@bcglorf
i feel i have to ask you a question,and i feel quite foolish for not thinking of asking it before.

i do not ask this snidely,or with any disrespect.

are you a neo-conservative?

because this "If he was on America soil, I'd agree with you. If he was living in a European apartment, I'd agree with you. Heck, if he was living in Russia I'd agree with you."

is almost verbatim the counter argument that was published,ad nauseum,in the weekly standard.which is a neo-conservative publication.edited by bill-the bloody-kristol.

and it would also explain why we sometimes just simply cannot agree on some issues.

ok,let's unpack your comment above that quoted.i won;t address the rest of your comment,not because i find it unworthy,it is simply a reiteration of your original argument,which we have addressed already.

so...
you find that it is the region,the actual soil that a person is on that makes the difference between legal prosecution..and assassination.

ok,i disagree,but the MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012 actually agree with you and give the president cover to deem an american citizen an "enemy combatant".however,the region where this "enemy combatant" is not the deciding factor,though many have tried to make a different case,the simple fact is that the president CAN deem you an "enemy combatant' and CAN order your assassination by drone,or seal team or any military outlet,or spec-ops...regardless of where you are at that moment.

now you attempt to justify this order of death by "The reality is he was supporting mass killing from within a lawless part of the world were no police or courts would touch him. He was living were the only force capable of serving any manner of arrest warrant was military."

if THIS were a true statement,and the ONLY avenue left was for a drone strike.then how do you explain how this man was able to:foment dissent,organize in such a large capacity to incite others to violence and co-ordinate on such an impressive scale?

anwars al awlaki went to yemen to find refuge..yes,this is true.
but a btter qustion is:was the yemeni government being unreasonable and un-co-operative to a point where legal extradition was no longer a viable option?

well,when we look at what the state department was attempting to do and the yemeni response,which was simply:provide evidence that anwars al awlaki has perpetrated a terrorist attack,and we will release him.it is not like they,and the US government,didn't know where he lived.

this is EXACTLY what happened with afghanistan in regards to osama bin laden.

and BOTH times,the US state department could not provide conclusive evidence that either bin laden,or awlaki had actually perpetrated a terrorist act.

in fact,some people forget that in the days after 9/11 osama actually denied having anything to do with 9/11,though he praised the act.

so here we have the US on one hand.with the largest military on the planet,the largest and most encompassing surveillance system.so vast the stasi would be green with envy.a country whose military and intelligence apparatus is so massive and vast that we pay other countries to house black sites.so when t he president states "america does not torture",he is not lying,we pay OTHER people to torture.

so when i see the counter argument that the US simply cannot adhere to international laws,nevermind their OWN laws,because they cannot "get" their guy.

is bullshit.

it's not that they cannot "find" nor "get" their target.the simple fact is that a sovereign nation has decided to disobey it's master and defy the US.so the US defies international treaties and laws and simply sends in a drone and missiles that fucker down.

mission accomplished.

but lets ask another question.
when do you stop being an american citizen?
at what point do you lose all rights as a citizen?
do we use cell phone coverage as a metric?
the obedience of the country in question?

i am just being a smart ass right now,because the point is moot.
the president can deem me an "enemy combatant" and if he so chose,send a drone to target my house,and he would have the legal protection to have done so.

and considering just how critical i am,and have been,of bush,obama and both the republican and democrats.

it would not be a hard job for the US state department and department of justice to make a case that i was a hardline radical dissident,who was inciting violence and stirring up hatred in people towards the US government,and even though i have never engaged in terrorism,nor engaged in violence against the state.

all they would need to do is link me with ONE person who did happen to perpetrate violence and slap the blame on me.

i wonder if that would be the point where you might..maybe..begin to question the validity of stripping an american citizen of their rights,and outright have them executed.

because that is what is on the line right now.
and i am sorry but "he spoke nasty things about us,and some of those terrorists listened to him,and he praised violence against us".

the argument might as well be:enoch hurt our feelings.

tell ya what.
let's use the same metric that you are using:
that awlaki incited violence and there were deaths directly due to his words.

in 2008 jim david akinsson walked into a unitarian church in tennesee and shot and killed two people,and wounded seven others.

