There was a multi-count grand jury indictment against him, he was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted Fugitive List.

But if you prefer:

Coming from someone who uses the Phora as a reference site, thats the most intelligent thing youve ever had to say on this forum Neal.

I did nothing other than provide the original article from 1945 that other Redscapers were discussing. It's a reminder to those who bring something up to provide the links. I shouldn't have had to. I had nothing to say about it.

The fact that it (the Chicago Tribune Article embedded) resided in Phora was a result of search engines. I've never heard of Phora previously nor have I read anything else there.

Further, I started this thread and as stupid as you might think it is, I certainly tend to like to keep my threads on my topic.

SLOTerp wrote:

Neal Anderth wrote:IIt's a bit strange to say he is guilty as a criminal if you have no willingness to put him on trial. Are you suggesting that if our feelings are intense enough we can set aside our rational responsibility to justice? There seems to be adequate recognition of the fact that OBL could have been or was taken into custody. Therefore it's clear Obama ordered OBL's death in a premeditated manner.

Didn't he admit guilt?

If by that you mean he paraded his organisations actions and claimed that they would do more, then that's a yes. While not an official 'guilty' plea in a court of law, it's pretty much damning.

Could he have been taken alive and held for trial? I'd probably have preferred it to be honest, but like Ricky I can see the problems that would arise - wherever he was held would be a target, whichever country he was held in would be a target - and their allies. His 'defence' would be to string along the case with distractions for as long as possible. If he died of natural causes in custody the conspiracy theories would abound....

I don't think we should be comfortable that OBL was killed. But it appears to have been inevitable.

archduke

Wait a minute. Aren't you the guy that has been arguing for years that War on Terror should be treated as a criminal investigation? As a serious question, how do you reconcile that argument with the above stated position.

Yes. A criminal investigation rather than a war. And to the extent that OBL was apprehended by investigatory procedures rather than an invasion I think its been more successful than the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq in combating terror. So for that matter are Drone attacks versus less discriminating bombing or shelling or ground force interventions.

The only question about OBLs apprehension and execution (assassination) was that he wasn't given the due process of a trial . I think circumstances and the lack of any real doubt about his guilt and the nature of his crimes make the expedient choice of assassination (Execution) palatable.

The difference between treating the use of terror by organizations like Al Qaeda as a criminal matter rather than a war has all kinds of implications.(Generalizations follow, and I'm conscious how generalizing is generally fraught with the problem, of exceptions.) In a war, you use force in a less discriminating fashion than when you apprehend criminals. In a war, those around the enemy are assumed to be aiding, or allied or friendly. With criminals we generally accept that those around may be innocent and sometimes completely guileless. In a war we tend to vilify the other side at large. With a criminal investigation we target the guilty very specifically. (This point is particular important when the issue of guilt by association is consdiered in a situation where the criminals are attempting to hijack an entire religion.)
In a war we use blunt instruments to quell an enemy. With criminals we tend to surgically remove them from society that they are poisoning.
Al Qaeda was never big enough, nor definable geographically, demographically or in any fashion to qualify for the blunt broad instruments of war. It always seemed to be little more than a criminal organization akin to the Cosa Nostra... (Its size and threat we're exagerated, but thats part of justifying War isn't it?)
But executing Osama in a raid in a foreign, and perhaps unfreindly country rather than securing him for a trial with a forgone conclusion? I will go with the expedient choice since it seemed to limit the damage to the enforcers and those around Osama. And sent a strong message to those who sympathize with OBLs methods and message that a trial might have also done, but which was sure to be complicated. (Pakistan is probably happier with an execution than with having to witness an ongoing trial that they might have had to challenge in order to assert their terrirtorial rights, for instance. ) In the end Archduke, OBL wasn't getting out of this alive..and he was guilty by public admission. How he came to an end matters no more than those who are being killed by CIA drones in North Pakistan. We generally aren't complaining that they aren't being arrested...
In brief, you can't enforce laws the same way in a country where laws are generally respected as you do where the rule of law is uncertain. For justice to be served in the latter, sometimes the nicities afforded by a general respect for law are set aside.
Now, had Pakistan apprehended OBL, I think it would have served their interests to try him in Pakistan. There a lesson in the observance of law would have been important. There seems to be some doubt whether or not Pakistan officially or their intelligence service unofficially really wanted him apprehended... Again, for them, the conclusion is uncomfortable but perhaps also a well learned lesson?

