Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Last Reflection blog
The most interesting and useful part of this course was using the blogs from all of our writing. It was interesting to be able to read everything everyone had written to see other peoples view points and styles of writing. This was helpful for when I was stuck or unsure on exactly what a prompt was asking. It also was useful to see other people’s responses and their takes on a piece of writing to expand on what I took from the article. It will be difficult to use this in all future writing classes because it is not always possible to read everyone’s writing, but I will try to read more peoples writing in future classes to get more view points.
Essay 2 Final Draft
Adam Clark
Writ-1122
Professor Leake
03/05/2012
The Legality of Killing an al-Qaeda Official is Questioned?
Monday May 2, 2011, this date by itself seems like any other day, but knowing it is the day the US successfully killed Osama Bin Laden, makes it an important day for the US and the war against al-Qaeda. The death of this prominent al-Qaeda member was taking almost unanimously as a success and something worthy of praise. The seal team given credit for the mission was idolized though they remained anonymous, and the President’s decision to carry out the attack was not questioned. Later in 2011, another high-ranking official in an al-Qaeda affiliate was targeted and killed, but this killing created controversy over who the government was allowed to target. On September 30, 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki and several others were killed in a CIA led drone strike in Yemen. When first looking at this, there seems to be little room for controversy over the killing. Anwar al-Awlaki had been placed on the CIA “kill or capture” list in April 2010, and had been accused of assisting multiple terror attempts on US soil since September 11. The controversy comes with Anwar al-Awlaki citizenship, being both a United States and Yemen citizen. He was the first United States Citizen to be placed the kill or capture list, and the first citizen to be targeted and killed in an American lead attack.
Anwar al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico in 1971, where is father studying agriculture. At the age of seven he moved to Yemen where he grew up. He returned to the US to receive an American education and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and master’s degree in education (Anwar). He first attracted attention from the FBI in 1999 with allegations of contact with militants. At the time he was the vice president of an Islamic charity that was believed to be funneling money to terrorists. He also had connections with two of the hijackers from the September 11 attacks. They came to his mosque to pray prior to the attacks (Anwar). His primary threats came with a website aimed at a younger Islamic audience to convert them to Jihadist ways. He moved to London in 2002, but shortly after that returned to Yemen (Anwar). In Yemen he was imprisoned for a short time and after being released his message became much more extreme. Because of this, he gained more attention from the FBI and CIA.
Anwar al-Awlaki had communications with many terrorist caught in spoiled attack attempts. In December 2009, the “underwear bomber” plot was spoiled, when explosives did not detonate. Umar Abdulmutallab, the man responsible for the attempt, had been in contact with Anwar long before his attack (Mazzetti). Similarly, Faisal Shazad who attempted to use a car bomb in Times Square and Nidal Hasan who went on a deadly shooting in Fort Hood, Texas, both were in contact with Anwar about their planned attacks. Anwar acknowledged contact with these men in early 2010, which subsequently led hid to be put on the CIA capture or kill list (Mazzetti). Even with all these facts against him, and he clearly his hatred towards and desire to harm the US, he was still a citizen, so the legality of killing he comes to question.
Barrack Obama gave a statement on September 30, 2011 announcing the death of Anwar al-Awlaki calling it a major milestone in the fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. He stated:
The death of Anwar is a major blow to al-Qaeda’s most active affiliate. He took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans and he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda. (Obama)
This statement given shortly after Anwar’s death was to inform American’s of what the President saw as something noteworthy. He belittled Anwar to the public through his announcement by stating Anwar’s goals of harming Americans. He presents all of Anwar’s goals, and failed terror plots to justify his death. Barrack Obama, though, never says that Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen. This is done, so initially his decision to have Anwar killed is not questioned. Unless a person was aware of Anwar al-Awlaki prior to Obama’s speech, they would not have known he was a US citizen. Through the rapid spread of this event through online media, Anwar’s background was soon revealed and people began to question his killing.
