies linked with the military-industrial complex, as it greased the skids for the global introduction of naked body scanners in airports.
Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad was also reported to have been directed by Awlaki (http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/faisal-shahzad-contact-awlaki-taliban-mumbai-massacre-mastermind/story?id=10575061)before his failed attack on May 1st.

“The Pentagon has offered no explanation of how a man, now on the CIA kills or capture list, ended up at a special lunch for Muslim outreach,” states the Fox News report.
The explanation is quite simple – Awlaki is the CIA’s chief patsy handler for planning and staging false flag terror attacks through the dupes that he radicalizes.
The US Special Operations Command’s Able Danger program identified the hijackers and their accomplices long before 9/11 (http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=abledanger&timeline=complete_911_timeline), and would undoubtedly have also picked up Awlaki.
As Webster Tarpley has documented (http://www.infowars.com/major-hasan-of-fort-hood-a-patsy-in-a-drill-gone-live/), Awlaki is “an intelligence agency operative and patsy-minder” and “one of the premier terror impresarios of the age operating under Islamic fundamentalist cover” whose job it is to “motivate and encourage groups of mentally impaired and suggestible young dupes who were entrapped into “terrorist plots” by busy FBI and Canadian RCMP agents during recent years.”
Tarpley points to Awlaki’s role in the Toronto (http://statismwatch.ca/2008/06/02/many-question-if-toronto-terrorists-were-led-by-informants-as-case-weakens/) and Fort Dix, New Jersey (http://www.prisonplanet.com/attorneys-fort-dix-terror-plot-was-planted-and-nurtured-by-fbi-informants.html), terror plots, which were both contrived by the feds, as proof of Awlaki’s usefulness to the authorities in radicalizing terrorist patsies.
Lawyers in a case relating to the much vaunted 2007 terror plot to attack Fort Dix and kill “as many soldiers as possible” concluded that FBI informants were the key figures behind the operation (http://www.prisonplanet.com/attorneys-fort-dix-terror-plot-was-planted-and-nurtured-by-fbi-informants.html) and that the accused, six foreign-born Muslims, were merely bungling patsies.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgRJ9mW_hAQ&feature=player_embedded

Similarly, the “Toronto 18″ terrorists turned out (http://statismwatch.ca/2008/06/02/many-question-if-toronto-terrorists-were-led-by-informants-as-case-weakens/) to be “a bunch of incompetent guys who were primarily misled by a delusional megalomaniac”. The explosive fertilizer material the terrorist cell apparently planned to use was in fact purchased by an informant working for the RCMP who had radicalized the group.
Given the fact that Awlaki is a double operative, claiming to be an Al-Qaeda leader yet in fact working for U.S. intelligence, it’s hardly surprising that he made an appearance at the Pentagon.
Awlaki has also appeared in video tapes purporting to be Al-Qaeda propaganda material released by the IntelCenter, which as we have documented is nothing more than a Pentagon front group (http://www.prisonplanet.com/cia-linked-intel-center-releases-highly-suspicious-bin-laden-tape.html) that has been caught red-handed releasing fake Al-Qaeda videos to bolster support for the geopolitical agenda of the US government.
Confirmation that Awlaki met with Pentagon officials after having inspired the very 9/11 hijackers that are blamed for flying a commercial airliner into the Pentagon provides yet more startling evidence that the highest levels of Al-Qaeda are completely penetrated and run by the US military industrial complex, which via patsy handlers like Awlaki is staging false flag attacks to boost their own domestic and geopolitical agenda.

Anwar al-Awlaki and 'CIA Islam'

Al-Awlaki is a U.S. Citizen, who pursued a Doctorate in Education at George Washington University in Washington D.C. | Jun-03-2010

(EUGENE, Ore.) - Anwar al-Awlaki received some press coverage recently when the U.S. Government declared that they had put out a hit on him. Al-Awlaki has documented connections to several 9/11 hijackers and to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hassan. The “Times Square Unexplosive Device Planter” Faisal Shahad claims to have been inspired by him.

What is less covered in the media is that other so called “jihadis” have declared him to be a CIA agent.

SalafiMahaj, an organization of “mainstream” Muslim religious leaders in Britain, published a 130 page criticism of al-Awlaki entitle “Anwar al-Awlaki and His Errors in the Issue of Jihad.” Most of the paper is debate on religious points, but it does include a few gems on al-Awlaki’s past and the perception of him in the Muslim community, both jihadi and mainstream.

A Critique of the Methodology of Manhaj of Anwar al-'Awlaki and his Errors in the Fiqh of Jihad (http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_Awlaki)

From that paper:
When one listens to the earlier lectures and khutab of 'Awlaki it is immediate noticeable that he was ... appealing to Middle-Class Muslim professional in the US."

"Awlaki can be seen in ... the PBS documentary Muhammad: Legacy of a Prophet (2003) giving a khutbah [religious speech] in an American Congress building at Capitol Hill (!!!?) [there emphasis]"

"Hence there has been a clear transition and methodological shift in the procedure of 'Awlaki"

"It is possible at this point [moving to Yemen] 'Awlaki reviewed his methodology to regain credibility after the likes of 'Abdullah Faisal al-Jamayki [Real name Trevor William Forest] in the late 1990s had actually condemned him for spreading 'CIA Islam' and being a 'Murji', 'spy', 'a plant of the government', 'an enemy of Islam' etc. See Faisal's lecture wherein he ... condemns 'Awlaki for being a CIA agent."

"Al-Awlaki is not known for having participated in any 'jihad' whatsoever and this is what has to be highlighted. For he calls to it and hypes up his audiences with it, yet the question has to be asked: upon which battlefield has he fought?"
On the connection between intelligence agencies and jihadis:
"The likes of Omar Bakri, Abu Qatadah al-Filistini, Abu Hamza and a whole host of other takfiri-jihadis [takfiris are muslims who accuse other muslims of being apostates or non-believers, in this context to justify killing them] are well-known for their meetings with not even the police, but with Intelligence Services! Some of them have even been protected and sheltered by them! As in the case of Abu Qatadah al-Filistini after 9/11 which is perhaps the most well-known example in the UK of being sheltered by intelligence services!"
Al-Awlaki is a U.S. Citizen, who pursued a Doctorate in Education at George Washington University in Washington D.C.

George Washington University is known for having close ties to the intelligence community, the most public of which is that GWU maintains the National Security Archive.

The Washington Post has reported that George Washington University has CIA employees teaching courses on their campus, as part of the CIA’s “Officers in Residence” program.

It is generally safe to assume that the unofficial programs of intelligence are greater in scale than their official public programs, as the public programs are only set up in order to provide cover for the unofficial secret ones (i.e. if the press asks “are CIA agents on university campuses,” they say, “yes of course, here is the brochure.” Instead of making a false denial, which can be challenged, they reveal a partial truth, which is impossible to disprove.”)

All of this information is in the end rumors and innuendo. However, the official press releases of the U.S. Government on this issue are rumors and innuendo themselves, so it advisable to take them in the context of this broader range of perspectives.



Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/al-qaeda-mastermind-invited-to-pentagon-after-911.html
http://salem-news.com/articles/june032010/al-awlaki-critique-ew.php


http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/11/anwar-al-awlaki-invited-to-pentagon.html

Ed Jewett
10-01-2011, 06:10 AM
Absence of Evidence: The Progressive Policy of Imperial Murder (http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/2169-absence-of-evidence-the-progressive-policy-of-imperial-murder.html)
http://www.chris-floyd.com/templates/rt_terrantribune_j15/images/pdf_button.png (http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?view=article&catid=1:latest-news&id=2169:absence-of-evidence-the-progressive-policy-of-imperial-murder&format=pdf)
http://www.chris-floyd.com/templates/rt_terrantribune_j15/images/printButton.png (http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php?view=article&catid=1:latest-news&id=2169:absence-of-evidence-the-progressive-policy-of-imperial-murder&tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=)
http://www.chris-floyd.com/templates/rt_terrantribune_j15/images/emailButton.png (http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/mailto/?tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5jaHJpcy1mbG95ZC5jb20vY29tcG9uZ W50L2NvbnRlbnQvYXJ0aWNsZS8xLWxhdGVzdC1uZXdzLzIxNjk tYWJzZW5jZS1vZi1ldmlkZW5jZS10aGUtcHJvZ3Jlc3NpdmUtc G9saWN5LW9mLWltcGVyaWFsLW11cmRlci5odG1s)


http://s7.addthis.com/static/btn/lg-share-en.gif (http://www.addthis.com/bookmark.php?v=20)


WRITTEN BY CHRIS FLOYD


FRIDAY, 30 SEPTEMBER 2011 15:46


The president of the United States murdered two American citizens this morning. He had some nameless functionary -- who was sitting comfortably and safely at a computer console somewhere on a well-guarded, probably secret military base -- push a button. A missile was then fired from a robot drone buzzing maleovently in the sky over Yemen. The missile then murdered two American citizens who -- let it be carefully noted -- had not even been charged with a crime, much less tried and convicted in a court of law of any offense.
The New York Times story (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-is-killed-in-yemen.html) on the murders relates a number of accusations against the chief target of the attack, Anwar al-Awlaki. Assertions are made, mostly by anonymous officials, that al-Awlaki was "operationally" involved in terrorist plots, although not a shred of evidence for this "operational" involvement has been offered. (Another American, Samir Khan, was also reported to have been killed in the drone hit. It goes without saying that Khan had also not been charged with any crime nor was there any evidence that he ever took part in a terrorist operation.)
It is true that the two American citizens murdered by the president did engage in a great deal of fiery rhetoric urging violent uprising against the American state. This might not be very nice -- but it does happen to be protected speech under the Constitution of the United States. Of course, that quaint document from the horse-and-buggy era has long since ceased to apply, even fitfully and imperfectly, to the operations of the United States government.
It may well be true that with their words Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan "inspired" someone to commit, or attempt to commit, heinous deeds. So has the Bible. So have The Beatles. But to inspire is not to command. Again, no evidence and certainly no proof has been offered that al-Awlaki or Khanordered anyone to do anything, or that they were in any "operational" role to do so. (Unlike, say, the Nobel Peace Laureate who holds the top "operational" role in the American war machine, which has killed vastly more innocent people than even the most inspired terrorist groups.) If such proof existed that al-Awlaki or Khan played such a role, they easily could have been charged.
But they were not charged -- and were never going to be charged -- with any crime that would have brought their cases into the judicial system. The whole point of these high-profile murders was to establish, yet again, the "right" -- and the power -- of the U.S. president to kill anyone on earth, including American citizens, at his arbitrary command.
The open assertion of this arbitrary power is not an innovation of Barack Obama, of course. He is merely faithfully following in the bloodsoaked footsteps of his imperial predecessors. As I noted in a piece in a piece five years ago (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=3392):
Bill Clinton's White House legal team had drawn up memos asserting the president's right to issue "an order to kill an individual enemy of the United States in self-defense," despite the legal prohibitions against assassination, the Washington Post reported in October 2001. The Clinton team based this ruling on the "inherent powers" of the "Commander in Chief" -- that mythical, ever-elastic construct ....

The practice of "targeted killing" was apparently never used by Clinton, however; despite the pro-assassination memos, Clinton followed the traditional presidential practice of bombing the hell out of a bunch of civilians whenever he wanted to lash out at some recalcitrant leader or international outlaw -- as in his bombing of the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory in 1998, or the two massive strikes he launched against Iraq in 1993 and 1998, or indeed the death and ruin that was deliberately inflicted on civilian infrastructure in Serbia during that nation's collective punishment for the crimes of Slobodan Milosevic. Here, Clinton was following the example set by George H.W. Bush, who killed hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Panamanian civilians in his illegal arrest of Manuel Noriega in 1988, and Ronald Reagan, who killed Moamar Gadafy's adopted 2-year-old daughter and 100 other civilians in a punitive strike on Libya in 1986.
In an earlier piece, in 2005 (http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1797-unreality-check-amnesiac-controversy-ignores-cias-real-death-squads.html), I noted how the clackety bones of the Clinton Doctrine of Unrestrained Murder was given flesh and blood by George W. Bush after 9/11 (scroll down for 2005 extract, and links):
On September 17, 2001, George W. Bush signed an executive order authorizing the use of "lethal measures" against anyone in the world whom he or his minions designated an "enemy combatant." This order remains in force today. No judicial evidence, no hearing, no charges are required for these killings; no law, no border, no oversight restrains them. Bush has also given agents in the field carte blanche to designate "enemies" on their own initiative and kill them as they see fit.
The existence of this universal death squad – and the total obliteration of human liberty it represents – has not provoked so much as a crumb, an atom, a quantum particle of controversy in the American Establishment, although it's no secret. The executive order was first bruited in the Washington Post in October 2001. I first wrote of it in my Moscow Times column in November 2001. The New York Times added further details in December 2002. That same month, Bush officials made clear that the dread edict also applied to American citizens, as the Associated Press reported.
The first officially confirmed use of this power was the killing of an American citizen in Yemen by a CIA drone missile on November 3, 2002. [This was Kamal Derwish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamal_Derwish), born and raised in Buffalo, New York, who was killed in a drone attack targeting alleged al-Qaeda operative Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi.] ....
But most of the assassinations are carried out in secret, quietly, professionally, like a contract killing for the mob. As a Pentagon document unearthed by the New Yorker in December 2002 put it, the death squads must be "small and agile," and "able to operate clandestinely, using a full range of official and non-official cover arrangements to…enter countries surreptitiously."
The dangers of this policy are obvious, as a UN report on "extrajudicial killings" noted in December 2004: " Empowering governments to identify and kill 'known terrorists' places no verifiable obligation upon them to demonstrate in any way that those against whom lethal force is used are indeed terrorists… While it is portrayed as a limited 'exception' to international norms, it actually creates the potential for an endless expansion of the relevant category to include any enemies of the State, social misfits, political opponents, or others."
Indeed, like the "inherent powers" of the "commander-in-chief," the definition of an "enemy" subject to arbitrary assassination is most elastic, as I noted in that 2006 article:
In an December 2002 story in the Washington Post, then-Solicitor General Ted Olson described the anarchy at the heart of the process with admirable frankness:

"[There is no] requirement that the executive branch spell out its criteria for determining who qualifies as an enemy combatant," Olson argues.

"'There won't be 10 rules that trigger this or 10 rules that end this," Olson said in the interview. "There will be judgments and instincts and evaluations and implementations that have to be made by the executive that are probably going to be different from day to day, depending on the circumstances."

