Targeting al-Awlaki

There’s actually what I think is a big scoop in this weird David Ignatius column on debates over whether we can target Anwar al-Awlaki. The scoop? The Yemeni government approached the US in October asking for help targeting al-Awlaki.

Last October, the Yemeni government came to the CIA with a request: Could the agency collect intelligence that might help target the network of a U.S.-born al-Qaeda recruiter named Anwar al-Aulaqi?

Now, one aspect of the weirdness of this article is that Ignatius doesn’t state clearly what the Yemeni government wanted.

He later suggests the request was not to “collect intelligence” but rather to capture al-Awlaki. But even in the same breath, he admits that that presumed “capture” might also mean “kill.”

The CIA concluded that it could not assist the Yemenis in locating Aulaqi for a possible capture operation. The primary reason was that the agency lacked specific evidence that he threatened the lives of Americans — which is the threshold for any capture-or-kill operation against a U.S. citizen. The Yemenis also wanted U.S. Special Forces’ help on the ground in pursuing Aulaqi; that, too, was refused.

The rest of Ignatius’ column engages in some hindsight reflection about what a shame it is that CIA and/or JSOC couldn’t help collect intelligence or maybe capture an American citizen or maybe kill him in the process of capturing him back in October, before Nidal Hasan launched his attack at Fort Hood. And to Ignatius’ credit, he ultimately does come down on the side of having actual evidence against Americans before the government can kill them.

In retrospect, it seems clear that the available information should have triggered closer scrutiny of both Hasan and Aulaqi. We’ll never know whether such action could have deterred Hasan. As for Aulaqi, officials now say he is on the U.S. target list.

Finally, does it make sense to require NSC permission before a potentially lethal operation against a U.S. citizen such as Aulaqi? My answer would be yes. The higher threshold that was in place in 2009 was appropriate then and still is: Use of lethal force always needs careful controls — especially when it involves Americans.

But there are two things Ignatius doesn’t really deal with in this column.

First, we were already “collecting information” from al-Awlaki. We appear to have had legal FISA wiretap on him going back some years. So, particularly given that our government has sold both warranted and bulk wiretapping as the fail safe prevention for terrorism, we really need to know why it is that CIA even entertained an information collection-I mean capture-I mean kill operation against al-Awlaki when, presumably, our existing no-kill information collection hadn’t collected even enough information to indict him.

Furthermore, even while Ignatius reviews al-Awlaki’s history to show how much suspicion the government has had about him, going back a decade, and even while he quotes a “US official” admitting we had nothing on him until November, if then…

A U.S. official familiar with the case responds: “Aulaqi didn’t go operational until November. It wasn’t a case of missed intelligence, not at all. The Yemenis didn’t even think he had assumed an operational role.”

Ignatius doesn’t come out and note that until December, until the rumored but still not officially public testimony from the underwear bomber claiming al-Awlaki was “one of his trainers for this mission” (the claim that al-Awlaki was also involved in training, rather than blessing an attack, may also be new to Ignatius’ column, in which case no wonder Abdulmutallab’s attack was so incompetent, if he had a cleric doing his training).

I applaud Ignatius’ refusal to accept the premise he seems to have been fed, that al-Awlaki should have been targeted back in October when, lacking any operational intelligence against him, the Yemeni government asked us to kill an American citizen.

But at least part of this discussion needs to be about how someone could have allegedly moved from dangerous but protected speech to operational activities without all our close monitoring of him noticing.

image_print
17 replies
  1. klynn says:

    But at least part of this discussion needs to be about how someone could have allegedly moved from dangerous but protected speech to operational activities without all our close monitoring of him noticing.

    Part of the discussion? I think you hit on where the heart of the discussion should focus.

  2. BoxTurtle says:

    I guess I’m old fashioned, but I do not like the thought of executing American citizens without a trial.

    What happened to tradition? Used to be when we found a crook, we surrounded him. Gave him the chance to surrender. If he refused, we’d toss in a couple cans of tear gas and see if he became more reasonable. If he didn’t, we send in SWAT. Works well, though you have to modify the above when there are hostages involved. Even Koresh in Waco got that much due process.

    But before we did any of the above, we had to have probable cause or a warrant. Which doesn’t take much to get. Waving a gun about? Probable cause! Crook reports soandso’s the mastermind? Warrant!

    So we’re targeting him now, but with the information we’ve got could we even get an indictment in a real court? I doubt it.

    If I were al-Awlaki, I might move to France. The American’s wouldn’t dare bomb me in Paris and the French won’t arrest me without a real warrant from a real court.

    And someone needs to explain to me why a cleric like al-awlaki can get targeted for helping to target Americans, while a “cleric” like Rush Limbaugh can inspire his followers to do the same and he gets a talk radio contract.

    Boxturtle (I wonder what would happen if AL-Awlaki applied for a restraining order in a US court?)

    • bobschacht says:

      I guess I’m old fashioned, but I do not like the thought of executing American citizens without a trial.