It was brought to light that the killing of a US citizen violated many rights guaranteed to citizens through the constitution. The fourth and fifth amendments call for no unreasonable seizures by the government and the right to due process of the law. On top of these, murder is illegal; and there are bans on assassinations. Initially, no justification was given for Anwar’s killing, and because of this activist groups and Anwar’s father filled papers to sue the US government over the killing (Johnson). The activists’ initially spread their message through online media, largely in blogs. This was the easiest, most effective means of quickly spreading their message, but once the lawsuit was filed it became major news. All major news sources had articles about the suit and linking to blogs revealing the story to the public even more. The suit was soon thrown out though because “it involved state secrets and raised questions that should be answered in congress, not the courts” (Johnson). In addition to these activist groups calling for justification on Anwar’s “murder”, it caused a controversial issue for politicians to take sides on. Ron Paul had very strong opinions on the matter calling the death an “assassination” on the premises of Anwar’s citizenship and lack of trial, despite many others seeing it as justified (Huffington). This was said after a campaign speech at a New Hampshire college. This showed him staying strong to constitutional rights, to gain voters support, while condemning the Democratic Party for the attack. Because Ron Paul had such a strong opinion and made it known at a large campaign speech it became major news, sparking others to stand out as well.
In response to the uproar on legal justification, the Obama administration released a legal memorandum the offered the needed justification. It was written shortly after September 11 and gave legal justification for acting despite bans on assassinations, and laws against murder. Charlie Savage, a writer at the New York Times, wrote an in-depth article looking into the justifications from the memorandum. His major issue with it was that the document did not directly state that the actions were justified when carried out against an American citizen (Savage). This fact aside, he continues to question the justification. Killing is not “murder” when it is done against a wartime enemy; this being true, Savage questioned if the missile, which was fired by a CIA official, who does not wear a uniform, and is not really “at war”, would thus have murdered al-Awlaki (Savage). The document stated that when possible, the militant should be captured. Savage looked at diplomatic issues with placing soldiers on Yemen soil and the risk to American commandos as the reasons a capture was not feasible, but he points out that both these issues were ignored in the raid on Osama’s complex (Savage). So in fact it may have been possible to plan and execute a capture in stead of a drone strike.
Though salvage points out flaws in the justification, parts of it he finds reasonable and true. The document stated that citizens who had joined an enemy force “can be detained and prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies” (Savage). It also looked into Anwar’s location, because he was not in the “hot battlefield,” but since he still posed a threat to the US, the justification still applied. The final point Savage looked into was Yemen’s Sovereignty and firing a missile on their soil, but permission had secretly been granted to the US to carry out the attack. Savage shows mixed opinions, though does not support the justification on the killing, through his findings in analysis and questioning of the memorandum given by the Obama administration.
Online letter to the editors on the New York Times article “ When the US Kills an American Citizen” offers some unique takes on the justification as well. Neil Mullen writes:
Without the rule of law, we are left with might makes right. In this decade, we are the mightiest and may deploy drones or Navy Seals to kill those deemed guilty without a trial and proven evidence. In some future decade, another country may deploy such measures, legitimized by such precedent, against targets on our soil. (Mullin)
Mullen offers a unique opinion about law and power. The US cannot just do as it pleases with its power. It needs to have certain legal justification to carry out military attacks. The US may be the largest world power today, but some day another country could be carrying out similar attack on US soil, which would not settle well with government officials. George Wolf an army veteran had a very different opinion. He writes, “I think that it’s a clear-cut case. Anwar al-Awlaki may have been a United States citizen, but the moment he became actively involved in a military campaign against the United States, he became an enemy our military was obligated to fight and kill. (Wolf)” Having faced war, he knows anything has to be done to stop threats against his country. Because of this he does not see Anwar as a fellow citizen but as any other enemy. I see myself agreeing with George wolf, though his idea offers little legal justification, Anwar al-Awlaki worked towards threatening the United States thus he needed to be stopped. I think the justification presented offers enough support to justify the killing. Anwar al-Awlaki was not in places where he could be easily captured, so he was instead tracked to a safe enough location, so there would not be outside causalities; and he was killed with a drone strike. He posed a real threat to the United States and openly admitted his desire to harm US citizens.