In other words, what is safe to do or say today might imperil your freedom or your life tomorrow. You can never know if you are on the right side of the law, because the "law" is merely the whim of the Leader and his minions: their "instincts" determine your guilt or innocence, and these flutterings in the gut can change from day to day. This radical uncertainty is the very essence of despotism -- and it is now, formally and officially, the guiding principle of the United States government.
The murders of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan are simply more public confirmations of this firmly established truth. As I wrote back then, "it's hard to believe that any genuine democracy would accept a claim by its leader that he could have anyone killed simply by labeling them an "enemy." It's hard to believe that any adult with even the slightest knowledge of history or human nature could countenance such unlimited, arbitrary power, knowing the evil it is bound to produce. Yet this is exactly what the great and good in America have done. Like the boyars of old, they not only countenance but celebrate their enslavement to the ruler."
In the coming days, we are certain to hear loud, full-throated praise of Barack Obama's murder of uncharged, untried American citizens. And most of these encomiums will come from heartsworn, true-blue "progressives" -- the very people who savagagely denounced George W. Bush for his "murderous tyrannny" when he carried out the very same crimes, in the very same way, in the very same place.
And they will be telling us, yet again, why we must must must support Barack Obama in his quest to win one more term atop the greasy pole of power. They will tell us, yet again, that we must forget these murders -- and the killing of many hundreds of innocent people in similar robo-slaughters in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan -- and work hard to perpetuate and entrench our own slavery in a lawless system whose leaders can kill any one of us at the push of a button, at the pulse of a whim, without charges, without trial, without mercy.

This is not just the usual partisan amnesia, this is not just moral blindness: it is active, open, undeniable complicity with evil.

Peter Lemkin
10-01-2011, 06:25 AM
Assassination of U.S. Muslim Cleric is Illegal, Immoral and Unwise, by Bill Quigley CCR

Agents of the United States are openly trying to assassinate Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, a US citizen, while he is in hiding in Yemen. Despite what the apologists for assassination argue this is illegal, immoral and unwise.

Assassinating Awlaki in the US would be murder, a capital crime, punishable by life in prison or even the death penalty. Morally, few would argue that agents of the FBI or the CIA could murder the cleric in the US. If it is illegal and immoral to kill a Muslim cleric in the US why would it be legal, moral or wise to do so in Yemen?

The Imam, who lived in the US for more than two decades, is accused of using his powerful speaking and teaching skills on behalf of terrorism. Authorities say he was in e-mail contact with the Army Major arrested for killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Texas. He is loosely linked to the Nigerian Christmas bomber. The Times Square SUV bomber is reported to have listened to the cleric’s online lectures.

Assassination has been illegal since 1976.

In 1976 U.S. President Gerald Ford issued Executive Order 11905, Section 5(g) states “No employee of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, political assassination.” President Reagan followed up to make the ban clearer in Executive Order 12333. Section 2.11 of that Order states “No person employed by or acting on behalf of the United States Government shall engage in, or conspire to engage in, assassination.” Section 2.12 further says “Indirect participation. No agency of the Intelligence Community shall participate in or request any person to undertake activities forbidden by this Order.”

The reason for the ban on assassinations was that the CIA was involved in attempts to assassinate national leaders opposed by the US. Among others, US forces sought to kill Fidel Castro of Cuba, Patrice Lumumba of the Congo, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, and Ngo Dinh Diem of South Vietnam.

Since 2001, the US has returned to the assassination business. Along with its many other illegal actions, the Bush-Cheney administration revived the use of murder to eliminate political opponents across the world.

How can murder be allowed? The Congressional Research Service published a review of the ban on assassinations in 2002. The review weakly suggested “it might be sufficient” to interpret the War Power resolutions passed by Congress after September 11, 2001 as legal authority to allow assassinations outside the U.S. However, Congress authorized no war against Yemen, no military strikes against anyone in Yemen, nor authorized any assassination of anyone anywhere.

Defenders of assassination argue that murder is a legal part of the US strategy of “pre-emptive self-defense” authorized by Congress after 9-11. Under this argument, the US government is allowed to decide who represents a possible threat to our nation anywhere anytime and then exterminate them before they can damage the US. They also argue that the decision to target someone for assassination is legally secret. Because any threat to the US triggers these powers, under this line of argument, the US is in a permanent war state and has these powers forever.

This is perfect for the apologists for assassination because the government alone is thus investigator, prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner. The public will never know because the government can do all this in secret. And since the war against terrorism is permanent, the government can murder people forever.

Thus the last traces of the rule of law evaporate. There is no transparency because no one gets to know. There is no accountability because the executive has unchecked authority.

Does anyone think the US would approve other nations acting like this? Would it be acceptable or even arguably legal for Iran or China or Israel or France to secretly decide who their enemies are and then execute them in the US if they find them here?

Apologists for assassination ease the way for the US to kill anyone anywhere anytime. What is then the logical next step in this argument? If we can secretly kill US citizens who we decide are our enemies outside the US, why not inside the US? And why not keep that secret as well?

The US cannot be allowed to continue to exercise secret authority to murder people. If the Bush administration was doing this as openly as the Obama administration is, people would be vocal about its illegality, immorality and its lack of wisdom.

Murdering anyone in the US is a criminal act that is prosecuted regularly in courts across this country. Why should secret cold-blooded murder by government forces outside the U.S. be treated any differently?

Peter Lemkin
10-01-2011, 06:26 AM
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?8626-Extra-Juditial-Murder-of-American-by-America-in-Yemen-Anwar-al-Awlaki

Ed Jewett
10-01-2011, 07:06 AM
Wayne Madsen - Obama Setting Himself As Judge, Jury and Executioner

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TsgJJB4act8&feature=player_embedded#!

Uploaded by nwotaser (http://www.youtube.com/user/nwotaser) on Feb 5, 2010
http://RT.com (http://RT.com/) AND http://www.youtube.com/RussiaToday The Director of National Intelligence said the government has the right to kill Americans abroad if they present a direct threat to U.S. security. Blairs comments come on the heels of reports that Barack Obama had embraced predecessor George W. Bushs policy of authorizing the killing of US citizens involved in terrorist activities overseas. Blair said one needs "special permission" before an American citizen can be placed on the assassination list, but consider from whom that "permission" is obtained: the President, or someone else under his authority within the Executive Branch.
-rt.com-

Ed Jewett
10-01-2011, 07:12 AM
Wayne Madsen (Washington)
Cass Sunstein's cognitive infiltrators are out in force as suck puppets. It appears that humans or programs are posting the same comments on a number of left of center web sites on the Awlaki killing. Some examples:


It is the job of the government in general and of the executive branch in particular, to identify militant threats against the people of the United States and to exercise, on our behalf, our right of self defense.

I don't think the government has made a mistake in identifying Osama and Al-Awlaki as enemies of our nation that require defensive, lethal action.

As far as your concern that those accused of seditious activities be told of the accusations against them and have a chance to answer them, I would say it is naive and unrealistic under the circumstances we are discussing - a militant located in a foreign country actively engaged in operations against our nation.

We, as a people have the right to self defense; our government is the agency of that defense; and we must be realistic and effective in defending ourselves.

The protection of our nation and our people from imminent danger is paramount, and I believe in extreme circumstances, that singular function and effort trumps all others.


The USA has the right to defend America from anyone that declares war on the USA and its citizens.

Al-Awlaki was a rabid animal that was a threat to Americans, whether they pristine innocent or corrupt. He was sent to his place in hell today. Good riddance to him and the jackal that was killed beside him.


http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20110930_1

Peter Lemkin
10-01-2011, 07:13 AM
This all flies in opposition to the body of Constitutional, Statutory, and International Law. We have forgotten and lost our sense of Justice, Legal process, innocent until proven guilty, right to trial, due process and more. If it could happen to al Awalki, it could happen to me - without any warning and any legal process. All that 'needs to happen' is a secret finding that I'm a threat to TPTB and on the 'eliminate' list. Sickening and that there is no general outrage is even more sickening. Lemmings, at best is what most American are - frightened lemmings. :hitler:

Peter Lemkin
10-01-2011, 08:01 PM
CCR Condemns Targeted Assassination of U.S. Citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki

CCR Cites a Lack of Adherence to Constitutional and International Laws that Afford Due Process

press@ccrjustice.org

September 30, 2011, New York—Today, in response to the news that a missile attack by an American drone aircraft had killed U.S. citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki in Yemen, the Center for Constitutional Rights, which had previously brought a challenge in federal court to the legality of the authorization to target Al-Awlaki in Yemen, released the following statement:
“The assassination of Anwar Al-Awlaki by American drone attacks is the latest of many affronts to domestic and international law,” said Vince Warren, Executive Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights. “The targeted assassination program that started under President Bush and expanded under the Obama Administration essentially grants the executive the power to kill any U.S. citizen deemed a threat, without any judicial oversight, or any of the rights afforded by our Constitution. If we allow such gross overreaches of power to continue, we are setting the stage for increasing erosions of civil liberties and the rule of law.”

Pardiss Kebriaei, a CCR senior staff attorney, added: “In dismissing our complaint, the district court noted that there were nonetheless "disturbing questions" raised by the authority being asserted by the United States. There certainly are disturbing questions that need to be asked again, and answered by the U.S. government about the circumstances of the killing and the legal standard that governed it.”

Further information on CCR’s challenge to targeted killings is online at http://ccrjustice.org/targetedkillings

Ed Jewett
10-02-2011, 04:29 PM
you are here: home (http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/) » general archives september 2011 (http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/categories/20110829) » september 30-october 2, 2011 -- update 1x. u.s. drones kill u.s. citizen anwar al awlaki in yemen (http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20110930)
September 30-October 2, 2011 -- UPDATE 1X. U.S. drones kill U.S. citizen Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen
publication date: Sep 30, 2011
http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/images/save_icon.gif (http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20110930/print?printview=pdf) http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/images/print_icon.gif (http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20110930/print) http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/images/mail_icon.gif (http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/sendfriend/articles/20110930)

Previous (http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20110929_2) | Next (http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20110930_1)


September 30-October 2, 2011 -- U.S. drones kill U.S. citizen Anwar al Awlaki in Yemen

Unnamed Pentagon sources are confirming that it was an attack by U.S. drone aircraft that killed the alleged head of "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" Anwar al Awlaki in Marib province in the eastern part of north Yemen. Al Awlaki was born in Las Cruces, New Mexico in 1971, attended Colorado State University where he graduated in 1994 with a bachelor's degree in civil engineering. Al Awlaki also served as a imam at a Denver mosque and as president of the Denver Islamic Society.

Never having been cited by the U.S. government as much more than being an "inspiration" for those who carried out terrorist attacks at Fort Hood, Texas; the 2005 London transit bombings; a failed "underwear" bombing of a passenger plane en route from Amsterdam to Detroit; a dubious case involving Muslims who were said to be planning a terrorist attack at Fort Dix, New Jersey; and a failed bomb set to detonate in Time Square in New York, al Awlaki was named a "specially designated global terrorist" and his assassination was personally ordered by President Barack Obama in early 2010. In October 2010, Representative Anthony Weiner (D-NY) called on YouTube to remove hundreds of al Awlaki's videos from its website, charging that they inspired terrorists. Weiner later resigned in disgrace after lewd photos that he sent to several women surfaced on the Internet.

Like Obama, who claimed Indonesian citizenship to receive a foreign scholarship at Occidental College in Los Angeles in 1979, al Awlaki claimed Yemeni citizenship when he obtained a foreign student scholarship to attend Colorado State in 1991. During his summer breaks at college, al Awlaki trained with CIA- and Saudi-backed mujaheddin guerrillas in Afghanistan. Al Awlaki later earned a Master's degree from San Diego State University and he was enrolled in a doctorate program at George Washington University in Washington, DC from January to December 2001. Al Awlaki also served as the Muslim chaplain at George Washington University.

A few months after the 9/11 attacks, Al Awlaki was invited to a luncheon at the Office of General Counsel in the Secretary of Army's office at the Pentagon. The invitation was part of a Pentagon initiative to reach out to moderate Muslims. At the luncheon, where some attendees were hostile to al Awlaki, he condemned "Al Qaeda" and the 9/11 attacks. Al Awlaki also wrote on the website IslamOnline.net six days after the 9/11 attacks that he believed they were carried out by Israeli intelligence agents, a view shared by a number of U.S. and foreign intelligence and military experts, a number of whom are non-Muslim and some of whom worked at the Pentagon at the same time of al-Awlaki's luncheon meeting. In 2002, al Awlaki was the first Muslim cleric to conduct a prayer service at the U.S. Capitol. Citing a climate of fear among American Muslims, al Awlaki left the U.S. for Britain at the end of 2002.

In 2004, al Awlaki returned to Yemen. His father, Dr. Nasser al Awlaki, received a Master's degree at New Mexico State University on a Fulbright Scholarship and a doctorate at the University of Nebraska. Dr. al Awlaki later served as Agriculture Minister under Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and, subsequently, as president of Sana'a University. The Awlakis are related to Yemeni Prime Minister Ali Muhammad Mujawar, who, along with Saleh, was seriously injured in a rebel bombing attack on June 3.

Obama's decision to order the assassination of al Awlaki, a U.S. citizen, has met with opposition from constitutional rights groups and experts. However, there is another aspect of the al Awlaki assassination that should serve as a stark warning to American journalists. In May, while attending the Arab Media Forum in Dubai, this editor was afforded an opportunity by a Yemeni television news producer to travel to Yemen and meet with al Awlaki. Following a flight to Sana'a from Dubai, the meeting with al Awlaki would have been arranged by his father and would have taken place in a secret location in the Yemeni mountains east of Sana'a and after a thorough vetting process by al Awlaki's followers, including a vigorous pat down for geo-location devices. With al Awlaki designated as Public Enemy Number 1 by the Obama White House, the CIA, and just about every other U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agency, I declined the invitation. However, given the fact that reporters for CNN and ABC News met in secret locations in Afghanistan with Osama Bin Laden in 1997 and 1998, respectively, there was a precedent for journalists meeting with those designated as "most wanted" by the United States government. Al Awlaki, a U.S. citizen ordered murdered by the President of the United States, was a much different case than Bin Laden and just as, if not more, newsworthy than Bin Laden for an American readership.

Had I taken the Yemeni producer up on his offer and met with al Awlaki at the same time that U.S. drones launched their attack, Obama would have been reponsible for the murder of more than one American citizen. Obama's decision to assassinate American citizens without due process and according to the Constitution he swore to uphold becomes much more problematic when "collateral damage" to other Americans enters into the picture.

Now that Obama has taken the step to assassinate an American citizen, where does this "slippery slope" end?

There is also the information that al Awlaki has taken to the grave -- information that may have been gleaned from a personal interview had I opted for one. What information did al Awlaki have about Israel's involvement in 9/11? Who were his interlocutors at the Pentagon? Who were his CIA contacts while fighting with the mujaheddin in Afghanistan? As to the first question, Obama's friends in Jerusalem perhaps have much more to celebrate today than they did last week when Obama sold out Palestinian independence for some big political donations from Wall Street and Hollywood.

UPDATE 1X: After the report of al Awlaki's assassination by American drone strikes in Yemen, it is being reported that a second American citizen, Samir Khan, a Riyadh-born Pakistani-American from Charlotte, North Carolina, was killed in the same drone attack. Khan was said to be the publisher of the English-language "Inspire," an "Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula" magazine that recently criticized Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for suggesting that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job" by the U.S. government. "Inspire's" stance on 9/11 as the work of "Al Qaeda" matches up completely with those of the Obama administration and Israel and its global lobby.