akinsson was ex military and had a rabid hatred of liberals,democrats and homosexuals.

he also happened to own every book by sean hannity,and was an avid watcher of FOX news.akinsson claimed that hannity and his show had convinced him that thsoe dirty liberals were ruining his country,and he targeted the unitarian church because it "was against god".

now,is hannity guilty of incitement?
should he be held accountable for those shot dead?
by YOUR logic,yes..yes he should.

now what if hannity had taken off to find refuge in yemen?
do we send a drone?

because,again using YOUR logic,yes..yes we do.

i am trying my best to get you to reconsider your position,because..in my opinion...on an elementary moral scale..to strip someone of their rights due to words,praise and/or support..and then to have them executed without due process,or have at least the ability to defend themselves.

is wrong.

i realize i am simply making the same argument,but using different examples.which is why i asked,sincerely,if you were a neo-conservative.

because they believe strongly that the power and authority of the american empire is absolute.they are of the mind that "might makes right",and that they have a legal,and moral,obligation to expand americas interest,be it financial or industrial,and to use the worlds largest military in order to achieve those goals.they also are of the belief that the best defense is the best offense,and to protect the empire by any means necessary.(usually military).

which is pretty reflective of our conversations,and indicative of where our disagreements lie.

i dunno,but i suspect that i have not,nor will i,change your position on this matter.

but i tried dude...i really did try.

EDIT: No, I certainly don't know that. They often operate in places where the local government is not strong, but that's different from no law but their own by FAR.

It's not what I refuse to acknowledge, it's the constitution and American law. You can't murder American citizens without due process and conviction. Period. Al Awlaki was not killed on the battlefield taking up arms against Americans, the only legal acceptation.

So, you THINK they are inhuman monsters that kill innocent children (in order to spread their 'our way or the grave' message), and maybe some of them do, so you want to go ahead and kill their children (to spread our "our way or the grave" message), because killing children makes the killer the kind of human trash that we all agree should be eradicated without process, huh? Think about that.

I prefer another example.
White nationalists supported and praised the actions of Dyllan Roof, said black people should be shot and lynched, and many of them may have had correspondence with him. Under the same rules that allowed the assassination of al awlaki , all white nationalists could be targeted and killed as being connected to a terrorist attack as soon as they step off American soil, and by then, maybe on American soil.
Does the right want that being the norm when a hyper lefty is president in 4 years?....I don't.

@bcglorf
you left out that anwar had worked for the CIA and NSC as a consultant,and that in his earlier days as an imam was critical of al qeada and was very pro-american.

look,i am not arguing the fact that anwar did become radicalized,nor am i denying that his shift in attitudes (which was mainly due to americas handling of the iraqi war) had become not only critical,but had gone from condemnation to calls for violence,and praise for violence.

which brings us to the fort hood shooter nidel hasan who was an avid fan of anwar al awlaki,and DID have a correspondence with awlaki.which when examined,was pretty fucking one sided.it was apparent that hasan was attempting to get in the good graces of awlaki who,evidenced by the email correspondence,had no real relationship with hasan.though awlaki did praise hasan,and his violent actions.

so i do not get where 'the emails are closed".just google nidal hasan and anwar al awlaki emails,and you can go read for yourself.

and as for these emails as justification..i really do not see your logic in this respect.

so if someone becomes a huge fan of mine,and emails me constantly because we met ONCE and now they think we are buddies and share common interests (which,maybe we do),and that person perpetrates a violent act.

am i responsible for that act?

and here is where the crux of the discussion REALLY is:
maybe i AM responsible.
maybe i am guilty of inciting violence.
maybe i should be held accountable,because not only did i keep this mans violent intentions to myself,which resulted in death,but then praised his actions afterwards as being the will of god.

there are ALL possibilities,and they are valid questions.
they are legal questions,and maybe there should be a legal accountability.

should the proper pathway to a legal conclusion be:
a.a remotely piloted drone that targets my phone and launches a missile murdering (assasinating0 me,along with innocent by-standers?

or.

b.working with the yemeni government to bring me into a secure facility to be questioned,and possibly charged with inciting violence and prosecuted in an international court of law?

do you see what i'm saying?