The debate over justification on killing US citizens causes lots of questions to be asked over what our true “rights” as a citizen are. Anwar al-Awlaki was no normal citizen; he had been hiding in Yemen and made it clear he wanted to harm US citizens. His open affiliation with a known terrorist organization and his roles in multiple terror attempts did not, though, offer a clear-cut justification for his killing. The Obama administration release some documents to offer some justification, but a deeper analysis of them, like the one done by Charlie Savage, showed that there were still faults in the justification. March 5, 2012, though this changed. Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech to set in stone the legality in Anwar’s killing. In his speech given at Northwestern University he said:
Let me be clear: an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles. (Holder)
All of these conditions had been met, Anwar had been tracked for two years, and when safe in a place where there would not be civilian casualties, he was killed. This will not end the debate; it will only re-spark the flames. Despite this, it has been made official that given particular circumstances killing a US citizen can be and in this case was justified.
Works Cited
"Anwar Al-Awlaki." - The New York Times. 05 Mar. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2012..
AP/The Huffington Post. "Anwar Al-Awlaki Dead: Politicians React To Death Of U.S.-Born Al Qaeda Cleric." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012..
Holder, Eric. "Targeted Killings." Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago. 05 Mar. 2012. Speech.
Johnson, Carrie. "Debate Erupts Over Legality Of Awlaki's Killing." NPR. 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012..
Mazzetti, Mark, Eric Schmitt, and Robert F. Worth. "Two-Year Manhunt Led to Killing of Awlaki in Yemen." The New York Times. 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012..
Mullin, Neil. "When the U.S. Kills an American Citizen." Editorial. The New York Times.. 12 Oct. 2011. Web.
.
Obama, Barrack, and PBSnewshour. "Obama: Cleric Al-Awlaki's Death Is 'Major Blow' to Al-Qaida." YouTube. 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012..
Savage, Charlie. "Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen." New York Times (9 Oct. 2011). The New York TImes. 8 Oct. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2012..
Wolf, George. "When the U.S. Kills an American Citizen." Editorial. The New York Times. 12 Oct. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012..
Writ-1122
Professor Leake
03/05/2012
The Legality of Killing an al-Qaeda Official is Questioned?
Monday May 2, 2011, this date by itself seems like any other day, but knowing it is the day the US successfully killed Osama Bin Laden, makes it an important day for the US and the war against al-Qaeda. The death of this prominent al-Qaeda member was taking almost unanimously as a success and something worthy of praise. The seal team given credit for the mission was idolized though they remained anonymous, and the President’s decision to carry out the attack was not questioned. Later in 2011, another high-ranking official in an al-Qaeda affiliate was targeted and killed, but this killing created controversy over who the government was allowed to target. On September 30, 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki and several others were killed in a CIA led drone strike in Yemen. When first looking at this, there seems to be little room for controversy over the killing. Anwar al-Awlaki had been placed on the CIA “kill or capture” list in April 2010, and had been accused of assisting multiple terror attempts on US soil since September 11. The controversy comes with Anwar al-Awlaki citizenship, being both a United States and Yemen citizen. He was the first United States Citizen to be placed the kill or capture list, and the first citizen to be targeted and killed in an American lead attack.
Anwar al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico in 1971, where is father studying agriculture. At the age of seven he moved to Yemen where he grew up. He returned to the US to receive an American education and graduated with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and master’s degree in education (Anwar). He first attracted attention from the FBI in 1999 with allegations of contact with militants. At the time he was the vice president of an Islamic charity that was believed to be funneling money to terrorists. He also had connections with two of the hijackers from the September 11 attacks. They came to his mosque to pray prior to the attacks (Anwar). His primary threats came with a website aimed at a younger Islamic audience to convert them to Jihadist ways. He moved to London in 2002, but shortly after that returned to Yemen (Anwar). In Yemen he was imprisoned for a short time and after being released his message became much more extreme. Because of this, he gained more attention from the FBI and CIA.