"Inspire" has come under suspicion that it was a propaganda tool of the CIA and/or Mossad used to keep "Al Qaeda" relevant as the Arab Spring movement rejects Al Qaeda's jihadist doctrine. "Inspire" debuted in July 2010. "Inspire" was first brought to the media's attention by the Washington-based Search for International Terrorist Entities (SITE), believed to be a tool of Israel's Mossad.

President Obama, in an address at the White House, referred to al Awlaki as the "External Operations Chief" for Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a designation that had never been used for al Awlaki in the past.











http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/articles/20110930

Peter Lemkin
10-02-2011, 05:15 PM
The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality
By Glenn Greenwald
(http://politics.salon.com/2011/09/30/awlaki_6/)
FILE - In this Nov. 8, 2010 file image taken from video and released by SITE Intelligence Group on Monday, Anwar al-Awlaki speaks in a video message posted on radical websites. A senior U.S. counterterrorism official says U.S. intelligence indicates that U.S.-born al-Qaida cleric Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed in Yemen.

(updated below)

It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was “considering” indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even had any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki’s father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were “state secrets” and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki’s inclusion on President Obama’s hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that “it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing.”

After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.). It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its. The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world. The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.

What’s most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar (“No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law”), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What’s most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government’s new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President’s ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki — including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry’s execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists: criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.

From an authoritarian perspective, that’s the genius of America’s political culture. It not only finds ways to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process). It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards. :hitler:
* * * * *

In the column I wrote on Wednesday regarding Wall Street protests, I mistakenly linked to a post discussing a New York Times article by Colin Moynihan as an example of a “condescending” media report about the protest. There was nothing condescending or otherwise worthy of criticism in Moynihan’s article; I meant to reference this NYT article by Ginia Bellafante. My apologies to Moynihan, who rightly objected by email, for the mistake.

UPDATE: What amazes me most whenever I write about this topic is recalling how terribly upset so many Democrats pretended to be when Bush claimed the power merely to detain or even just eavesdrop on American citizens without due process. Remember all that? Yet now, here’s Obama claiming the power not to detain or eavesdrop on citizens without due process, but to kill them; marvel at how the hardest-core White House loyalists now celebrate this and uncritically accept the same justifying rationale used by Bush/Cheney (this is war! the President says he was a Terrorist!) without even a moment of acknowledgment of the profound inconsistency or the deeply troubling implications of having a President — even Barack Obama — vested with the power to target U.S. citizens for murder with no due process.

Also, during the Bush years, civil libertarians who tried to convince conservatives to oppose that administration’s radical excesses would often ask things like this: would you be comfortable having Hillary Clinton wield the power to spy on your calls or imprison you with no judicial reivew or oversight? So for you good progressives out there justifying this, I would ask this: how would the power to assassinate U.S. citizens without due process look to you in the hands of, say, Rick Perry or Michele Bachmann?

Ed Jewett
10-03-2011, 10:03 PM
The Secret Memo That Explains Why Obama Can Kill Americans (http://cryptogon.com/?p=25258)October 3rd, 2011Via: The Atlantic (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/10/the-secret-memo-that-explains-why-obama-can-kill-americans/246004/):
Outside the U.S. government, President Obama’s order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. “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 newspaper reported. “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.”
Isn’t that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It’s secret. Classified. Information that the public isn’t permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.
Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they’re asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn’t a military secret. It isn’t an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress’ post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, “The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.”
Obama hasn’t just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set.
Posted in Assassination (http://cryptogon.com/?cat=11), Covert Operations (http://cryptogon.com/?cat=27), Dictatorship (http://cryptogon.com/?cat=22)

Ed Jewett
10-03-2011, 10:13 PM
http://www.germaniainternational.com/images/ahnenerbehead01.jpg




Ah, yes, nothing better than having your own back-room think tank to create the mythological premises and interpretations to underlie the actions you are about to take...

Peter Lemkin
10-04-2011, 05:30 AM
It turns out there were TWO Americans killed in the one drone strike in Yemen.

25-year-old American is killed with mentor Anwar al-Aulaqi in drone strike [Washinton Post Crap]

The man killed alongside Anwar al-Aulaqi once ran radical Web sites from his parents’ North Carolina basement and broke his father’s heart when he fled to Yemen to seek jihad as a “proud traitor” to his American homeland.

Samir Khan, 25, who perished with his mentor in the U.S. drone strike over northern Yemen on Friday, according to American and Yemeni officials, was a driving force behind the efforts of al-Qaeda’s Yemen affiliate to promote itself among English speakers.

Khan helped edit and write its English-language magazine, Inspire, a mixture of ideology, first-person accounts of operations and do-it-yourself jihad advice. Copies have been found in the possession of several would-be attackers in the United States and Britain.

“I am proud to be a traitor to America,” Khan wrote in an article in the second issue of the online magazine, published last fall. He described his life as working in the “jihadi media sector” in North Carolina before his beliefs turned him into a “rebel of Washington’s imperialism.”

Born in Saudi Arabia to Pakistani parents, Khan grew up mostly in New York. Along with his devout father, mother and younger brother, he attended the Islamic Organization of North America religious center in the city, where the imam, Steve al-Turk, a family friend, remembers a “very kind, very sweet, very generous” young man growing up in the 1990s.

“He was struggling in his school from peer pressure in his teenage years, so he found coming to the mosque and being with Muslims something that was good for him,” Turk said. He said neither Khan nor his family held views that were violent or extreme.

After the family moved to North Carolina in 2004, Khan became increasingly radical and ran jihad-focused blogs and online message boards from his parents’ home. His father was distressed by this and had him return to New York to visit Turk’s center in hopes of countering this new direction.

“I met him in 2005 or 2006 to try to dissuade him, but by that time, he had made up his mind,” said Turk, who added that he had spoken with Khan’s father Friday morning to offer condolences on the death of his son. “I felt very bad for the parents. He wasted his life.”

When Khan decided to travel to Yemen in October 2009, his father was devastated, Turk said.

Khan traveled with little difficulty, which surprised him: “I mean, I was quiet [sic] open about my beliefs online and it didn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out I was al-Qaeda to the core,” he wrote in Inspire’s fall 2010 issue.

From Sanaa, he traveled to what he called a mujaheddin base in rural Yemen, where he trained and studied. He wrote, “It only brought me gleeful tears and great joy to hear that America labels me as a terrorist.”

He wrote that he was being monitored by FBI officials in Yemen and the United States. Administration officials declined to confirm whether Khan was on the list of approved targets compiled by the CIA’s National Counterterrorism Center. But, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to comment publicly, officials said that CIA operatives did not know that Khan was with Aulaqi when conducting the drone strike.

Rep. Sue Myrick (R-N.C.) said authorities had tried to stop Khan while he lived in North Carolina. “We tried to shut him down through the FBI, but we couldn’t because he was not inciting violence, he was simply putting out information, and because he kept changing his server,” she said.

Myrick described Khan as a loner whose departure for Yemen presented a “very clear red flag.”

“He was one of the key people in recruiting and radicalizing Americans, and that is of great concern to me. But he was a misguided young person, and really no one celebrates this death,” Myrick said.

Khan is thought to have edited seven issues of Inspire magazine while in Yemen, which devoted much space to the thoughts of Aulaqi.

Jarret Brachman, a counterterrorism expert and government consultant who analyzed Khan’s writings, described Khan as a “partner in crime” to Aulaqi who was clearly “soaking in as much knowledge as possible” from the older man.

Working together, the two had become effective as propagandists and recruiters, with Khan’s articles complementing Aulaqi’s Internet sermons and essays. For al-Qaeda, the loss of both men at once is a serious blow, he said.

“If it’s true that both were killed, then al-Qaeda’s English-language outreach program is dead,” Brachman said.

Carsten Wiethoff
10-04-2011, 06:20 AM
Samir Khan, killed together with al-Awlaki in Yemen, is the man behind the infamous "Inspire" magazine.
See https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?8552-Ahmadinejad-s-UNO-speech-2011&p=45465#post45465

and here: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/30/american-who-waged-media-jihad-is-said-to-be-killed-in-awlaki-strike/

Mr. Khan, 25, was an enthusiast of jihad who lived with his parents in North Carolina as recently as four years ago, before leaving the United States for Yemen in 2009, where he is thought to have started Inspire magazine.The magazine recently attracted attention for its issue commemorating and celebrating the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. In the issue, the group criticized President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran for repeating conspiracy theories (http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/stop-the-conspiracy-theories-al-qaeda-tells-iranian-leader/?scp=1&sq=inspire magazine&st=cse) that diminished Al Qaeda’s role in the attacks.

Ed Jewett
10-06-2011, 02:13 AM
Ron Paul: US Could Target Journalists For Killing

By The Associated Press

October 05, 2011 "AP (http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20111005/APP/1110050876)" -- Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is warning that the United States could kill journalists in the same manner it targets terrorists.

The Texas congressman said Wednesday that it's not a far leap from the United States killing suspected terrorists in Yemen to targeting reporters at home.

Paul says President Barack Obama was wrong to approve the killing of two American citizens who had become central figures in al-Qaida. He warns that the United States could go further as it ignores civil rights and due process.

Paul says that the U.S. cannot let the deaths of Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Kahn go without protest, otherwise the country will start adding reporters to its list of threats that must be taken out.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article29315.htm

Ed Jewett
10-06-2011, 02:22 AM
The Murder Of Anwar Al-Awlaki
‘Mowing the Grass’ in Yemen


By Eric Walberg

October 05, 2011 "Information Clearing House (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/)" -- Muslim cleric Anwar Al-Awlaki, the victim of assassination by US forces 30 September, was born in New Mexico in 1971, educated at Colorado State University in engineering, and radicalised while preaching in US mosques and visiting Afghanistan in the 1990s. His sermons attracted a large following, first in Denver and then San Diego, where he completed a Masters in education.

Though in the FBI’s sites from 1999, he became a media star after 9/11, interviewed by National Geographic and the New York Times as a moderate, articulate American Muslim. He condemned the attacks, stating ”There is no way that the people who did this could be Muslim, and if they claim to be Muslim, then they have perverted their religion.” On IslamOnline.netsix days after the 9/11 attacks, he suggested that Israeli intelligence agents might have been responsible, and that the FBI “went into the roster of the airplanes, and whoever has a Muslim or Arab name became the hijacker by default”.

The US Secretary of the Army was eager to have a presentation from a moderate Muslim as part of an outreach effort, and a Pentagon employee invited Al-Awlaki to a luncheon in the Secretary’s Office of General Counsel. He became the first imam to conduct a prayer service at the US Capitol in 2002 for the Congressional Muslim Staffer Association and officials of the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

However, harassment by the FBI drove him to go to England in 2002, where he continued his preaching. He moved to Yemen in 2004, was arrested in 2006 on kidnapping and terrorism charges, imprisoned (and no doubt tortured), but released in December 2007. His sermons about Islamic ethics and the lives of the prophets became best-selling CDs and there were 1,910 Youtube videos of his lectures, though they have all been removed and his CDs are no longer for sale. It was only after his prison experience that he openly advocated jihad against the US.

The hardest evidence against him seems to be that Nidal Hasan, accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood in 2009, was in touch with him, and Faisal Shahzad, who was behind the New York Times Square car bomb attempt in May 2010, cited him as an inspiration. Obama, in a replay of his May announcement of the killing of Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan, boasted that Al-Awlaki was killed in a drone attack in the northern Yemeni province of Mareb, home of Al-Awlaki clan, along with his protege, 25-year-old Pakistani-American Samir Khan.

Al-Awlaki tribal leaders insist the body was not Anwar’s and demanded DNA analysis. However, assuming that he and Khan indeed died, this is the first case of the US government deliberately killing two American citizens. And their only proven crime was their eloquent Internet appeals to fight the US empire.

This new policy has shocked even mainstream politicians, such as Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, and gives Al-Awlaki’s “dangerous message a life and power of its own”, according to US imam Yasir Qadhi, writing in the NTY. Claims that he was an Al-Qaeda leader or that he was directly involved in any terrorist action have never been substantiated. His murder was clearly just another feather in Obama’s warrior headdress as he launches his re-election campaign this autumn.

Mainstream critics call the assassination “an act of futility” insisting he was not even part of Al-Qaeda. Virtually unknown in Yemen, Al-Awlaki will merely become another martyr in Yemen’s ongoing struggle to free itself from American hegemony. Others left behind are far more skilled than Al-Awlaki, according to the US Military Academy’s Combating Terrorism Centre.

The real reason he and Khan were targetted was because they were charismatic communicators of Islam to Western dissidents. As desperate American and European youth become radicalised by the conflicts of the post-2001 period and the endless economic crisis, they will increasingly look to the likes of Al-Awlaki who provide a simple, if deadly, solution for young people with nothing to lose.

Just as new recruits to the Taliban spring up daily, as the US kills Afghan resistance fighters in droves, so the US will have to kill more and more people in Yemen and who-knows-where in a never-ending campaign, what US troops in Afghanistan call “mowing the grass”. And its victims will increasingly be Americans, disgusted with their own government and recognising it as the main cause of the world’s troubles today.

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/
(https://webmail.west.cox.net/do/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fweekly.ahram.org.eg%2F)Y ou can reach him at http://ericwalberg.com/ (https://webmail.west.cox.net/do/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fericwalberg.com%2F)
HisPostmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics and the Great Games is available at http://claritypress.com/Walberg.html (https://webmail.west.cox.net/do/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fclaritypress.com%2FWalbe rg.html)

Ed Jewett
10-07-2011, 02:22 AM
White House death panel, fully operational: Secret panel can put Americans on 'kill list' (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005)05 Oct 2011 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. The panel was behind the decision to add Awlaki, a U.S.-born militant preacher with alleged 'al Qaeda' connections, to the target list. He was killed by a CIA drone strike in Yemen late last month.

http://www.legitgov.org/#breaking_news

Bernice Moore
10-08-2011, 01:22 AM
CIA "Kill List" Panel Wears a Cloak of Invisibility

Read more: http://technorati.com/politics/article/cia-kill-list-panel-wears-a/#ixzz1a9ITVydb

Ed Jewett
10-08-2011, 04:32 AM
Obama’s Very Real Death Panel: The CIA's Assassination Program

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26984



It’s official. The American dystopia is here. Obama administration officials admit (http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/05/white-house-secret-panel-can-order-americans-assassinated/) that the CIA assassination program that snuffed out Anwar al-Awlaki last Friday is guided by a secret panel that decides who lives and dies. According to Reuters:

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.
Let that sink in. The U.S. presidency, supposed leader of the free world, has a clandestine committee that chooses American citizens to assassinate. This from the administration that promised unprecedented transparency and a ratcheting back of Bush-era civil liberties abuses. This from the president who vowed to restore habeas corpus and subject executive war powers to judicial scrutiny. This from the Nobel Peace Prize laureate.