      Well, count me as old fashioned, too, as in C-o-n-s-t-i-t-u-t-i-o-n. And not only contemplating executing American citizens without a trial, but without even an indictment. This is part of the unitary executive thingy, IMHO, because yet another part of the executive wants to be prosecutor, judge and jury, all without consulting any other branch of the government.

      Where are the true Conservatives?

      Bob in AZ

    • shekissesfrogs says:

      Oh.. the myth making..

      The Waco incident isn’t a good comparison to make. They were shot by the FBI as they ran out, and the tank had a flame thrower on the end of the gun. – this was found out much later, and admitted, but not made a big deal of in the media.

      1969 Fred Hampton and Mark Clark were shot in killed while they slept -by Chicago police/FBI.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hampton

  3. earlofhuntingdon says:

    There is the obvious point that without an invitation, self-initiated or extorted, drone or other attacks on Yemeni soil by America would be an act of war. Neo-con views notwithstanding, criminals are entitled to due process before being summarily executed.

    • behindthefall says:

      Refresher needed: When was the last time that we followed the Constitution and had Congress actually pass a “Declaration of War”? Haven’t we slid by with resolutions and such since the ’60s?

        • earlofhuntingdon says:

          I think that’s right. Here is a short list, with distinctions among various authorizations, from declarations of war to peacekeeping. Korea was a “police action“, Vietnam was largely, but not wholly, fought under the authority of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution.

          Practically speaking these were wars, but the legal distinctions among the authorizations or terms used are important. JFK’s coining the term “embargo” in relation to his blockade of Cuba, for example, avoided admitting to an act of war, thereby giving the Russians room to maneuver, which allowed the tensions to be settled peacefully, rather than lead to open conflict.

          Since Bush started his GWOT, however, legal nuance has been thrown to the dogs; it has become Orwellian obfuscation that hides torture, illegal domestic spying and a trillion dollar campaign of warfare across the Middle East.

    • BoxTurtle says:

      criminals are entitled to due process before being summarily executed.

      Show me the part of the constitution where it says “before”.

      Boxturtle (Momentarly channeling Yoo. Yeech)

        • Hmmm says:

          OT — Maybe the al-H summary judgement has me in an unusually good mood, but that’s the funniest thing I’ve read in weeks. Where’s Angela Lansbury when we need her…

  4. Mason says:

    Marcy,

    I do not agree that we have the right under any set of circumstances to target a suspected terrorist in the world for assassination. Their citizenship is irrelevant.

    I believe suspected terrorists should be treated the same way we treat any person suspected of committing a crime. We charge them, if we have probable cause and we accord them the same constitutional rights that we accord our own citizens. We try them in a court of law following the rules of evidence and we let a jury decide whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt. We release them, if they have been found not guilty, or we sentence them, if they have been found guilty.

    As to your question about what our kill-crazy government knew about him, I suspect it knew what he told Nidal, it wasn’t actionable, and Obama decided to play God after the fact because he feared some right wing asshole might criticize him, if he didn’t. That al Awlaki might not have committed a crime means absolutely nothing to a bloodthirsty Obama who ordered McChrystal to go ahead and slaughter innocent women and children with drones to maybe kill an insurgent or two.

    Others may disagree, but I’m convinced Obama is a psychopath.

    • TalkingStick says:

      I don’t know that calling Obama a psychopath forwards the discourse. He is just doing what all presidents do. Holding onto all the powers of the presidency no matter how they were seized. Mostly the Republicans since Reagan have extended the many powers unopposed by Democrats, the media and the American people. We now find that those powers extend to complete disregard for civil liberties, legally or morally rooted. Following tradition, Obama will not give those up and continue to send his lackey Holder out to defend them.

      George Washington was to last to voluntarily refuse extended powers.

      • bobschacht says:

        He is just doing what all presidents do.

        Well, since the Manhattan project, anyway, according to Garry Will’s new book, Bomb Power.

        Bob in AZ

      • Mason says:

        I don’t know that calling Obama a psychopath forwards the discourse. He is just doing what all presidents do. Holding onto all the powers of the presidency no matter how they were seized.

        He not only embraced the extreme radical power that Bush claimed to order assassinations of terrorists in foreign lands, he extended that power to order assassinations of US citizens anywhere in the world if he suspects they are involved in terrorist activity, including the US. Add to that his insistence on not only using drones that mostly kill innocent women and children, but substantially increasing their use, convinces me he’s a psychopath and I could care less if my view doesn’t promote continued discourse.

  5. b2020 says:

    I made this point a while back – the “agreement to disagree” between Pakistan and the US regarding remote control killings essentially looks like a quid-pro-quo, permitting the Obama administration to pursue assassination by drone in Pakistan tribal areas in exchange for occasionally “servicing” a Pakistan-supplied hitlist.

    This is what it came to a year ago – the US government, through JSOC, CIA and PMC contractors running UAV operations, is providing tax-payer funded infrastructure for contract killing, as a mere bargaining chip of a foreign policy prioritizing US ability to conduct “extralegal” assassinations on the sovereign territory of other nations.

    Obama has no moral compass. I doubt he could find his conscience with both hands, the constitution, and his bible.

Comments are closed.