Anwar al-Awlaki had communications with many terrorist caught in spoiled attack attempts. In December 2009, the “underwear bomber” plot was spoiled, when explosives did not detonate. Umar Abdulmutallab, the man responsible for the attempt, had been in contact with Anwar long before his attack (Mazzetti). Similarly, Faisal Shazad who attempted to use a car bomb in Times Square and Nidal Hasan who went on a deadly shooting in Fort Hood, Texas, both were in contact with Anwar about their planned attacks. Anwar acknowledged contact with these men in early 2010, which subsequently led hid to be put on the CIA capture or kill list (Mazzetti). Even with all these facts against him, and he clearly his hatred towards and desire to harm the US, he was still a citizen, so the legality of killing he comes to question.
Barrack Obama gave a statement on September 30, 2011 announcing the death of Anwar al-Awlaki calling it a major milestone in the fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. He stated:
The death of Anwar is a major blow to al-Qaeda’s most active affiliate. He took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans and he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda. (Obama)
This statement given shortly after Anwar’s death was to inform American’s of what the President saw as something noteworthy. He belittled Anwar to the public through his announcement by stating Anwar’s goals of harming Americans. He presents all of Anwar’s goals, and failed terror plots to justify his death. Barrack Obama, though, never says that Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen. This is done, so initially his decision to have Anwar killed is not questioned. Unless a person was aware of Anwar al-Awlaki prior to Obama’s speech, they would not have known he was a US citizen. Through the rapid spread of this event through online media, Anwar’s background was soon revealed and people began to question his killing.
It was brought to light that the killing of a US citizen violated many rights guaranteed to citizens through the constitution. The fourth and fifth amendments call for no unreasonable seizures by the government and the right to due process of the law. On top of these, murder is illegal; and there are bans on assassinations. Initially, no justification was given for Anwar’s killing, and because of this activist groups and Anwar’s father filled papers to sue the US government over the killing (Johnson). The activists’ initially spread their message through online media, largely in blogs. This was the easiest, most effective means of quickly spreading their message, but once the lawsuit was filed it became major news. All major news sources had articles about the suit and linking to blogs revealing the story to the public even more. The suit was soon thrown out though because “it involved state secrets and raised questions that should be answered in congress, not the courts” (Johnson). In addition to these activist groups calling for justification on Anwar’s “murder”, it caused a controversial issue for politicians to take sides on. Ron Paul had very strong opinions on the matter calling the death an “assassination” on the premises of Anwar’s citizenship and lack of trial, despite many others seeing it as justified (Huffington). This was said after a campaign speech at a New Hampshire college. This showed him staying strong to constitutional rights, to gain voters support, while condemning the Democratic Party for the attack. Because Ron Paul had such a strong opinion and made it known at a large campaign speech it became major news, sparking others to stand out as well.
In response to the uproar on legal justification, the Obama administration released a legal memorandum the offered the needed justification. It was written shortly after September 11 and gave legal justification for acting despite bans on assassinations, and laws against murder. Charlie Savage, a writer at the New York Times, wrote an in-depth article looking into the justifications from the memorandum. His major issue with it was that the document did not directly state that the actions were justified when carried out against an American citizen (Savage). This fact aside, he continues to question the justification. Killing is not “murder” when it is done against a wartime enemy; this being true, Savage questioned if the missile, which was fired by a CIA official, who does not wear a uniform, and is not really “at war”, would thus have murdered al-Awlaki (Savage). The document stated that when possible, the militant should be captured. Savage looked at diplomatic issues with placing soldiers on Yemen soil and the risk to American commandos as the reasons a capture was not feasible, but he points out that both these issues were ignored in the raid on Osama’s complex (Savage). So in fact it may have been possible to plan and execute a capture in stead of a drone strike.
Though salvage points out flaws in the justification, parts of it he finds reasonable and true. The document stated that citizens who had joined an enemy force “can be detained and prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies” (Savage). It also looked into Anwar’s location, because he was not in the “hot battlefield,” but since he still posed a threat to the US, the justification still applied. The final point Savage looked into was Yemen’s Sovereignty and firing a missile on their soil, but permission had secretly been granted to the US to carry out the attack. Savage shows mixed opinions, though does not support the justification on the killing, through his findings in analysis and questioning of the memorandum given by the Obama administration.