What’s more striking, however, is the deafening silence. Sure, the ACLU opposes all this, as do a smattering of public voices. Yet it seems for everyone expressing proportional concern about this, there are a thousand leftist protesters whining about the top one percent, and a thousand conservatives whining about the leftist protesters.
How fitting that the presidency that Tea Partiers accused of planning to convene death panels to handle health care rationing has openly admitted to having created such a panel whose declared purpose is not simply to withhold socialized medical resources, but to direct the cold-blooded murder of citizens who are sufficiently bothersome enemies of the regime. Yet in a majestic irony, many of the conservatives who feared Obama’s life-and-death bureaucracies are cheering on his most explicit and frightening seizure of dictatorial power in all his presidency, and perhaps one of the greatest of all presidential power grabs in the sweep of U.S. history.







Meanwhile, Obama’s millions of supporters still think the idea that this man is a fascist, a tyrant, a threat to liberty, is hysterical hate speech and itself a danger to American democracy. Yet Barack Obama appears dedicated to out-Bushing Bush when it comes to shredding the Bill of Rights and sticking his middle finger at the very idea that he ought to be accountable to anything but his own power.
Make no mistake. We are witnessing a defining moment in America’s transformation into a totalitarian nation. Not because the murder of al-Alwaki, or even the death panel that sealed his fate, is some sort of anomaly in terms of morality or even presidential power. The U.S. presidency has already sentenced millions to death with its wars, its sanctions, its bombings, its terrorism, its covert ops, its torture chambers. The nukings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to take a couple of famous examples, long ago revealed the awesome and murderous power of the Oval Office, whether or not these bombings were as "illegal" as the offing of al-Alwaki. And the families of thousands of innocent Afghans and Pakistanis killed in drone strikes had no doubts about Obama’s imperial touch, even before this latest atrocity.








But the circumstances surrounding this particular hit job, and the death panel behind it, deserve more than a footnote. There is the brazenness of it all – the audacity, as a younger Obama might say – of the administration just coming clean about its mysterious council that serves as judge and jury behind closed doors. There is the frank admission of its existence with all else being kept secret. There is also the precision – the fact that this program is one focused on offing political enemies, rather than just bombing neighborhoods in an ad hoc attempt to weaken another government in a war. There is also the open-ended nature of this conflict, a war on terrorism that can last even longer than the clash with the USSR, a war whose immortality seems even more possible now that Barack the law professor is in charge, rather than George the rancher.
Taken together, this is just the kind of creepy atmosphere befitting of a total state, a Communist or fascist government or a nightmarish bureaucracy contrived in the mind of a Cold War-era novelist imagining what America would look like in the 21st century after taking one too many wrong turns. It is almost as if the administration is trying to preempt the conspiracy-minded by giving them something that would be unbelievable only fifteen years ago, but is today easily taken for granted because of course the president has a secret death panel that deliberates on the secret, unchecked executions of American citizens, to be conducted by robots flying in the sky.
Needless to say, anyone who defends this, especially if given the opportunity to think through the implications, is surely no friend of liberty, whether they be fair-weather "civil libertarian" liberals who would rather cheer for their president than wake up and smell the fascism, or conservatives who claim to distrust government except when it exercises the most lethal powers in the most lawless way imaginable. We must recognize that the movement for freedom and against true oppression is clearly no majority, regardless of what Tea Party Republicans and Wall Street occupiers might say.
There is a more fundamental lesson to be learned, however, and one to remember for the ages: This is the nature of the state. It is, by its institutional nature, always and everywhere seeking to expand power in any way it can. To claim and practice the power to kill on its own unreviewable prerogative is simply the fulfillment of its very design. At times of crisis, especially concerning national security, states almost always tend toward aggrandizement toward their realization as totalitarian entities.








For all who find Obama’s death panel frightening – and all of us should – let us remember that this is simply what governments do when they can get away with it. We are only now seeing the American state achieving its maturity. At the founding of the Federal Government, the Framers unleashed a monster that could never easily be restrained, even creating a presidency with all too much power over military affairs. Then came Jackson, Polk, Lincoln, Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Bush and Obama, each one building on the horrible precedents of past American despots, each reaching further toward the ideal of a completely unencumbered presidential hand, one that could snap its fingers and order death to anyone anywhere on the globe.
There is a silver lining, however, albeit one circumscribing a large and dark cloud indeed. A government can develop and come of age, but it is a mortal institution. As it grows it puts strain on the public ideology it requires to live, wrecks the economy it feeds on, and alienates the allies that allow it to be a global empire. To be a total state is the dream of all regimes, but it is an unsustainable reality, and certainly so at the size the U.S. government has become. The more the U.S. presidency and American nation-state morph into an Orwellian version of themselves, the closer they will come to finally expose themselves as being no different from the tyrannies that have enslaved mankind for millennia. For generations much of the world has been under the spell of the lie of American democracy, the propaganda that the brutality of power politics can be tempered through elections and an eloquent piece of parchment. We can hope that the day this great lie is universally seen as a tragic joke, the true significance of Obama’s CIA death panel will be remembered.















Anthony Gregory [send him mail (http://us.mc1613.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=anthony1791@yahoo.com)] is research editor at the Independent Institute (http://www.independent.org/). He lives in Oakland, California. See his webpage (http://www.anthonygregory.com/)for more articles and personal information.

Peter Lemkin
10-08-2011, 05:40 AM
I think they had something similar during the Spanish Inquisition and in the Third Reich - as well as almost any dictatorship. We've made Progress? America is not America anymore. As Pogo said, "We have met the enemy, and the enemy is U.S."

Carsten Wiethoff
10-08-2011, 02:42 PM
I just read http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/anwar_al-awlaki.htm (http://www.adl.org/main_Terrorism/anwar_al-awlaki.htm)which is a "profile" of al-Awlaki by the ADL.
I love especially the following:


In one post on his blog, al-Awlaki further criticized Israel and the Jews, claiming that the Jews "have a hidden agenda" and have infiltrated every government in the world. He has also promoted the conspiracy theory that contends that Israelis were responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks.

What?!?
Last time we read in "Inspire" that Ahmadinejad should stop questioning 9/11 and now we learn that al-Awlaki blames it on the Israelis? :banghead:

No wonder that he had to die, together with the creator of "Inspire".:spy:

:shock::shock::shock:

Albert Doyle
10-08-2011, 05:26 PM
What were those crazy right-wing Republicans saying about "death panels" again?


Oh, I would love to see a revolution and Nuremberg tribunal where those CIA cowards were brought to trial and punished (democratically).

Albert Doyle
10-08-2011, 05:36 PM
It has to noted that as soon as we declared Israel's and the US's causes were one in the same that this kind of Mossad assassination paradigm was enacted.

Ed Jewett
10-09-2011, 03:23 AM
Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen
09 Oct 2011


The Obama administration's secret legal memorandum that opened the door to the killing of U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen found that it would be lawful only if it were not feasible to take him alive (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tllhmK9g4G4), according to people who have read the document. The memo, written last year... offers a glimpse into the legal debate that led to one of the most significant decisions made by President Obama -- to move ahead with the killing of an American citizen without a trial. The secret document provided the justification for acting despite an executive order banning assassinations, a federal law against murder, protections in the Bill of Rights and various strictures of the international laws of war, according to people familiar with the analysis.


http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html


http://www.legitgov.org/Secret-US-Memo-Made-Legal-Case-Kill-Citizen

Carsten Wiethoff
10-09-2011, 06:35 PM
From http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=352561
(http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=352561)


Al-Qaida cleric Awlaki 'was a sex pervert'
Book: Snuffed out terrorist busted for vice, loitering around schools


Ugly article about al-Awlaki frequenting prostitutes and how


Traditional Islam forbids the intermingling of the sexes. That means no dancing, and no mixed swimming or other mixed sports activities. Women and men, moreover, are separated during mosque worship. Marriages are arranged, and there is no dating. And women are required to veil themselves.
Such sexual repression can lead to perversion – especially among men, explains Marc Sageman, a leading forensic psychiatrist and terror expert.
"They cannot have sex. They cannot think about it. They cannot even look at a woman – and well, (then) you're going to have aberrant behavior," said Sageman, author of "Leadership Jihad."
"And then they blame the West for that," he added, "because the West is who put the temptation there."


and


Awlaki privately counseled the 9/11 hijackers and later, the Fort Hood terrorist. Before carrying out their attacks, interestingly, they patronized topless bars.


So he counseled the 9/11 hijackers and later thought, the Israelis had something to do with it?
And of course, killing perverts is OK obviously, no constitutional protection needed...angryfire

Ed Jewett
10-10-2011, 05:04 AM
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2011Dead Men Tell No Tales: The CIA, 9/11 and the Awlaki Assassination (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2011/10/dead-men-tell-no-tales-cia-911-and.html)

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p-G8ItJChAw/ToiPgok-kEI/AAAAAAAAAE8/I2gceKdMWcg/s320/reaper-drone-screen.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-p-G8ItJChAw/ToiPgok-kEI/AAAAAAAAAE8/I2gceKdMWcg/s1600/reaper-drone-screen.jpg)


On September 30, the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) assets under the Agency's control, assassinated the alleged "external operations" chief of the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets, also known as Al-Qaeda, Anwar al-Awlaki, and a second American citizen, Samir Khan, the 25-year-old editor of Inspiremagazine, in a drone strike in Yemen.

As The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/cia-shifts-focus-to-killing-targets/2011/08/30/gIQA7MZGvJ_story.html) reported last month, the "commingling" of CIA officers, JSOC paramilitary troops and contractors "occupy an expanding netherworld between intelligence and military operations" where "congressional intelligence and armed services committees rarely get a comprehensive view."

Or any "view" at all, which is precisely what the CIA and Pentagon have long desired; an oversight-free zone where American policymakers operate, as Dick Cheney infamously put it, on the "dark side," a position fully-embraced by the "hope and change" administration of Barack Obama.

Awlaki's state-sponsored killing, like the May 2 murder of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, resurface many unanswered questions concerning the 9/11 attacks, the so-called trigger for America's global "War on Terror."

But before turning to those issues, it is necessary to take a detour and examine administration actions; specifically the deliberations undertaken by Obama's national security team which culminated in Awlaki's death.

White House "Death Panel"

Unlike the fantasies of the corporate-controlled Tea Party who charged during the run-up to the White House sell-out of health care reform that the administration would create "death panels" to deny care to the elderly, it has since emerged that Team Obama has stood-up the authentic article.

According to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_print.html), President Obama's Justice Department "wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting" of Awlaki. The Post reports that the memorandum "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."

That memorandum, according to The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all), was drafted in June 2010, some six months after Awlaki had been placed on the White House hit list, by Office of Legal Counsel attorneys "David Barron and Martin Lederman."

Both former OLC lawyers are prominent "liberals" from prestigious universities; Barron at Harvard and Lederman at Georgetown University.

Ironically enough, in several scholarly articles they had railed against the previous administration's adaptation of the "Unitary Executive Theory" promulgated by "torture memo" authors Jay Bybee and John Yoo.

Under Bush, OLC opinions were used to justify everything from warrantless wiretapping, the domestic deployment of the military to arrest Americans, to the torture and indefinite detention of "terrorist" suspects at the Guantánamo Bay prison gulag and CIA "black sites."

This of course begs the question: if Awlaki's murder was "legal," why then was the authorization to do so reached in camera by officials following a deliberative process which can't be shared with the public because of "national security"?

The answer should be chilling and shocking to all Americans: because the nucleus of a death squad state recalling those stood-up in Chile and Argentina during the "dirty war" period of the 1970s may now exist.

Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005) disclosed that Americans "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," reporter Mark Hosenball wrote, "which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council. ... Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate."

According to Reuters, "targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC 'principals,' meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval."

A "former official" told Hosenball that "one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to 'protect' the president," i.e., provide Obama legal cover under the thin veneer afforded by "plausible deniability."

McClatchy News (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/30/125807/was-obamas-order-to-kill-al-qaida.html) reported that "broadly speaking" White House orders to kill Awlaki were based on claims that "the nation's inherent right of self-defense [is] recognized under international law." However, "international law also imposes limits: Targeted killing is banned except to protect against 'concrete, specific and imminent' danger."

And although the administration now claims that Awlaki was targeted for death because "his role in AQAP had gone 'from inspirational to operational'," Reuters disclosed that "officials acknowledge that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki's hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy."

In fact, the White House has failed to provide any proof whatsoever that Awlaki posed an "imminent danger" to the United States, although there is considerable evidence that he was on the radar of U.S. and allied secret state intelligence agencies for more than a decade, had close ties to several of the 9/11 hijackers and could have been picked up and indicted at any time.

Instead, federal law enforcement officials gave Awlaki a green light to leave the United States, unlike thousands of innocent Muslim-Americans swept-up and detained by the FBI in the post-9/11 hysteria that followed the attacks.

A "former military intelligence officer who worked with special operations troops to hunt down high-value terrorism targets," told the right-wing Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/3/al-awlaki-would-have-been-difficult-to-try-as-a-ci/): "I think it's pretty easy to understand why they didn't take him alive. Would you want to deal with the hassle of trying to put him on trial, an American citizen that has gotten so much press for being the target of a CIA kill order? That would be a nightmare. The ACLU would be crawling all over the Justice Department for due process in an American court."

That about sums up the dominant mindset of an Empire in sharp decline: the rule of law and due process for criminal suspects reduced to a "hassle."

Slouching Towards Dictatorship

Obama's national security team justified whacking Awlaki, as with their earlier hit on Osama Bin Laden, by referencing the Bush-era Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:)), hastily passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

"A decade later," McClatchy reported, "the Obama administration contends that this wartime authority remains even if it's evolved for reasons the administration won't fully elucidate."

The relevant section of AUFM reads: "IN GENERAL -- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." (emphasis added)

Readers will undoubtedly note that in passing the resolution, Congress not only ceded its authority to declare war to the Executive Branch but also planted the seeds of the administration's preemptive war doctrines along with an unprecedented expansion of its domestic surveillance powers.

More pertinently, is the reason why the administration "won't fully elucidate" how the Bush-era AUMF "evolved" chiefly due to the fact that secret annexes now exist which authorize the killing of Americans, not only in Yemen or other "War on Terror" fronts, but right here in the United States itself?

After all, it's not beyond the Obama administration to play fast and loose with the truth or hide repressive policies under layers of top secret presidential "findings" or a multitude of CIA and Pentagon black programs, as did the previous Bush government.

Recall that during the run-up to the reauthorization of three expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, civil libertarians decried the use of secret legal memos (https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/05/19) justifying everything from unchecked access to internet and telephone records to the deployment of government-sanctioned malware on private computers during "national security" investigations.

Recall too, that the Obama administration, as The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/us/13fbi.html) disclosed in June, handed the FBI "significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention."

These "news rules," the Times averred, will give agents "more latitude" to investigate citizens even when there is no evidence they have exhibited "signs of criminal or terrorist activity."

It gets worse.

Last month, The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/us/even-those-cleared-of-crimes-can-stay-on-fbis-terrorist-watch-list.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all) revealed that the FBI "is permitted to include people on the government's terrorist watch list even if they have been acquitted of terrorism-related offenses or the charges are dropped."

