US Assassinates Political Dissident

[redtex]

No trial, no evidence, no worries.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/09/30/us-born-terror-boss-anwar-al-awlaki-killed/

"The U.S.-born terror mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki has been killed, Fox News confirms."

[Zealot]

Yesterday I was watching an interview RT had with Noam Chomsky, in which he says Bush's policy was catch, torture and occasionally trial whereas Obama's policy is to just kill and assassinate. Then this happens. Gotta love Chomsky

[Nox]

Yesterday I was watching an interview RT had with Noam Chomsky, in which he says Bush's policy was catch, torture and occasionally trial whereas Obama's policy is to just kill and assassinate. Then this happens. Gotta love Chomsky

Gotta love RT too, the only news program out there that isn't full of bullshit.

[ВАЛТЕР]

Idk what is more disturbing, the fact that the US bombs sovereign nations at will, or the comments in the comment section of the article...

And I quote...

"Another sh1tbag sleeps with "Allah"! May peace be upon none of these Musl1m terrorists dirt bags.

All: let's lobby to classify Isl4m as a terrorist organization, not a religion. Then we can plow their mosques into the dirt and eradicate this terrorist organization from the USA."

[Iron Felix]

Nothing wrong with plowing mosques into the dirt, as long as you get all the Churches and Synagogues at the same time.

[jake williams]

Gotta love RT too, the only news program out there that isn't full of bullshit.
I can assure you that RT is full of bullshit. Just, different bullshit.

[SHORAS]

Gotta love RT too, the only news program out there that isn't full of bullshit.

But conveniently seems to forget and neglect the myriad of contradictions and horrors in the Russian Federation.

If you are going to praise a bourgeois entity you might as well add some criticism while you are at it! :D

Besides RT is full of bullshit, have you ever seen Moscow 'Days Out' or whatever it is called?

[SHORAS]

I can assure you that RT is full of bullshit. Just, different bullshit.

You are too quick for me! I basically see their role as deflecting the vast problems in Russia into foreign criticism which may have some worth. Usually though it is just a load of watered down 'anti-capitalism'. Probably the best you can expect from a bourgeois liberal organ? If that's the correct characterisation.

[TheLeftStar]

It's a good thing that Anwar al Awlaki has been assasinated.

[tfb]

It's not a good thing that Anwar al Awlaki has been assasinated.

[Princess Luna]

its a meh thing that Anwar al Awlaki has been assasinated.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Anwar al Alaki was not a "political dissident," he was a terrorist. I suppose Luis Posada Carriles is just a "protester" and Anton Denikin was an "opposition figure"? Opposing Drone strike assassinations makes sense, but to do so one doesn't need to equate this religious-fundamentalist murderer with actual legitimate political dissidents. Maybe he should have been captured and given a trial, not just assassinated, but one should call him what he was-just like everyone else in al Qaeda, he was nothing more than a violently militant fundamentalist.


Gotta love RT too, the only news program out there that isn't full of bullshit.
Isn't it a little odd for a Stalinist to be critical of America for assassinating "dissidents"? Isn't that something that Soviet intelligence did too under Stalin with regularity (Trotksy is the obvious example but there are plenty of others)? I don't want to start a sectarian fight, this is a serious question, it seems like opportunism for a Stalinist to criticize the bourgeois state for this kind of policy when they see such policies as appropriate when they are in power.

[eyeheartlenin]

Yesterday I was watching an interview RT had with Noam Chomsky, in which he says Bush's policy was catch, torture and occasionally trial whereas Obama's policy is to just kill and assassinate. Then this happens. Gotta love Chomsky

Yeah, Chomsky is very critical of the Democrats, but not when it counts. Every four years, Noam can be counted on to mount his little perch in suburban Lexington and urge the electorate to go out and vote for whatever pro-war multimillionaire the Democrats decide to run.

I hope someday someone will ask Chomsky, "Given that, as you have said, 'Obama's policy is just kill and assassinate,' why then, Prof. Chomsky, are you still shilling for the pro-war Democratic Party every election year?"

[freepalestine]

one less religious fascist

[RadioRaheem84]

Was there any evidence that he was linked to any actual plots? Or was he just a political dissident?

[RadioRaheem84]

Reading up on this guy, he was a real weirdo Islamic fundamentalist nut case. As much I hate the US targeting people for political killings, they are killing their own rogue elements (and spawns) that were once used against socialists in Afghanistan.

I think that what is most striking about this is that these killings are so blatantly illegal and targeting US citizens now.

[Aussie_Leftist]

i know i wont be crying over some murdered fascist.

