home

Yemen Won't Hunt Down Anwar Al-Awlaki

By Jeralyn, Section War on Terror
Posted on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 12:11:39 PM EST
Tags: Anwar al-Awlaki (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Yemen's Foreign Minister Abu Bakr al-Qirbi says Yemen will not hunt down American born cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, believed to be hiding in Yemen.

The U.S. put al-Awlaki on its "kill or capture" list but Yemen says it has not been provided evidence he is a terrorist and that he is not a terrorist. Background here and here. [More...]

In November, 2001, al-Awlaki, while an iman in Virginia, did an online chat with the Washington Post about Ramadan. He was asked about how the U.S. should have responded to the 9/11 attacks. Here's his answer:
Imam Anwar Al-Awlaki: The Taliban repeatedly said: show us the evidence and we will turn over whoever is guilty with the crime. The US should have given them the benefit of the doubt. Also our government could have dealt with the terrorist attacks as a crime against America rather than a war against America. So the guilty would be tried and only them would be punished rather than bombing an already destroyed country. I do not restrict myself to US media. I check out Aljazeerah and European media such as the BBC. I am seeing something that you are not seeing because of the one-sidedness of the US media. I see the carnage of Afghanistan. I see the innocent civilian deaths. That is why my opinion is different.

Keep in mind that I have no sympathy for whoever committed the crimes of Sep 11th. But that doesn't mean that I would approve the killing of my Muslim brothers and sisters in Afghanistan. Even though this is a dissenting view nowadays but as an American I do have the right to have a contrary opinion.

In 2002, a federal arrest warrant was issued for al-Awlaki in Denver for passport fraud and making a false statement to a federal official, but it was withdrawn before he was served with the warrant.

After 9/11, authorities learned that three of the hijackers visited al-Awlaki's California and Virginia mosques, but the FBI did not have enough evidence to arrest or detain him. In early 2002, he left the U.S. and started preaching on the Internet and applauding Palestinian suicide bombers.

It was while he was away that the U.S. Attorney's Office in Denver sought the arrest warrant. ABC News said it was based on the fact that al-Awlaki had attended CSU on a foreign-student visa, claiming he was born in Yemen, not in New Mexico, where he was actually born. Soon after he was briefly detained at JFK, he returned to Europe, and then Yemen.

< NORML Relaunches Times Square Billboard Ad | Obama, Dawn Johnsen, Stevens' Replacement And The End of The Obama Rorschach Test? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Yemen Won't Hunt Down Anwar Al-Awlaki | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I'm confused (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 02:41:33 PM EST
    The US CIA thinks "maybe" al-Awlaki met with the x-mas day bomber and "probably" was "very aware of this individual". They must have more than they are saying.

    I was not aware that if the CIA put out a "kill" order on someone that other sovereign nations were expected to carry out that order. Yemen is defending why they are not carrying out the killing.

    So does the US provide Yemen with their compelling classified evidence?

    In the WAPO article it said: "Alimi views Aulaqi more as an inspirational figure rather than an operational one; so do some U.S. officials." I hope that has changed and he is seen as operational and that there is clear evidence. If the evidence that he is a "terrorist" is that he holds certain views then who defines just what a terrorist is?? What views are terrorist? (such as, are radical Muslims terrorists, but the Hutaree are not? - seems clear that both have violent intent)

    Even with evidence it is IMO a monumental mistake to put out an official public "kill" on anyone. That the one to be killed is actually a US citizen makes that even more so.

    I know we probably hold similar views on the morality and political smartness of this, you, and others, know about the legal issues. I'm very interested in what you have to say about this.

    Yemen is refusing to attempt to capture (none / 0) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 05:30:17 PM EST
    him, not to kill him.

    We really should quit supporting these countries and let them go to Iran and/or other terrorist supporting states for support. They really aren't worth their salt.

    Parent

    So if the US (none / 0) (#9)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 05:38:23 PM EST
    orders a capture (or kill) other countries are just supposed to comply? That is what is implied in the refusal.

    Parent
    If you expect to be supported by the US (none / 0) (#16)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 08:55:28 PM EST
    then you should support the US. I can see them not wanting to kill him, but capturing and turning him over is an entirely different matter.

    Weren't these types of things not supposed to happen on Obama's watch?

    Parent

    not sure what you mean (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by ZtoA on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 09:48:00 PM EST
    about just what is happening under Obama's watch. I can guess you mean - did I expect that the elite military/CIA would not function under a democrat?

    I don't follow all the threads here (should apologize) but there was one where BTD and MT exchanged a knowing "someone or something must have gotten to Obama" (for him to so forcefully escalate war in Afghanistan) Frankly, I think pretty much any main stream candidate would have been gotten to.

    Capture and return home for a fair trial and kill are very different things PPJ aka Jim. And very public announcements are to be noted. I suppose as you say, tests of (media driven, visible, sound-byteable) "loyalty" are to be noted too. These "loyalty" issues are more cans of worms. IMO.

    Don't you wonder about the reasons for a public announcement?

    Parent

    My point was that Yemen could say (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 11, 2010 at 08:04:09 AM EST
    they will capture and turn over. They have said they will do nothing.

    If captured and turned over he will receive a fair trial.

    When you applaud and encourage jihad against your country then you have committed an act of war. That is treason. Capture or kill is deserved.

    Parent

    Sounds Right to Me (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 02:47:51 PM EST
    Also our government could have dealt with the terrorist attacks as a crime against America rather than a war against America.

    But then the GOP's dream of permanent rule would have become a pipe dream... Imagine that, no patriot act, no bedwetting, no votes...

    No wonder they want to kill the guy, he is making too much sense.

    It's a pretty sad commentary on the (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 03:48:30 PM EST
    state of the American democracy when a foreign country not known for its protections of human rights and observance of legal protections is safeguarding the life of an American citizen against the actions of an American government  that seems to have abandoned all pretense at adhering to the rule of law or according constitutional protections to its own citizens.  Who ever would have thought this policy would be advanced by a Democratic president, and that the Democratic caucus would have little, if anything, to say about it in opposition?

    What's even sadder is the general "ho-hum, nothing to see here" attitude of much of the media.

    I wonder what it will take for people to wake up and realize how damaging and dangerous this policy is - and make some effort to do something about it.

    What About OBL? (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 03:57:42 PM EST
    Do you feel the same about non-american citizens who are considered enemies?

    Parent
    If the American system of justice (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 10, 2010 at 04:25:22 PM EST
    is good enough for us, it ought to be good enough for even the worst-of-the-worst, shouldn't it?

    What does it say about that system of justice when we decide it is worth abandoning for expedience?

    Your question sounds remarkably in line with the "ticking time bomb" scenarios designed to put people on the spot to see if there are some circumstances when people otherwise opposed to torture would be willing to use it, and I just don't feel like playing that game with you.

    I'm aware of and familiar with the conflicts that can exist in some areas between the military and the civilian applications of the rule of law, understand the gray areas with Geneva, but I don't particularly like the trend of creating categories designed to allow us to abandon both, or the deliberate search for loopholes, however infinitesimal, to give ourselves an out for actions we should feel no pride in taking; it's just not a good precedent to be setting.

    And I am, frankly, horrified that we are now openly advocating the