Under these new standards, the Bureau may deem someone a "known or suspected terrorist," not based on evidence gathered through a criminal investigation, but solely if officials have "particularized derogatory information," including that derived from First Amendment protected activities, to support to support an individuals' watch listing or placement on a "no-fly" list.

One administration wag, speaking on condition of anonymity because to do otherwise would reveal "closely held deliberations within the administration," but did so anyway because this was clearly a sanctioned leak to stenographer Peter Finn, told The Washington Post that "what constitutes due process in [the Awlaki case] is a due process in war."

"The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi," Finn wrote, "or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."

We now know, thanks to Reuters, that authorization came from a White House death panel, an extra-constitutional committee of anonymous officials operating outside the rule of law.

As we have seen since Barack Obama took office, as under the previous Bush government, the Constitution is a meaningless scrap of paper with some words on it, duly trotted out on national holidays only to be cast aside in practice; that is, when it isn't used as a rhetorical hammer against assorted "new Hitlers" or geopolitical rivals whose resources corporate America seek to "liberate."

Dead Men Tell No Tales

As toxic to democratic norms and the rule of law as the Awlaki affair clearly is, there are underlying parapolitical themes surrounding his murder which strengthen suspicions that what took place in Yemen on September 30 is more than just another story about an overt power grab by the Executive Branch.

While the government and media continue to cover-up the role played by the CIA and other secret state agencies in alleged intelligence "failures" leading up to the 9/11 attacks, evidence suggests that the Awlaki killing, as with last May's murder of former bête noire and on-again, off-again ally, Osama Bin Laden, may have been a "clean-up" operation designed to remove inconvenient witnesses with knowledge of Agency involvement in the plot.

As Antifascist Calling reported nearly two years ago in the wake of the aborted 2009 bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day over Detroit, a plot for which Awlaki was accused of orchestrating, though evidence can't be supplied because it's "secret," The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603267.html) disclosed that Awlaki had extensive contacts with 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar and Hani Hanjour who "had spent time at his mosques in California and Falls Church."

In a series of 2010 articles (here (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/01/strange-case-of-umar-farouk.html), here (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/01/flight-253-anatomy-of-cover-up.html), here (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/01/flight-253-cover-up-no-smoking-gun.html) and here (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/02/flight-253-intelligence-agencies-nixed.html)), I reported on the stark parallels between September 11 and the Flight 253 affair.

And as with the 2001 attacks we were told "changed everything," far from being a failure to "connect the dots," intelligence and law enforcement officials possessed sufficient information thatshould have prevented accused bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, from boarding that plane and placing the lives of nearly 300 air passengers at risk.

And wile Awlaki wasn't given a free pass by the administration in that botched attack, earlier government failures to apprehend him certainly set the stage.

According to History Commons (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0699aulaqi#a0699aulaqi), "shortly before the [FBI] investigation is closed," in 2000, Awlaki "is beginning to associate with hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar shortly before the investigation ends."

"For instance," [I]History Commons avers, "on February 4, one month before the FBI investigation is closed, al-Awlaki talks on the telephone four times with hijacker associate [and suspected Saudi intelligence agent] Omar al-Bayoumi."

"The 9/11 Commission will later speculate that these calls are related to Alhazmi and Almihdhar, since al-Bayoumi is helping them that day, and that Alhazmi or Almihdhar may even have been using al-Bayoumi's phone at the time. Al-Bayoumi had also been the subject of an FBI counterterrorism investigation in 1999."

Keep in mind that at least two of the hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, figure prominently in recent revelations by researcher Kevin Fenton, the author of Disconnecting the Dots (http://www.trineday.com/paypal_store/product_pages/9780984185856-Disconnecting_Dots/index.html).

In a recent conversation (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/09/23/podcast-show-57/) with Boiling Frogs Post's (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/) Sibel Edmonds and Peter B. Collins, Fenton said that during the course of his investigation, drawn from the Congressional 9/11 Joint Inquiry, the 9/11 Commission, the Justice Department's Inspector General's report, and the CIA's still-redacted Inspector General's report, he discovered that the CIA had deliberately withheld information from the FBI that the future hijackers had entered the United States with multiple entry visas issued in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.

Even though the Agency had identified the pair as international terrorists who attended a 2000 Al-Qaeda summit in Malaysia where they and others, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Khallad Bin Attash, one of the principle architects of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, planned the assault on the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks, they kept this from the FBI, information that could have led straight to the heart of Al-Qaeda's "planes operation."

Fenton provides substantial evidence that the CIA's Alec Station Director Richard Blee and deputy, Tom Wilshire, concealed intelligence from investigators, concluding this "information was intentionally omitted in order to allow an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States."

As part of this continuing cover-up, Awlaki's ties to the 9/11 hijackers were far more extensive than secret state officials have led us to believe.

In fact, although the Obama administration has justified killing Awlaki with false claims that he was AQAP's "external operations" chief, his role before 9/11 was substantially more significant from an investigatory perspective: that of a "fixer," first in San Diego where he assisted Saudi spook Omar al-Bayoumi in "settling" Alhazmi and Almihdhar, and later in Falls Church, Virginia, where he did the same for Hani Hanjour.

In 2002, Newsweek (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2002/12/01/the-saudi-money-trail.html) revealed that "some federal investigators suspect that al-Bayoumi could have been an advance man for the 9-11 hijackers, sent by Al Qaeda to assist the plot that ultimately claimed 3,000 lives."

"Two months after al-Bayoumi began aiding Alhazmi and Almihdhar," Newsweek disclosed, "al-Bayoumi's wife began receiving regular stipends, often monthly and usually around $2,000, totaling tens of thousands of dollars.

Payments arrived "in the form of cashier's checks, purchased from Washington's Riggs Bank by Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the daughter of the late King Faisal and wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi envoy who is a prominent Washington figure and personal friend of the Bush family."

With startling similarities to the Awlaki case, ten days after the attacks, al-Bayoumi is picked up by British authorities in London, where he had relocated in July 2001, at the request of the FBI. Although his phone calls, bank accounts and associations are scrutinized, the Bureau claim they found no connections to terrorism.

The Washington Post (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/whoAidedHJ.html) will report that by 2002 the FBI had concluded, the same year Awlaki leaves the U.S., "that no evidence could be found of any organized domestic effort to aid the hijackers."

Recall that new information linking some members of the Saudi royal family and its intelligence apparatus to the attacks has recently surfaced. Last month, The Miami Herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/07/v-fullstory/2395698/link-to-911-hijackers-found-in.html) revealed that two weeks before the kamikaze assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a Saudi family "abruptly vacated their luxury home near Sarasota, leaving a brand new car in the driveway, a refrigerator full of food, fruit on the counter--and an open safe in a master bedroom."

Investigative reporters Anthony Summers and Dan Christensen learned that "law enforcement agents not only discovered the home was visited by vehicles used by the hijackers, but phone calls were linked between the home and those who carried out the death flights--including leader Mohamed Atta--in discoveries never before revealed to the public."

"Ten years after the deadliest attack of terrorism on U.S. soil," Summers and Christensen wrote, "new information has emerged that shows the FBI found troubling ties between the hijackers and residents in the upscale community in southwest Florida, but the investigation wasn't reported to Congress or mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report."

In a follow-up piece that significantly advanced the story, researcher Russ Baker reported on the WhoWhatWhy (http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/09/22/saudi-royal-ties-to-911-hijackers-via-florida-saudi-family-0/) web site "that those alleged confederates were closely tied to influential members of the Saudi ruling elite."

Building on information first disclosed by the Herald, Baker, the author of Family of Secrets (http://www.familyofsecrets.com/), reports that this "now-revealed link" between those who consorted with the hijackers in Florida "and the highest ranks of the Saudi establishment, reopens questions about the White House's controversial approval for multiple charter flights allowing Saudi nationals to depart the U.S., beginning about 48 hours after the attacks, without the passengers being interviewed by law enforcement--despite the identification of the majority of the hijackers as Saudis."

Is there a pattern between the hands-off treatment afforded well-connected Saudis and Anwar al-Awlaki's casual, and inexplicable, flight from the United States?

"After 9/11" History Commons (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0200hijackersalawlaki#a0200hijac kersalawlaki) points out, "the FBI will question al-Awlaki, and he will admit to meeting with Alhazmi several times, but say he does not remember what they discussed. He will not claim to remember Almihdhar at all." Other accounts suggest that the relationship was much closer.

"The 9/11 Congressional Inquiry," History Commons avers, "claim that Alhazmi and Almihdhar 'were closely affiliated with [al-Awlaki] who reportedly served as their spiritual adviser during their time in San Diego. ... Several persons informed the FBI after September 11 that this imam had closed-door meetings in San Diego with Almihdhar, Alhazmi, and another individual, whom al-Bayoumi had asked to help the hijackers'."

"Around August 2000," History Commons reports, "al-Awlaki resigns as imam and travels to unknown 'various countries.' In early 2001, he will be appointed the imam to a much larger mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. During this time frame, Alhazmi, Almihdhar, and fellow hijacker Hani Hanjour will move to Virginia and attend al-Awlaki's mosque there."

Anecdotally, in 2003 Newsweek (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2003/08/03/failure-to-communicate.html) reports: "Lincoln Higgie, an antiques dealer who lived across the street from the mosque where Aulaqi used to lead prayer, told Newsweek that he distinctly recalls the imam knocking on his door in the first week of August 2001 to tell him he was leaving for Kuwait. 'He came over before he left and told me that something very big was going to happen, and that he had to be out of the country when it happened,' recalls Higgie."

The antiques dealer later told The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/world/09awlaki.html?pagewanted=all), that when he learned that Awlaki would be permanently leaving San Diego, "he told the imam to stop by if he was ever in the area--and got a strange response." Higgie said, "'I don't think you'll be seeing me. I won't be coming back to San Diego again. Later on you'll find out why'."

Although the FBI suspected Awlaki "had some connection with the 9/11 plot," authorities claim there wasn't enough evidence to charge him, nor can he be deported because he's an American citizen. And when the Bureau hatched an ill-conceived plan to arrest him on an obscure charge of "transporting prostitutes across state lines," that plan collapsed when Awlaki left the U.S. in March 2002.

"But on October 10, 2002," History Commons (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1002aulaqiinus#a1002aulaqiinus) reports, "he makes a surprise return to the U.S." Although his name is on a terrorist watch list and he is detained by Customs' officials when he lands in New York, they are informed by the FBI that "his name was taken off the watch list just the day before. He is released after only three hours."

"Throughout 2002," History Commons informs us, Awlaki is the "subject of an active Customs investigation into money laundering called Operation Greenquest, but he is not arrested for this either, or for the earlier contemplated prostitution charges. At the time, the FBI is fighting Greenquest, and Customs officials will later accuse the FBI of sabotaging Greenquest investigations."

Awlaki again leaves the U.S., this time for good. Although the FBI admits they were "very interested" in Awlaki, they fail to stop him leaving the country. One FBI source told U.S. News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040621/21plot.htm), "We don't know how he got out."

Inexplicably however, it was not until 2008 that secret state officials concluded that Awlaki was an Al-Qaeda operative! This beggars belief, and raises the question as to why he was allowed to leave in the first place. It certainly can't be for lack of evidence or that when Awlaki set-up shop, first in London and finally in Yemen, he is continually under surveillance by British, Yemeni and American intelligence agencies.

Although interviewed four times by the FBI after September 11, the Bureau concluded, according to The New York Times, that Awlaki's "contacts with the hijackers and other radicals were random."

Other investigators however, disagreed. "One detective," theTimes reported, whose name has been scrubbed from 9/11 Commission files, told staff that he believed Awlaki "was at the center of the 9/11 story." At the time of the Flight 253 affair, I wrote that "despite, or possibly because of these dubious connections he was allowed to leave the country."

In fact, the curious disinterest exhibited by authorities in bringing Awlaki to ground following September 11, were neither "errors in judgement" nor "mistakes" by overtaxed investigators but are rather, a modus operandi which suggests that Awlaki and others were part of a CIA domestic operation which allowed the 9/11 plot to go forward.


• • •


Nothing in what I have written above should be construed as justification for the extrajudicial assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. In fact, the opposite conclusion can be drawn. The available evidence indicates that Awlaki could have been arrested multiple times. At the least serious end of the criminal justice spectrum he could have been charged with providing "material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization," to whit, Al-Qaeda, and legally taken out of circulation.

That he wasn't and continued to operate freely as a propagandist, despite substantial corroboration from multiple law enforcement sources that he was a key figure in the pre-9/11 domestic support network, suggests that Awlaki may have been a double agent, albeit one who had decidedly gone "off the reservation."

Awlaki's handling by authorities raise serious questions about just how extensive U.S. support for Al-Qaeda was prior to, and possibly even after the September 11 attacks, particularly in resource-rich global hot-spots.

As numerous journalists and researchers have painstakingly documented, Al-Qaeda, allied terrorist outfits and international narco-trafficking networks have a long, sordid history of supporting U.S. covert operations that targeted America's geopolitical rivals even as Bin Laden's far-flung organization plotted to attack the United States itself.

In this light, Awlaki's "targeted killing" as with the earlier hit on Osama Bin Laden, may be part of a larger CIA/Pentagon operation to remove inconvenient participants and witnesses from the scene who might have a thing or two to say about the crimes and intrigues hatched by the imperialist Empire.

After all, dead men tell no tales...



Posted by Antifascistat 11:20 AM (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2011/10/dead-men-tell-no-tales-cia-911-and.html)

Ed Jewett
10-10-2011, 05:45 AM
US Intends To Maintain Super-Bases After Alleged “Withdrawal” for Hunting Human Beings (http://therearenosunglasses.wordpress.com/2011/10/09/us-intends-to-maintain-super-bases-after-alleged-withdrawal-for-hunting-human-beings/)
9102011[US Forces to Build $100,000,000 Special Ops Base in Northern Afghanistan (https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ff83b2d58e361c3a8f7df6b4a43ba1ee&tab=core&_cview=0)]
Special ops, CIA first in, last out of Afghanistan (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2011/10/08/spec_ops_and_cia_first_in_last_out_of_afghanistan/?page=full)http://cache.boston.com/resize/bonzai-fba/AP_Photo/2011/10/08/1318105225_6962/539w.jpg
FILE – This file image from video released by the U.S. Defense Department and made available Oct. 20, 2001, shows U.S. special forces boarding an unidentified aircraft at an unknown location, the day Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman, Gen. Richard Myers, announced at the Pentagon that U.S. special forces “attacked and destroyed targets” in Afghanistan. The Central Intelligence Agency together with U.S. special operations were the first Americans into Afghanistan after the attacks of Sept. 11th, and will likely be the last U.S. forces to leave. (AP Photo/DOD Pool, File)

By Kimberly DozierAP Intelligence Writer / October 8, 2011


FORT BRAGG, N.C.—They were the first Americans into Afghanistan after the Sept. 11 attacks and will probably be the last U.S. forces to leave.



As most American troops prepare to withdraw in 2014, the CIA and military special operations forces to be left behind are girding for the next great pivot of the campaign, one that could stretch their war up to another decade.