[Impulse97]

The issue is more that they're targeting US citizens and dissidents rather than who he was or what he stood for. As far as that goes its just one reactionary body killing another. No win, no loss. It's the fact that they have lost almost all restraint on who they attack and why. I can see this turning into a modern day Salem witch trials, with loyalties tested, like in McCarty's 50's and innocent US civilians executed for being suspected terrorists. Not that they don't already do this with many others outside of the US already.

[Geiseric]

Islamic terrorism won't be treated as communism was because the ruling class has no chance of losing anything too significant materially to terrorists where communism would have overthrown them.

[RadioRaheem84]

Right now they're getting away with these targeted killings because the public will just think "it's a terrorist" so who cares.

Soon, they will link the facts that he was a US citizen, there was no trial, and the US has no restraints on killing people outside their borders.

At least I hope people will make that link.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Right now they're getting away with these targeted killings because the public will just think "it's a terrorist" so who cares.

Soon, they will link the facts that he was a US citizen, there was no trial, and the US has no restraints on killing people outside their borders.

At least I hope people will make that link.

What's the big deal if he is a US citizen? Would it be any better if the US asked Saudi Arabia to kill al-Awlaki instead? There may be a "Legal" difference between killing a US citizen and killing the citizen of another country from the Communist and Internationalist perspective, but shouldn't the "legal" difference between killing a citizen and a non-citizen be a bourgeois construct and not a moral absolute? No matter what country he was a citizen of, he had certain "human rights" which should have been protected-yet on the other hand, no matter what country he was a citizen of, he also committed inexcusable crimes based on a religiously fundamentalist ideology. His passport status presumably wouldn't change either fact.

Perhaps more importantly this is proof that the bourgeois conceptions of citizenship are meaningless and can be revoked by executive diktat. This is hardly new, most countries around the world have been more than happy to ignore someone's "citizenship" and treat them no differently from an international enemy. Presumably any bourgeois government can and would do the same.

[RadioRaheem84]

The point was to hold them accountable to their own laws. Which shows that the do not need to be.

[~Spectre]

There's no evidence that he had any sort of operational role. In fact, years ago the government used to love this guy so much, that they worked with him as an example of a "moderate cleric".

Bush was loud and boisterous with his violence and public torture, like Avon Barksdale. Obama is much more lowkey (sometimes), but instead kills anyone that even blinks at him the wrong way, like Marlo Stanfield. It's a different sort of escalation.

[bcbm]

i know i wont be crying over some murdered fascist.

who this guy was doesn't matter it is how he was killed that is concerning

[Welshy]

And now CNN is spending a lot of time telling us why he is a bad man and how dangerous he was and how we should be grateful he is dead. Man do I love eating propaganda for dinner instead of food.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Some commentators were talking about how being a citizen doesn't matter, as he was not a mere criminal, but was involved in an "insurrection against the United States". There's some pretty big implications there for the left, if it ever were to become relevant again.

[Le Socialiste]

This growing tendency amongst the American elite to openly assassinate its "enemies" is deeply troubling, yes, but I'm not going to shed any tears for a reactionary fundamentalist. Of course, it is important that we oppose these methods of state sanctioned terror, but it is equally important that we refrain from assuming that people like Anwar al-Awlaki were merely "dissidents". This is a struggle between two reactionary camps - with the international proletariat caught in the crossfire. Both groups seek to subject the working-class to its own tyranny and influence, and it is vital that we stand in opposition to all who serve as the guarantors of oppression, alienation, and privilege. What these actions do, however, is set a deadly precedent that can easily (and inevitably) be used against the working-class when the moment demands it.

[redtex]

If I may, the guy was a political dissident. I DO NOT agree with his particular politics of course. The guy is a religious authoritarian after all and I'm the exact opposite.

Osama bin Laden and Anwar al Awlaki both openly said that they oppose the US for political reasons. Namely for the occupation of "muslim lands". Thus they were dissidents.

Has anyone seen any evidence of any crimes they guy committed? What exactly has he been accused of?

They say he's a terrorist. What acts of terrorism has he committed?

The US government would never lie to us, would they?

Shouldn't there be a trial with an impartial jury to decide if he should be executed? I think it's a bad thing that the government is putting people in prison (Guantanamo) and executing people for crimes without the benefit of a jury trial. Many people think it's ok because they are supposedly terrorists. How do we know that it's true? Shouldn't an impartial jury decide that before we go off imprisoning and executing people?

By the way, when those assholes say that the Bill of Rights doesn't apply to non-US citizens ask where it says that. Go ahead, read the Bill of Rights. It only takes about 3 minutes to read, there are only 10 paragraphs and they are short. While you're at it, try to figure out how many of those "rights" the state violated when they assassinated al Awlaki.

Not that I'm a big fan of the US Constitution. I hope to see it abolished. I'm just saying the government lies. They are hypocrites. They don't even follow their own rules.