the question isn't if anwar al awlaki,as a prominent imam,was vocally against american foreign policy,or that he openly supported violence in the form of terrorism.

the question is:
how do you address that situation,and prosecute the legalities?

because as scahill posited:how do you surrender to a drone?

could anwar al awlaki be guilty of EVERY charge the US accused him of?
quite possibly.
but we will never know because he was assassinated,as was his 16yr old son.

even your counter argument is speculation based on loose affiliations,and tenuous connections.

you will NEVER be able to supply a concrete,and verifiable accounting of anwar al awlaki's guilt,because you CAN'T..he was assassinated.

and THAT is the point.

now let us take this a step further.
let us examine how this can be abused,and watching trump consolidate executive power by surrounding himself with departmental loyalist,loyal only to him,we can begin to see the beginnings of trumps "soft fascism".

now lets take how you made your argument,and supplant a different scenario,but using the same parameters.

do you SEE how easily the drone program could be used to quickly,and efficiently remove opposing political players from the board? dissenting and opposing voices simply painted as violent enemies of the state that were in need of removal,because of the "possibility" that they may one day actually incite or cause violence?

the state can now murder a person for simply what they say,or write but NOT what they actually DO.

anwar al awlaki didn't actually kill anyone,didn't perpetrate any acts of violence.he simply talked about the evils of american empire,the mishandling of the iraq war (which he was originally in support of) and praised those who DID engage in violent acts of terror as doing the work of god.

should he have been held accountable in some fashion?
i think there is case to be made in that regard,but instead of going through proper channels,and adhering to the protocols of international law,he was outright assassinated.

and just how easily this can be abused is incredibly frightening.

again,i understand we approach things from different angles,but you have to see the danger in this practice,and how easily it can be misused to much darker and sinister purposes.

"well,he said nasty things about us and had a lot of friends who were on the terror watch list"

is simply NOT a valid enough excuse to simply murder someone.

there are protocols and legal procedure for a REASON,and anwar al awlaki may certainly have been in breach of international law and therefor possibly SHOULD have been prosecuted under those terms.

but we will NEVER know,because he was killed.
by an american president.
a nobel peace prize winner and constitutional law professor.

anwar al awlaki was an american citizen,his SON was an american citizen,but due to those abominations:MCA of 2006 and the NDAA of 2012.obama had the power and authority to assassinate them both.

where was there right to face their accuser?
habeas corpus..gone...a legal right that dates back to 1205 a.d by the BRITISH..gone.
innocent until proven guilty....gone.
the right to provide evidence in your defense...gone.

all the president has to do..and DID in this case,is deem you an "enemy combatant" and BOOM..dead.

i really hope you reconsider your attitude in this case my friend,because this shit is fascism incarnate,and now trump has his chubby little fingers on the "fire" button.

god help us all......

The 'tenuours connection' has not been debunked. The evidence president Obama had access to was enough to order Anwar's assassination from even.

Anwar al-Awlaki and the Fort Hood shooter met in person at the mosque Anwar was then an Imam at. Following that the shooter emailed Awlaki back and forth, but the contents of the email's has been kept closed. Anwar's praise and blessing of the attack immediately afterwards though is kind of telling.

That then combines with Anwar's past before that, where he was an Imam at 2 separate mosques attended by 3 of the 9/11 hijackers. One of those is the same mosque where he also met the Fort Hood shooter...

Or back even before that in the late 90's when he was running a charity that was later declared a front for funnelling money to terrorists.

That's an awful lot of coincidental contact with terrorists. Combine that with the fact he went full on cheer leader for it all once he left US soil seems to tell enough. He was an active participant and conspirator to at least Fort Hood, and possibly many more attacks on the US and it's allies.

I'm sorry to say it, but Jeremy Scahill is pretty guilty of selectively presenting and showing only the facts that fit his arguments and leaves out a mountain of other extremely relevant information that would be inconvenient to his narrative.

@bcglorf
the story of anwar al awlaki is a little more complicated than he simply said some bad stuff,and the tenuous connection to the fort hood shooter has already been debunked.

now maybe anwar was truly guilty of inciting violence,and maybe he is responsible in some fashion,but we will never know.

jeremy scahill has done some of the best work in regards to that particular story,and i found this lecture the most insightful:
https://videosift.com/video/jeremy-scahill-how-do-you-surrender-to-a-drone

Came here to say exactly this.