The war’s 10th anniversary Friday recalled the beginnings of a conflict that drove the Taliban from power and lasted far longer than was imagined.

“We put the CIA guys in first,” scant weeks after the towers in New York fell, said Lt. Gen. John Mulholland, then a colonel with U.S. special operations forces, in charge of the military side of the operation. U.S. Special Forces Green Berets, together with CIA officers, helped coordinate anti-Taliban forces on the ground with U.S. firepower from the air, to topple the Taliban and close in on al-Qaida.

Recent remarks from the White House suggest the CIA and special operations forces will be hunting al-Qaida and working with local forces long after most U.S. troops have left.

When Afghan troops take the lead in 2014, “the U.S. remaining force will be basically an enduring presence force focused on counterterrorism,” said National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, in remarks in Washington in mid-September. That will be augmented by teams that will continue to train Afghan forces, added White House spokesman Tommy Vietor.

The White House insists this does not mean abandoning the strategy of counterinsurgency, in which large numbers of troops are needed to keep the population safe. It simply means replacing the surge of 33,000 U.S. troops, as it withdraws over the next year, with newly trained Afghan ones, according to senior White House Afghan war adviser Doug Lute

It also means U.S. special operators and CIA officers will be there for the next turn in the campaign. That’s the moment when Afghans will either prove themselves able to withstand a promised Taliban resurgence, or find themselves overwhelmed by seasoned Taliban fighters.

“We’re moving toward an increased special operations role,” together with U.S. intelligence, Mulholland said, “whether it’s counterterrorism-centric, or counterterrorism blended with counterinsurgency.”

As out-going head of U.S. Army Special Operations Command, Mulholland has been in charge of feeding a steady stream of troops to commanders in the field. He knows they need as many special operations troops as he can produce and send. Those special operations forces under his command include U.S. Army Rangers, known for their raiding operations against militant targets, and U.S. Special Forces Green Berets, whose stock in trade is teaching local forces to fight a common enemy so the U.S. doesn’t have to.

A foundation for special-operations-style counterinsurgency is already under way — staffed primarily by the Green Berets — with the establishment of hundreds of sites in remote Afghan villages where the U.S. troops are paired with Afghan local tribesmen trained by the Americans, Mulholland explained.


The program has been so successful in the eyes of NATO commanders that they’ve assigned other special operators like Navy SEALs to the mission, and even paired elite troops with conventional forces to stretch the numbers and cover more territory.

Senior U.S. officials have spoken of keeping a mix of 10,000 of both raiding and training special operations forces in Afghanistan, and drawing down to between 20,000 and 30,000 conventional forces to provide logistics and support. But at this point, the figures are as fuzzy as the future strategy.

Whatever happens with U.S. troops, intelligence officers know they will be a key component.

A senior U.S. official tasked with mapping out their role envisioned a possible future in which Afghan forces are able to hold Kabul and other urban areas, but the Taliban comes back in remote valleys or even whole provinces.

In that event, the official said, CIA and special operations forces would continue to hunt al-Qaida in Taliban areas the Afghan forces can’t secure. The official spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss planning for sensitive operations.

“If the CIA built an intelligence network that could provide special operations forces with targets, we could do the job,” said Maj. Gen. Bennet S. Sacolick, who runs the U.S. Army’s Special Warfare Center and School.

The only question will be which organization is in charge, and that will depend on the Afghan government, the senior U.S. official said. If Afghan authorities are comfortable with U.S. raiders continuing to operate openly, the special operations forces can lead, the official said. If they want a more covert presence, the CIA would lead, with special operation raiders working through them.

The other branch of special operations — the Green Berets and others Mulholland mentioned who specialize in training — would continue to support the Afghans in remote locations, trying to keep the Taliban from spreading.

The notion of a pared down U.S. fighting force, consisting of a latticework of intelligence and special operators, plus the far-flung units in the field, has spurred some criticism on Capitol Hill.

“You cannot protect the United States’ safety with counterterrorism waged from afar,” said Rep. Mac Thornberry, R-Texas, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee’s emerging threats panel. His concern is that the White House has paid too little attention to how special operations and intelligence will keep the Taliban from overwhelming Afghanistan’s remote terrain.

“I would like to know how many special operations forces they need, and how many conventional troops they propose to support them,” he said, “and a rough time line.”

The smaller special operations footprint could work, if it’s part of a larger tapestry of counterinsurgency efforts, said retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal, former commander of the Afghan campaign.

“I believe direct action operations are only effective when part of a holistic strategy,” McChrystal said in an interview. “That does not necessarily imply large U.S. forces or responsibility, but it must include a spectrum of efforts that addresses root causes, partners with indigenous governments and efforts, and approaches the causes as well as the symptoms on extremism and-or terrorism.”

In other words, diplomats and aid groups would have to replace the current military efforts at building Afghan government and services — and do it without a large footprint of U.S. forces to provide them security.

The smaller numbers would also put the U.S. troops left behind at greater risk, officials concede, with fewer support troops to rush to the rescue.

That’s the mission a group of elite special operators was on in August, flying into a remote valley to aid another group of U.S. raiders on the ground, when the Taliban shot down their Chinook helicopter, killing 38 U.S. and Afghan forces on board.

Asked if it could happen again, Mulholland stopped and bowed his head, taking a long pause to think back to how it started.

“From the beginning, we accepted that risk,” Mulholland said, remembering the early days when he sent load after load of special operations forces into Afghanistan, with no sure way to get them out.

He paused again. “We still do.”http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif

Bernice Moore
10-10-2011, 12:43 PM
Dead Men Tell No Tales: The CIA, 9/11 and the Awlaki Assassination

by Tom Burghardt

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27001


On September 30, the CIA and Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) assets under the Agency's control, assassinated the alleged "external operations" chief of the Afghan-Arab database of disposable Western intelligence assets, also known as Al-Qaeda, Anwar al-Awlaki, and a second American citizen, Samir Khan, the 25-year-old editor of Inspire magazine, in a drone strike in Yemen.
As The Washington Post (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27001) reported last month, the "commingling" of CIA officers, JSOC paramilitary troops and contractors "occupy an expanding netherworld between intelligence and military operations" where "congressional intelligence and armed services committees rarely get a comprehensive view."
Or any "view" at all, which is precisely what the CIA and Pentagon have long desired; an oversight-free zone where American policymakers operate, as Dick Cheney infamously put it, on the "dark side," a position fully-embraced by the "hope and change" administration of Barack Obama.
Awlaki's state-sponsored killing, like the May 2 murder of Osama Bin Laden in Abbottabad, Pakistan, resurface many unanswered questions concerning the 9/11 attacks, the so-called trigger for America's global "War on Terror."
But before turning to those issues, it is necessary to take a detour and examine administration actions; specifically the deliberations undertaken by Obama's national security team which culminated in Awlaki's death.
White House "Death Panel"
Unlike the fantasies of the corporate-controlled Tea Party who charged during the run-up to the White House sell-out of health care reform that the administration would create "death panels" to deny care to the elderly, it has since emerged that Team Obama has stood-up the authentic article.
According to The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/aulaqi-killing-reignites-debate-on-limits-of-executive-power/2011/09/30/gIQAx1bUAL_print.html), President Obama's Justice Department "wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting" of Awlaki. The Post reports that the memorandum "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."
That memorandum, according to The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all), was drafted in June 2010, some six months afterAwlaki had been placed on the White House hit list, by Office of Legal Counsel attorneys "David Barron and Martin Lederman."
Both former OLC lawyers are prominent "liberals" from prestigious universities; Barron at Harvard and Lederman at Georgetown University.
Ironically enough, in several scholarly articles they had railed against the previous administration's adaptation of the "Unitary Executive Theory" promulgated by "torture memo" authors Jay Bybee and John Yoo.
Under Bush, OLC opinions were used to justify everything from warrantless wiretapping, the domestic deployment of the military to arrest Americans, to the torture and indefinite detention of "terrorist" suspects at the Guantánamo Bay prison gulag and CIA "black sites."
This of course begs the question: if Awlaki's murder was "legal," why then was the authorization to do so reached in camera by officials following a deliberative process which can't be shared with the public because of "national security"?
The answer should be chilling and shocking to all Americans: because the nucleus of a death squad state recalling those stood-up in Chile and Argentina during the "dirty war" period of the 1970s may now exist.
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005) disclosed that Americans "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," reporter Mark Hosenball wrote, "which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council. ... Neither is there any law establishing its existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate."
According to Reuters, "targeting recommendations are drawn up by a committee of mid-level National Security Council and agency officials. Their recommendations are then sent to the panel of NSC 'principals,' meaning Cabinet secretaries and intelligence unit chiefs, for approval."
A "former official" told Hosenball that "one of the reasons for making senior officials principally responsible for nominating Americans for the target list was to 'protect' the president," i.e., provide Obama legal cover under the thin veneer afforded by "plausible deniability."
McClatchy News (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/09/30/125807/was-obamas-order-to-kill-al-qaida.html) reported that "broadly speaking" White House orders to kill Awlaki were based on claims that "the nation's inherent right of self-defense [is] recognized under international law." However, "international law also imposes limits: Targeted killing is banned except to protect against 'concrete, specific and imminent' danger."


And although the administration now claims that Awlaki was targeted for death because "his role in AQAP had gone 'from inspirational to operational'," Reuters disclosed that "officials acknowledge that some of the intelligence purporting to show Awlaki's hands-on role in plotting attacks was patchy."


In fact, the White House has failed to provide any proof whatsoever that Awlaki posed an "imminent danger" to the United States, although there is considerable evidence that he was on the radar of U.S. and allied secret state intelligence agencies for more than a decade, had close ties to several of the 9/11 hijackers andcould have been picked up and indicted at any time.
Instead, federal law enforcement officials gave Awlaki a green light to leave the United States, unlike thousands of innocent Muslim-Americans swept-up and detained by the FBI in the post-9/11 hysteria that followed the attacks.
A "former military intelligence officer who worked with special operations troops to hunt down high-value terrorism targets," told the right-wing Washington Times (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/3/al-awlaki-would-have-been-difficult-to-try-as-a-ci/): "I think it's pretty easy to understand why they didn't take him alive. Would you want to deal with the hassle of trying to put him on trial, an American citizen that has gotten so much press for being the target of a CIA kill order? That would be a nightmare. The ACLU would be crawling all over the Justice Department for due process in an American court."
That about sums up the dominant mindset of an Empire in sharp decline: the rule of law and due process for criminal suspects reduced to a "hassle."
Slouching Towards Dictatorship

Obama's national security team justified whacking Awlaki, as with their earlier hit on Osama Bin Laden, by referencing the Bush-era Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c107:S.J.RES.23.ENR:)), hastily passed by Congress in the wake of the 9/11 attacks.

"A decade later," McClatchy reported, "the Obama administration contends that this wartime authority remains even if it's evolved for reasons the administration won't fully elucidate."
The relevant section of AUFM reads: "IN GENERAL -- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." (emphasis added)
Readers will undoubtedly note that in passing the resolution, Congress not only ceded its authority to declare war to the Executive Branch but also planted the seeds of the administration's preemptive war doctrines along with an unprecedented expansion of its domestic surveillance powers.
More pertinently, is the reason why the administration "won't fully elucidate" how the Bush-era AUMF "evolved" chiefly due to the fact that secret annexes now exist which authorize the killing of Americans, not only in Yemen or other "War on Terror" fronts, but right here in the United States itself?
After all, it's not beyond the Obama administration to play fast and loose with the truth or hide repressive policies under layers of top secret presidential "findings" or a multitude of CIA and Pentagon black programs, as did the previous Bush government.
Recall that during the run-up to the reauthorization of three expiring provisions of the USA Patriot Act, civil libertarians decried the use of secret legal memos (https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2011/05/19) justifying everything from unchecked access to internet and telephone records to the deployment of government-sanctioned malware on private computers during "national security" investigations.
Recall too, that the Obama administration, as The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/13/us/13fbi.html) disclosed in June, handed the FBI "significant new powers to its roughly 14,000 agents, allowing them more leeway to search databases, go through household trash or use surveillance teams to scrutinize the lives of people who have attracted their attention."
These "news rules," the Times averred, will give agents "more latitude" to investigate citizens even when there is no evidence they have exhibited "signs of criminal or terrorist activity."
It gets worse.
Last month, The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/28/us/even-those-cleared-of-crimes-can-stay-on-fbis-terrorist-watch-list.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all) revealed that the FBI "is permitted to include people on the government's terrorist watch list even if they have been acquitted of terrorism-related offenses or the charges are dropped."
Under these new standards, the Bureau may deem someone a "known or suspected terrorist," not based on evidence gathered through a criminal investigation, but solely if officials have "particularized derogatory information," including that derived from First Amendment protected activities, to support to support an individuals' watch listing or placement on a "no-fly" list.
One administration wag, speaking on condition of anonymity because to do otherwise would reveal "closely held deliberations within the administration," but did so anyway because this was clearly a sanctioned leak to stenographer Peter Finn, told The Washington Post that "what constitutes due process in [the Awlaki case] is a due process in war."
"The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi," Finn wrote, "or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process."
We now know, thanks to Reuters, that authorization came from a White House death panel, an extra-constitutional committee of anonymous officials operating outside the rule of law.
As we have seen since Barack Obama took office, as under the previous Bush government, the Constitution is a meaningless scrap of paper with some words on it, duly trotted out on national holidays only to be cast aside in practice; that is, when it isn't used as a rhetorical hammer against assorted "new Hitlers" or geopolitical rivals whose resources corporate America seek to "liberate."
Dead Men Tell No Tales
As toxic to democratic norms and the rule of law as the Awlaki affair clearly is, there are underlyingparapolitical themes surrounding his murder which strengthen suspicions that what took place in Yemen on September 30 is more than just another story about an overt power grab by the Executive Branch.
While the government and media continue to cover-up the role played by the CIA and other secret state agencies in alleged intelligence "failures" leading up to the 9/11 attacks, evidence suggests that the Awlaki killing, as with last May's murder of former bête noire and on-again, off-again ally, Osama Bin Laden, may have been a "clean-up" operation designed to remove inconvenient witnesses with knowledge of Agency involvement in the plot.
As Antifascist Calling reported nearly two years ago in the wake of the aborted 2009 bombing of Northwest Airlines Flight 253 on Christmas Day over Detroit, a plot for which Awlaki was accused of orchestrating, though evidence can't be supplied because it's "secret," The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/26/AR2008022603267.html) disclosed that Awlaki had extensive contacts with 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi, Khalid Almihdhar and Hani Hanjour who "had spent time at his mosques in California and Falls Church."
In a series of 2010 articles (here (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/01/strange-case-of-umar-farouk.html), here (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/01/flight-253-anatomy-of-cover-up.html), here (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/01/flight-253-cover-up-no-smoking-gun.html) and here (http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/2010/02/flight-253-intelligence-agencies-nixed.html)), I reported on the stark parallels between September 11 and the Flight 253 affair.
Similar to the 2001 attacks we were told "changed everything," far from being a failure to "connect the dots," intelligence and law enforcement officials possessed sufficient information that should have prevented accused bomber, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, from boarding that plane and placing the lives of nearly 300 air passengers at risk.
And wile Awlaki wasn't given a free pass by the administration in that botched attack, earlier government failures to apprehend him certainly set the stage.
According to History Commons (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0699aulaqi#a0699aulaqi), "shortly before the [FBI] investigation is closed," in 2000, Awlaki "is beginning to associate with hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar shortly before the investigation ends."
"For instance," [I]History Commons avers, "on February 4, one month before the FBI investigation is closed, al-Awlaki talks on the telephone four times with hijacker associate [and suspected Saudi intelligence agent] Omar al-Bayoumi."