The Constitution states "no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law". We've now seen Obama attempt the assassination of US citizen Anwar al-Awlaki on Cinco de Mayo. Obviously none of us are going to miss this guy either when he's killed. But when 'cheat codes' become more and more the norm when facing challenges, we move further from our Constitutional Republic and we will face a host of unintended consequences as a result. Budgets don't need to be balanced, money can be printed, presidents can unilaterally declare war and assassinate, crimes can be hidden under a veil of secrecy, etc. There's many a fool out there publicly drooling over how the Chinese get things done.

Today it's Libya, Osama, and Awlaki, tomorrow it might be something you care about.

neal
The Constitution states "no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law".

You need to demonstrate how due process could be followed in al-Awlaki's case. I submit to you that there is no reasonable way he could be legally apprehended and detained. Which leaves extra-legal means. Second choice, but better than letting a terorrist carry out his acts with impunity.

Exactly the justification for Manning's actions, no? Extra legal means were necessary to help right the wrongs of a government that was using secrecy laws to cover up malfeasance and avoid it's obligations in regards to transparency.

Wouldn't we agree in principle that the application of the law is most important in the case of those that hold the most power, as it's expected that those with the least power are most likely to have it used against them?

Wouldn't we agree in principle that the application of the law is most important in the case of those that hold the most power, as it's expected that those with the least power are most likely to have it used against them?

Who is responsible for the application of law in the country Al-Awlaki is holed up? Would they co-operate with the US, or the International Court of Justice if either came forward with a request for extradition ?
If not, then the application of law is impossible in that case. (BTW, i very much beleive in the rule of law, neal, i just don't know why you think there is genuine rule of law everywhere in this world. )

I think you could make a case for Manning if he was specific about which information he released. If he could point to why the information was specifically released. But he dumped literally millions of lines of information indiscriminantly without really knowing what the majority of the information said. He wasn't so much acting in protest as acting as a vandal.
He wasn't releasing the Pentagon papers because they uncovered information that lead to the continuation of the Viet Nam war. he was releasing everything he could get his hands on without regard to its application to his "cause". (And its still unclear what that cause really was/is.)

He wasn't releasing the Pentagon papers because they uncovered information that lead to the continuation of the Viet Nam war. he was releasing everything he could get his hands on without regard to its application to his "cause". (And its still unclear what that cause really was/is.)

And it's up to the US government to decide the difference. Talk about protecting whistleblowers!

Now you have yourself a real good argument!
I don't know about Bin Laden, you can argue he was killed in a battle and was part of a "war" and frankly I'm willing to bend as far as it takes to accept his killing. But you have a different story with Anwar al-Awlaki and that's where it gets real interesting. A US citizen was targeted for assassination and actually attempted to be killed with zero due process (I don't think he is even formally charged with any crimes?) I find it really hard to defend such a creep but this is where the story can get really interesting to say the least.

Exactly the justification for Manning's actions, no? Extra legal means were necessary to help right the wrongs of a government that was using secrecy laws to cover up malfeasance and avoid it's obligations in regards to transparency.

Still don't buy it for a second, we went over quite a few reasons why but the easiest one in this example is Manning made his leaks well before any of this happened, he can't use this as an example at all unless he has some sort of ability to read the future. Reminds me of that Tom Cruise movie where they traveled into the past (or future?) to arrest killers before they even attempted the murder.

I did bring up Manning, but I suppose I'll try to avoid making it a major part of this thread unless others really want to.

The Pentagon Papers ought to be discussed. I'm pondering between Political in that it's pertinent to many hot topics we're discussing, or historical for a longer more reflective dialog.

A subtext for rickyp to keep in mind on the al-Awlaki matter, if the US is willing to put a US citizen on a kill list without due process, one ought to keep in mind what that means for non-Americans. I'm just saying.

The US is an assertive superpower whose most significant restraint is it's own people. While you may not always agree with certain actions like say Manning's. It is that rebellious American spirit that helps stay the hand of a superpower without precedence in world history.

It is that rebellious American spirit that helps stay the hand of a superpower without precedence in world history.

Without precedence? Really? I'd stack up Alexanders Empire or Rome at its zenith up as comparable.
In fact, when one compares all facets, economics as well as military and political power...they probably had greater influence on most of the known world, and controlled a greater portion of their worlds populace directly.
The notion that individuals with a conscience, acting as loan agents, some how consistently act as a governor on power with any kind of effect is amusing. I doubt you can name any cases where individuals have acted like Manning in releasing state secrets, and successfully changed the course of events...with the notable exception of the Pentagon papers..
What other "acts of rebellion" are you romanticizing about?