I'll add that Anwar al-Awlaki wasn't just hiding out in Yemen. The Fort Hood shooter was emailing back and forth with him. The attempted bombings in Times Square and of Northwest Airlines flight 253 were also linked back to him. So yeah, there were absolutely guys in Yemen helping launch attacks on American nationals and American soil.

That all said, blanket bans on everyone from the country period is only A answer and mayhaps not THE answer, baby with the bath water and all. Most of our Islamic allies, and the highest percentage of victims of jihadist terrorism are the moderate muslims in those same countries.

He was on the verge of making a point about the radicalization of US Muslims. Remember Anwar al-Awlaki, US citizen killed by drone? Guess which other country he lived in? The countries on the list, with the exception of Iran, all have weak central governments that are unable to prevent large groups of terrorists operating in their country and spreading radical islamic beliefs. I think Egypt and Saudi Arabia should probably be there too just based on their history, but maybe diplomatic considerations were made. Obviously Trump had no concern over diplomatic relaions with Iran.

The casualties of the raid in southern Jemen that saw one US soldier killed also include the 8-year-old daughter of Anwar Al-Awlaki -- shot in the neck and killed.

I'm anxious to see the Faux Left coming out of the woods again during the reign of the Orange One. All the shit they opposed when the Bush administration did it only to shut up when the Obama administration continued, or even expanded it, are they going to oppose it again? Can we at least get opposition against the targetted killing of US citizens without due process (al-Awlaki)?

What of all the Dem sycophants in the liberal wing of the media (Matt Yglesias, Ezra Klein, Operative K, Rachel Maddow, etc) who went on a pro-HRC binge over the last months in particular, will they return to reality?

And what is Alex Jones going to? Having raged against government in general only to have his guy now be in charge of the government... is he going to sell beauty products now?

Edit: Thomas Frank, again, to the rescue:

Put this question in slightly more general terms and you are confronting the single great mystery of 2016. The American white-collar class just spent the year rallying around a super-competent professional (who really wasn’t all that competent) and either insulting or silencing everyone who didn’t accept their assessment. And then they lost. Maybe it’s time to consider whether there’s something about shrill self-righteousness, shouted from a position of high social status, that turns people away.

@VoodooV
worst...analogy...ever.

@bcglorf
how does your analysis of the situation in pakistan defend or excuse the execution of american citizens abroad?

@Yogi made the clear example of Anwar al-Awlaki,an innocent 16 yr old american citizen living with his respectable grand-parents,who was executed by a drone strike.

are you suggesting we should just trust the executive branches decisions to murder citizens because the political/religious situation in a certain country?

i am trying to understand your correlation between a political climate and abusive executive powers.

Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki, who is Anwar al-Awlakis 16 year old son was targeted and killed. Born in Denver he was looking for his father and had sat down to dinner. He died along with his 17 year old cousin. It's called murder of the innocent.

Also they don't end any threat at all, they create more and more terrorists daily. Just ask anyone who's town has been hit by a Drone attack.

I think the big guns is droning Abdulrahman Anwar Al-Awlaki, the 16 year old son of Anwar Al-Awlaki. Born in Denver in 1995, an American citizen was killed by a drone while he searched for his recently droned father in the desert in Yemen where we are not at war. The teenager could only be identified by a piece of his skull which had his hair on it.

Robert Gibbs, Obamas former Press Secretary justified it by saying the boy "should [have] had a more responsible father."

Fuck Obama.

35 years ago, he could have also been Abdulrahman al-Awlaki...

If the guy was genuinely a member of Al Queda; was actively recruiting new members and planning attacks; but was out of reach of the American court system, what do you do?

Is Al-Awlaki's life more valuable the than the lives of those he plotted to kill?

If an American citizen joined the Nazi high command in WW2, would it be unfair to target him?

Schahill also makes the claim that democrats would be angry if Bush had done this, but if you look back, democrat rage was largely aimed at the war in Iraq. If anything, democrats were angry that Bush wasn't doing enough with regards to Al Queda.