"The 9/11 Commission will later speculate that these calls are related to Alhazmi and Almihdhar, since al-Bayoumi is helping them that day, and that Alhazmi or Almihdhar may even have been using al-Bayoumi's phone at the time. Al-Bayoumi had also been the subject of an FBI counterterrorism investigation in 1999."
Keep in mind that at least two of the hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, figure prominently in recent revelations by researcher Kevin Fenton, the author of Disconnecting the Dots (http://www.trineday.com/paypal_store/product_pages/9780984185856-Disconnecting_Dots/index.html).
In a recent conversation (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/09/23/podcast-show-57/) with Boiling Frogs Post's (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/) Sibel Edmonds and Peter B. Collins, Fenton said that during the course of his investigation, drawn from the Congressional 9/11 Joint Inquiry, the 9/11 Commission, the Justice Department's Inspector General's report, and the CIA's still-redacted Inspector General's report, he discovered that the CIA had deliberately withheld information from the FBI that the future hijackers had entered the United States with multiple entry visas issued in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia.
Even though the Agency had identified the pair as international terrorists who attended a 2000 Al-Qaeda summit in Malaysia where they and others, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Khallad Bin Attash, one of the principle architects of the 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania, planned the assault on the USS Cole and the 9/11 attacks, they kept this from the FBI, information that could have led straight to the heart of Al-Qaeda's "planes operation."
Fenton provides substantial evidence that the CIA's Alec Station Director Richard Blee and deputy, Tom Wilshire, concealed intelligence from investigators, concluding this "information was intentionally omitted in order to allow an al-Qaeda attack to go forward against the United States."
As part of this continuing cover-up, Awlaki's ties to the 9/11 hijackers were far more extensive than secret state officials have led us to believe.
In fact, although the Obama administration has justified killing Awlaki with false claims that he was AQAP's "external operations" chief, his role before 9/11 was substantially more significant from an investigatory perspective: that of a "fixer," first in San Diego where he assisted Saudi spook Omar al-Bayoumi in "settling" Alhazmi and Almihdhar, and later in Falls Church, Virginia, where he did the same for Hani Hanjour.
In 2002, Newsweek (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2002/12/01/the-saudi-money-trail.html) revealed that "some federal investigators suspect that al-Bayoumi could have been an advance man for the 9-11 hijackers, sent by Al Qaeda to assist the plot that ultimately claimed 3,000 lives."
"Two months after al-Bayoumi began aiding Alhazmi and Almihdhar," Newsweek disclosed, "al-Bayoumi's wife began receiving regular stipends, often monthly and usually around $2,000, totaling tens of thousands of dollars.
Payments arrived "in the form of cashier's checks, purchased from Washington's Riggs Bank by Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the daughter of the late King Faisal and wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi envoy who is a prominent Washington figure and personal friend of the Bush family."
With startling similarities to the Awlaki case, ten days after the attacks, al-Bayoumi is picked up by British authorities in London, where he had relocated in July 2001, at the request of the FBI. Although his phone calls, bank accounts and associations are scrutinized, the Bureau claim they found no connections to terrorism.
The Washington Post (http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/linkscopy/whoAidedHJ.html) will report that by 2002 the FBI had concluded, the same year Awlaki leaves the U.S., "that no evidence could be found of any organized domestic effort to aid the hijackers."
Recall that new information linking some members of the Saudi royal family and its intelligence apparatus to the attacks has recently surfaced. Last month, The Miami Herald (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/09/07/v-fullstory/2395698/link-to-911-hijackers-found-in.html) revealed that two weeks before the kamikaze assaults on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, a Saudi family "abruptly vacated their luxury home near Sarasota, leaving a brand new car in the driveway, a refrigerator full of food, fruit on the counter--and an open safe in a master bedroom."
Investigative reporters Anthony Summers and Dan Christensen learned that "law enforcement agents not only discovered the home was visited by vehicles used by the hijackers, but phone calls were linked between the home and those who carried out the death flights--including leader Mohamed Atta--in discoveries never before revealed to the public."

"Ten years after the deadliest attack of terrorism on U.S. soil," Summers and Christensen wrote, "new information has emerged that shows the FBI found troubling ties between the hijackers and residents in the upscale community in southwest Florida, but the investigation wasn't reported to Congress or mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report."
In a follow-up piece that significantly advanced the story, researcher Russ Baker reported on theWhoWhatWhy (http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/09/22/saudi-royal-ties-to-911-hijackers-via-florida-saudi-family-0/) web site "that those alleged confederates were closely tied to influential members of the Saudi ruling elite."
Building on information first disclosed by the Herald, Baker, the author of Family of Secrets (http://www.familyofsecrets.com/), reports that this "now-revealed link" between those who consorted with the hijackers in Florida "and the highest ranks of the Saudi establishment, reopens questions about the White House's controversial approval for multiple charter flights allowing Saudi nationals to depart the U.S., beginning about 48 hours after the attacks, without the passengers being interviewed by law enforcement--despite the identification of the majority of the hijackers as Saudis."
Is there a pattern between the hands-off treatment afforded well-connected Saudis and Anwar al-Awlaki's casual, and inexplicable, flight from the United States?
"After 9/11" History Commons (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a0200hijackersalawlaki#a0200hijac kersalawlaki) points out, "the FBI will question al-Awlaki, and he will admit to meeting with Alhazmi several times, but say he does not remember what they discussed. He will not claim to remember Almihdhar at all." Other accounts suggest that the relationship was much closer.
"The 9/11 Congressional Inquiry," History Commons avers, "claim that Alhazmi and Almihdhar 'were closely affiliated with [al-Awlaki] who reportedly served as their spiritual adviser during their time in San Diego. ... Several persons informed the FBI after September 11 that this imam had closed-door meetings in San Diego with Almihdhar, Alhazmi, and another individual, whom al-Bayoumi had asked to help the hijackers'."

"Around August 2000," History Commons reports, "al-Awlaki resigns as imam and travels to unknown 'various countries.' In early 2001, he will be appointed the imam to a much larger mosque in Falls Church, Virginia. During this time frame, Alhazmi, Almihdhar, and fellow hijacker Hani Hanjour will move to Virginia and attend al-Awlaki's mosque there."
Anecdotally, in 2003 Newsweek (http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2003/08/03/failure-to-communicate.html) reports: "Lincoln Higgie, an antiques dealer who lived across the street from the mosque where Aulaqi used to lead prayer, told Newsweek that he distinctly recalls the imam knocking on his door in the first week of August 2001 to tell him he was leaving for Kuwait. 'He came over before he left and told me that something very big was going to happen, and that he had to be out of the country when it happened,' recalls Higgie."
The antiques dealer later told The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/world/09awlaki.html?pagewanted=all), that when he learned that Awlaki would be permanently leaving San Diego, "he told the imam to stop by if he was ever in the area--and got a strange response." Higgie said, "'I don't think you'll be seeing me. I won't be coming back to San Diego again. Later on you'll find out why'."
Although the FBI suspected Awlaki "had some connection with the 9/11 plot," authorities claim there wasn't enough evidence to charge him, nor can he be deported because he's an American citizen. And when the Bureau hatched an ill-conceived plan to arrest him on an obscure charge of "transporting prostitutes across state lines," that plan collapsed when Awlaki left the U.S. in March 2002.
"But on October 10, 2002," History Commons (http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a1002aulaqiinus#a1002aulaqiinus) reports, "he makes a surprise return to the U.S." Although his name is on a terrorist watch list and he is detained by Customs' officials when he lands in New York, they are informed by the FBI that "his name was taken off the watch list just the day before. He is released after only three hours."

"Throughout 2002," History Commons informs us, Awlaki is the "subject of an active Customs investigation into money laundering called Operation Greenquest, but he is not arrested for this either, or for the earlier contemplated prostitution charges. At the time, the FBI is fighting Greenquest, and Customs officials will later accuse the FBI of sabotaging Greenquest investigations."
Awlaki again leaves the U.S., this time for good. Although the FBI admits they were "very interested" in Awlaki, they fail to stop him leaving the country. One FBI source told U.S. News and World Report (http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/040621/21plot.htm), "We don't know how he got out."
Inexplicably however, it was not until 2008 that secret state officials concluded that Awlaki was an Al-Qaeda operative! This beggars belief, and raises the question as to why he was allowed to leave in the first place. It certainly can't be for lack of evidence or that when Awlaki set-up shop, first in London and finally in Yemen, he is continually under surveillance by British, Yemeni and American intelligence agencies.
Although interviewed four times by the FBI after September 11, the Bureau concluded, according to The New York Times, that Awlaki's "contacts with the hijackers and other radicals were random."
Other investigators however, disagreed. "One detective," the Times reported, whose name has been scrubbed from 9/11 Commission files, told staff that he believed Awlaki "was at the center of the 9/11 story." At the time of the Flight 253 affair, I wrote that "despite, or possibly because of these dubious connections he was allowed to leave the country."
In fact, the curious disinterest exhibited by authorities in bringing Awlaki to ground following September 11, were neither "errors in judgement" nor "mistakes" by overtaxed investigators but are rather, a modus operandi which suggests that Awlaki and others were part of a CIA domestic operation which allowed the 9/11 plot to go forward.
Nothing in what I have written above should be construed as justification for the extrajudicial assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. In fact, the opposite conclusion can be drawn. The available evidence indicates that Awlaki could have been arrested multiple times. At the least serious end of the criminal justice spectrum he could have been charged with providing "material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization," to whit, Al-Qaeda, and legally taken out of circulation.
That he wasn't and continued to operate freely as a propagandist, despite substantial corroboration from multiple law enforcement sources that he was a key figure in the pre-9/11 domestic support network, suggests that Awlaki may have been a double agent, albeit one who had decidedly gone "off the reservation."
Awlaki's handling by authorities raise serious questions about just how extensive U.S. support for Al-Qaeda was prior to, and possibly even after the September 11 attacks, particularly in resource-rich global hot-spots.
As numerous journalists and researchers have painstakingly documented, Al-Qaeda, allied terrorist outfits and international narco-trafficking networks have a long, sordid history of supporting U.S. covert operations that targeted America's geopolitical rivals even as Bin Laden's far-flung organization plotted to attack the United States itself.
In this light, Awlaki's "targeted killing" as with the earlier hit on Osama Bin Laden, may be part of a larger CIA/Pentagon operation to remove inconvenient participants and witnesses from the scene who might have a thing or two to say about the crimes and intrigues hatched by the imperialist Empire.
After all, dead men tell no tales...
Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research (http://globalresearch.ca/), he is a Contributing Editor with Cyrano's Journal Today (http://www.cjournal.info/). His articles can be read on Dissident Voice (http://www.dissidentvoice.org/), The Intelligence Daily (http://www.inteldaily.com/), Pacific Free Press (http://www.pacificfreepress.com/), Uncommon Thought Journal (http://www.uncommonthought.com/mtblog/), and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks (http://wikileaks.ch/). He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military "Civil Disturbance" Planning, distributed by AK Press (http://www.akpress.org/2002/items/policestateamerica) and has contributed to the new book from Global Research (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20425), The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.

Peter Lemkin
10-10-2011, 04:40 PM
Good Article....Read and Weep!

Peter Lemkin
10-18-2011, 04:14 PM
Moral Amerika strikes again....

In news from Yemen, the U.S. government is being accused of killing a 16-year-old U.S. citizen in a drone strike last week. The teenager — Abdulrahman al-Awlaki — become the third American killed in Yemen in a U.S. drone strike in the past three weeks. He was the son of Anwar al-Awlaki, the U.S.-born cleric assassinated in a separate drone strike last month. Initial news accounts reported Abdulrahman al-Awlaki was 21 years-old, but his family says he was only 16. They said he was born in Denver in 1995. Nasser al-Awlaki, the boy’s grandfather said, “To kill a teenager is just unbelievable, really, and they claim that he is an al-Qaeda militant. It’s nonsense. They want to justify his killing, that’s all.”

Ed Jewett
10-18-2011, 09:20 PM
U.S. Troops Will Soon Get Tiny Kamikaze Drone (http://cryptogon.com/?p=25545)October 18th, 2011Via: Wired (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2011/10/tiny-kamikaze-drone/):
AeroVironment calls its teeny-tiny killer drone the Switchblade. Essentially a guided missile small enough to fit in a backback and fire at a single foe…
Posted in Rise of the Machines (http://cryptogon.com/?cat=3), Technology (http://cryptogon.com/?cat=12), War (http://cryptogon.com/?cat=28)

Ed Jewett
10-18-2011, 10:39 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RotIlVLUqdg&feature=youtube_gdata

Uploaded by MOXNEWSd0tCOM (http://www.youtube.com/user/MOXNEWSd0tCOM) on Oct 18, 2011
October 18, 2011 MSNBC
http://MOXNews.com

The "missing" 12 seconds is on the MSNBC TV website. (http://MOXNews.com/)

Peter Lemkin
03-08-2012, 07:21 PM
President Obama feels your Constitutional right to due process can be what ever secret 'process' he makes up.
This week, US Attorney General Eric Holder outlined the administration's supposed legal authority to secretly target US citizens for execution without ever notifying them of the accusations against them, officially charging them with a crime or offering them the opportunity to respond. Since the whole world is a battlefield in the vague 'war on terror,' the only due process afforded to someone who has been targeted for extrajudicial execution is a secret 'review' by the executive branch.
Just as the public demanded the release of the Bush Administration's Torture Memos to expose the ludicrous rationale behind their secret torture program, we too must demand to know the legal rationale for a program that allows our president to unilaterally choose to deprive someone of life and liberty - without the victim even being charged with a crime.
Holder's speech was a cheap attempt to feign transparency without actually releasing the legal memos that define the administration's execution policy.1 We need your help to demand the Obama administration release these memos immediately. Can you please sign our petition demanding the Obama administration release the Execution Memos?
Sign our petition demanding the Obama administration produce the internal memos and legal justification for their targeted execution program. (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d34a/459ac811/6242c113/3dc64b4c/1449000261/VEsF/)
Click here to sign: http://action.firedoglake.com/page/s/release-the-memo (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d34a/459ac811/6242c113/3dc64b4c/1449000261/VEsC/)
The administration's refusal to even outline this non-judicial 'due process' that allows US citizens to be secretly put on a kill list is beyond troubling to say the least.
As Salon writer Glenn Greenwald put it:

...the 'process' which Eric Holder yesterday argued constitutes "due process" as required by the Fifth Amendment before the government can deprive of someone of their life: the President and his underlings are your accuser, your judge, your jury and your executioner all wrapped up in one, acting in total secrecy and without your even knowing that he's accused you and sentenced you to death, and you have no opportunity even to know about, let alone confront and address, his accusations; is that not enough due process for you?2 The ACLU, New York Times and others have been suing the Obama administration for months in hopes of securing the release of the Execution Memos, but as one of the least-transparent administrations in recent history, they have repeatedly blocked their release.3
If left unchallenged, this secretive program could continue to expand under Obama and future presidents, and further erode America's most basic principles of justice. Without the memos we do not know exactly how far the Obama administration believes this unprecedented power extends. We need your help to build a groundswell of pressure to force the release of any and all legal justification for the targeted killings program so there can be an open debate in this country about our president's unilateral authority to kill.
Sign our petition demanding the Obama administration produce the internal memos and legal justification for their targeted killing program. (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d34a/459ac811/6242c113/3dc64b4c/1449000261/VEsD/)
This is a serious and dangerous precedent, and anyone who took issue with the Bush Torture Memos should be even more concerned about this latest power grab by the president. I hope you'll join us in fighting to release these memos.
Deepest Thanks,
Brian Sonenstein
Director of Online Activism,
Firedoglake.com
1. Holder's Regressive Defense of Targeted Killings (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d34a/459ac811/6242c113/3dc64b4d/1449000261/VEsA/), Kevin Gosztola, FDL's Dissenter, 3/6/2012.
2. Attorney General Holder defends execution without charges (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d34a/459ac811/6242c113/3dc64b42/1449000261/VEsB/), Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com, 3/6/2012.
3. The Worst Administration on FOIA (http://action.firedoglake.com/page/m/5958d34a/459ac811/6242c113/3dc64b43/1449000261/VEsO/), Kevin Gosztola, FDL's Dissenter, 3/5/2012.

Magda Hassan
03-09-2012, 11:48 PM
Legal Experts Destroy Rationale for Obama’s Assassination Policy … And Slam Democrats for Supporting ItPosted on March 8, 2012 (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/legal-experts-destroy-obamas-assassination-policy-and-slam-democrats-for-supporting-it.html) by WashingtonsBlog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/author/washingtonsblog)
Obama Expanding Program Started by CheneyAttorney General Eric Holder announced (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/attorney-general-holder-says-murder-is-legal.html) at Northwestern University law school that the U.S. can assassinate U.S. citizens without any without disclosure of why they are even alleged to be baddies and without any review of any nature whatsoever by any judge, Congress or the American people.
Northwestern University’s law school professor Joseph Margulies said (http://www.suntimes.com/news/11100750-418/nu-law-profs-questions-for-attorney-general-holder-go-unanswered.html):


I defy anyone to read [Holder's] speech and show any differences between Obama and Bush on these issues, They both say we are in a war not confined to particular battlefield. … Both say we can target citizens without judicial oversight and that can happen anywhere in the world.
Columbia law school professor Scott Horton notes that this assassination strategy was created by Dick Cheney, and is being carried out by the Obama administration:

A lot of this seems to have been put in place under the tutelage of Dick Cheney. So here we see one of Dick Cheney’s ideas being ratified by Barack Obama and his Attorney General Eric Holder.
(Obama is also implementing Cheney and the boys’ plans for war (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/neoconservatives-planned-regime-change-throughout-the-middle-east-and-northern-africa-20-years-ago.html) in the Middle East and North Africa.)
Top constitutional law expert (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/12/constitutional-expert-president-obama-says-that-he-can-kill-you-on-his-own-discretion-he-can-jail-you-indefinitely-on-his-own-discretion.html) Jonathan Turley slams (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/mar/06/eric-holder-trust-targeted-assassination) the Democratic Party for its complicity:

The choice of a law school was a curious place for discussion of authoritarian powers. Obama has replaced the constitutional protections afforded to citizens with a “trust me” pledge that Holder repeated.
***
Senior administration officials have asserted that the president may kill an American anywhere and anytime, including in the United States. Holder’s speech does not materially limit that claimed authority. He merely assures citizens that Obama will only kill those of us he finds abroad and a significant threat. Notably, Holder added, “Our legal authority is not limited to the battlefields in Afghanistan.”
The Obama administration continues to stonewall efforts to get it to acknowledge the existence of a memo authorizing the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki. Democrats previously demanded the “torture memos” of the Bush administration that revealed both poor legal analysis by Judge Jay Bybee and Professor John Yoo to justify torture. Now, however, Democrats are largely silent in the face of a president claiming the right to unilaterally kill citizens.
Holder became particularly cryptic in his assurance of caution in the use of this power, insisting that they will kill citizens only with “the consent of the nation involved or after a determination that the nation is unable or unwilling to deal effectively with a threat to the United States.” What on earth does that mean?

Former constitutional trial lawyer and progressive writer Glenn Greenwald agrees (http://www.salon.com/2012/03/06/attorney_general_holder_defends_execution_without_ charges/singleton/):

The willingness of Democrats to embrace and defend this power is especially reprehensible because of how completely, glaringly and obviously at odds it is with everything they loudly claimed to believe during the Bush years. Recall two of the most significant “scandals” of the Bush War on Terror: his asserted power merely toeavesdrop on and detain accused Terrorists without judicial review of any kind. Remember all that? Progressives endlessly accused Bush of Assaulting Our Values and “shredding the Constitution” simply because Bush officials wanted to listen in on and detain suspected Terrorists — not kill them, just eavesdrop on and detain them — without first going to a court and proving they did anything wrong. Yet here is a Democratic administration asserting not merely the right to surveil or detain citizens without charges or judicial review, but to kill them without any of that: a far more extreme, permanent and irreversible act. Yet, with (http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/eric-holder-targeted-killing) some (http://www.balloon-juice.com/2012/03/06/time-to-play-what-if-alberto-gonzalez-said-that/) righteous (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/eric-holder-drone-speech-7124146) exceptions (http://www.emptywheel.net/2012/02/09/if-ron-wyden-hasnt-seen-awlaki-memo-there-has-been-inadequate-oversight/), the silence is deafening, or worse (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2011/10/telling_you_what_i_think.php).
How can anyone who vocally decried Bush’s mere eavesdropping and detention powers without judicial review possibly justify Obama’s executions without judicial review? How can the former (far more mild powers) have been such an assault on Everything We Stand For while the latter is a tolerable and acceptable assertion of war powers? If Barack Obama has the right to order accused Terrorists executed by the CIA because We’re At War, then surely George Bush had the right to order accused Terrorists eavesdropped on and detained on the same ground.
That the same Party and political faction that endlessly shrieked about Bush’s eavesdropping and detention programs now tolerate Obama’s execution program is one of the most extreme and craven acts of dishonesty we’ve seen in quite some time.
***
To recap Barack Obama’s view: it is a form of “terror” for someone to be detained “without even getting one chance to prove their innocence,” but it is good and noble for them to be executed under the same circumstances. To recap Eric Holder’s view: we must not accept when the Bush administration says “just trust us” when it comes to spying on the communications of accused Terrorists, but we must accept when the Obama administration says “just trust us” when it comes to targeting our fellow citizens for execution.
***
What’s so striking is how identical Obama officials and their defenders sound when compared to the right-wing legal theorists who justified Bush’s most controversial programs. Even the core justifying slogans are the same: we are at War; the Battlefield is everywhere; Presidents have the right to spy on, detain and kill combatants without court permission; the Executive Branch is the sole organ for war and no courts can interfere in the President’s decisions, etc. I spent years writing about and refuting those legal theories and they are identical to what we hear now. Just consider how similar the two factions sound to one another. When it came to their War on Terror controversies, Bush officials constantly said back then exactly what Obama officials and defenders say now: we’re only using these powers against Terrorists — The Bad People — not against regular, normal, Good Americans; so if you’re not a Terrorist, you have nothing to worry about.
***
This is nothing more than an exercise of supremely circular reasoning and question-begging: whether someone is actually a Terrorist can be determined only when the evidence of their guilt is presented and they have an opportunity to respond, just as Holder and Obama said during the Bush years. Government assurances that they’re only targeting Terrorists — whether those assurances issue from Bush or Obama — should reassure nobody: this is always what those who abuse power claim, and it’s precisely why we don’t trust government officials to punish people based on unproven accusations.
***
We supposedly learned important lessons from the abuses of power of the Nixon administration, and then of the Bush administration: namely, that we don’t trust government officials to exercise power in the dark, with no judicial oversight, with no obligation to prove their accusations. Yet now we hear exactly this same mentality issuing from Obama, his officials and defenders to justify a far more extreme power than either Nixon or Bush dreamed of asserting: [I]he’s only killing The Bad Citizens, so there’s no reason to object!
***
That this policy is being implemented and defended by the very same political party that spent the last decade so vocally and opportunistically objecting to far less extreme powers makes it all the more repellent. That fact also makes it all the more dangerous, because — as one can see — the fact that it is a Democratic President doing it, and Democratic Party officials justifying it, means that it’s much easier to normalize: very few of the Party’s followers, especially in an election year, are willing to make much of a fuss about it at all.
And thus will presidential assassination powers be entrenched as bipartisan consensus for at least a generation. That will undoubtedly be one of the most significant aspects of the Obama legacy. Let no Democrat who is now supportive or even silent be heard to object when the next Republican President exercises this power in ways that they dislike.
As does Charles Pierce (http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/eric-holder-drone-speech-7124146):

The criteria for when a president can unilaterally decide to kill somebody is completely full of holes, regardless of what the government’s pet lawyers say. And this…
“This is an indicator of our times,” Holder said, “not a departure from our laws and our values.”
…is a monumental pile of crap that should embarrass every Democrat who ever said an unkind word about John Yoo. This policy is a vast departure from our laws and an interplanetary probe away from our values. The president should not have this power because the Constitution, which was written by smarter people than, say, Benjamin Wittes, knew full and goddamn well why the president shouldn’t have this power. If you give the president the power to kill without due process, or without demonstrable probable cause, he inevitably will do so. And, as a lot of us asked during the Bush years, if you give this power to President George Bush, will you also give it to President Hillary Clinton and, if you give this power to President Barack Obama, will you also give it to President Rick Santorum?
Greenwald also points out that it is unclear whether the poster child for assassination of American citizens – Anwar Al Awlaki – was even a threat:

Applying traditional war doctrine to accused Terrorists (who are not found on a battlefield but in their cars, their homes, at work, etc.) is so inappropriate, and why judicial review is so urgent: because the risk of false accusations is so much higher than it is when capturing uniformed soldiers on an actual battlefield. Just recall how dubious so many government accusations of Terrorism turned out to be (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/07/08/97211/federal-judge-order-release-of.html) once federal courts began scrutinizing those accusations for evidentiary support. Indeed, Yemen experts such as Gregory Johnsen have repeatedly (https://twitter.com/#%21/gregorydjohnsen/status/75838992544841729) pointed out (https://twitter.com/#%21/gregorydjohnsen/status/75837444557258752) in response to claims that Awlaki plotted Terrorist attacks: “we know very little, precious little when it comes to his operational role” and “we just don’t know this, we suspect it but don’t know it.” Given this shameful record in the War on Terror, what rational person would “trust” the Government to make determinations about who is and is not a Terrorist in the dark, with no limits or checks on what they can do?
***
Holder’s attempt to justify these assassinations on the ground that “capture is not feasible” achieves nothing. For one, the U.S. never even bothered to indict Awlaki so that he could voluntarily turn himself in or answer the charges (though at one point, long after they first ordered him killed, they “considered” indicting him (http://cnsnews.com/news/article/us-eyes-criminal-charges-yemeni-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki)); instead, they simply killed him without demonstrating there was any evidence to support these accusations. What justifies that? Additionally, the fact that the Government is unable to apprehend and try a criminal does not justify his murder; absent some violent resistance upon capture, the government is not free to simply go around murdering fugitives who have been convicted of nothing. Moreover, that Awlaki could not have been captured in a country where the government is little more than an American client is dubious at best …
(Interestingly, Lt.Col. Anthony Shaffer – who claims (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Shaffer_%28intelligence_officer%29) to have tracked several of the 9/11 hijackers prior to September 11th – alleges that al-Awlaki was a triple agent and an FBI asset before 9/11 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmluzUxLhXU&feature=player_embedded).)
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/03/legal-experts-destroy-obamas-assassination-policy-and-slam-democrats-for-supporting-it.html

Peter Lemkin
03-10-2012, 07:15 AM
Sadly [OH SO SADLY!], Nazis, dictators, Bush and the neocons would all be very proud of O-bomb-a. America now has no moral nor legal basis IMHO. the Constitution is moot. Thugism rules our military and foreign policy, as well as our financial system and how we treat citizens of the World and within our own 'nation'. Its a sinking ship run by mendacious, dangerous and evil captains! Too bad there are no lifeboats at hand. I think a mutiny is in order! NOW!

Carsten Wiethoff
10-17-2012, 08:00 AM
Danish magazine Jyllands Posten claims that CIA and the danish PET selected a Croatian bride for Anwar al-Awlaki and prepped her suitcase with a location tracking device to get target coordinates for Awlaki.


From http://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/article4872967.ece



This footage has never been published before.
One of the world’s most wanted terrorists proposes to a Croatian woman by video.
What neither of them know is that their relationship has been carefully planned.
By the CIA, the Danish Security and Intelligence Service PET and a Dane called Morten Storm.
He says, the reason behind it was clear.
"The idea was to find someone with the same mentality as him, so that both of them would be killed in an American drone attack,” says Morten Storm.
The mission almost succeeded. But something went wrong.

Peter Lemkin
10-17-2012, 08:14 AM
Danish magazine Jyllands Posten claims that CIA and the danish PET selected a Croatian bride for Anwar al-Awlaki and prepped her suitcase with a location tracking device to get target coordinates for Awlaki.


From http://jyllands-posten.dk/indland/article4872967.ece



This footage has never been published before.
One of the world’s most wanted terrorists proposes to a Croatian woman by video.
What neither of them know is that their relationship has been carefully planned.
By the CIA, the Danish Security and Intelligence Service PET and a Dane called Morten Storm.
He says, the reason behind it was clear.
"The idea was to find someone with the same mentality as him, so that both of them would be killed in an American drone attack,” says Morten Storm.
The mission almost succeeded. But something went wrong.



New side line for the CIA and sister services - dating service, complete with 'disposal' of the couple, after use...how nice....how 'American'. The 'intelligence' services of the West are certainly attempting to stoop to new lows.....and they used to point a finger at the USSR and its satellites, as well as the various dictatorships worldwide. They can meet and beat any of them with their horrors. Sadly. As POGO famously said; "We have met the enemy, and the enemy is us!" Do see the video and tell me we are the 'good guys'.....

Its also pretty lucrative being unethical...this Danish PET agent got a $250,000 reward/bonus [along with his regular salary] for setting up the death of one innocent woman and one American who was to be exterminated by his OWN government, without trial.