Online letter to the editors on the New York Times article “ When the US Kills an American Citizen” offers some unique takes on the justification as well. Neil Mullen writes:
Without the rule of law, we are left with might makes right. In this decade, we are the mightiest and may deploy drones or Navy Seals to kill those deemed guilty without a trial and proven evidence. In some future decade, another country may deploy such measures, legitimized by such precedent, against targets on our soil. (Mullin)
Mullen offers a unique opinion about law and power. The US cannot just do as it pleases with its power. It needs to have certain legal justification to carry out military attacks. The US may be the largest world power today, but some day another country could be carrying out similar attack on US soil, which would not settle well with government officials. George Wolf an army veteran had a very different opinion. He writes, “I think that it’s a clear-cut case. Anwar al-Awlaki may have been a United States citizen, but the moment he became actively involved in a military campaign against the United States, he became an enemy our military was obligated to fight and kill. (Wolf)” Having faced war, he knows anything has to be done to stop threats against his country. Because of this he does not see Anwar as a fellow citizen but as any other enemy. I see myself agreeing with George wolf, though his idea offers little legal justification, Anwar al-Awlaki worked towards threatening the United States thus he needed to be stopped. I think the justification presented offers enough support to justify the killing. Anwar al-Awlaki was not in places where he could be easily captured, so he was instead tracked to a safe enough location, so there would not be outside causalities; and he was killed with a drone strike. He posed a real threat to the United States and openly admitted his desire to harm US citizens.
The debate over justification on killing US citizens causes lots of questions to be asked over what our true “rights” as a citizen are. Anwar al-Awlaki was no normal citizen; he had been hiding in Yemen and made it clear he wanted to harm US citizens. His open affiliation with a known terrorist organization and his roles in multiple terror attempts did not, though, offer a clear-cut justification for his killing. The Obama administration release some documents to offer some justification, but a deeper analysis of them, like the one done by Charlie Savage, showed that there were still faults in the justification. March 5, 2012, though this changed. Attorney General Eric Holder gave a speech to set in stone the legality in Anwar’s killing. In his speech given at Northwestern University he said:
Let me be clear: an operation using lethal force in a foreign country, targeted against a U.S. citizen who is a senior operational leader of al Qaeda or associated forces, and who is actively engaged in planning to kill Americans, would be lawful at least in the following circumstances: First, the U.S. government has determined, after a thorough and careful review, that the individual poses an imminent threat of violent attack against the United States; second, capture is not feasible; and third, the operation would be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable law of war principles. (Holder)
All of these conditions had been met, Anwar had been tracked for two years, and when safe in a place where there would not be civilian casualties, he was killed. This will not end the debate; it will only re-spark the flames. Despite this, it has been made official that given particular circumstances killing a US citizen can be and in this case was justified.
Works Cited
"Anwar Al-Awlaki." - The New York Times. 05 Mar. 2012. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
AP/The Huffington Post. "Anwar Al-Awlaki Dead: Politicians React To Death Of U.S.-Born Al Qaeda Cleric." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
Holder, Eric. "Targeted Killings." Northwestern University School of Law, Chicago. 05 Mar. 2012. Speech.
Johnson, Carrie. "Debate Erupts Over Legality Of Awlaki's Killing." NPR. 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
Mazzetti, Mark, Eric Schmitt, and Robert F. Worth. "Two-Year Manhunt Led to Killing of Awlaki in Yemen." The New York Times. 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
Mullin, Neil. "When the U.S. Kills an American Citizen." Editorial. The New York Times.. 12 Oct. 2011. Web.
Obama, Barrack, and PBSnewshour. "Obama: Cleric Al-Awlaki's Death Is 'Major Blow' to Al-Qaida." YouTube. 30 Sept. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
Savage, Charlie. "Secret U.S. Memo Made Legal Case to Kill a Citizen." New York Times (9 Oct. 2011). The New York TImes. 8 Oct. 2011. Web. 18 Feb. 2012.
Wolf, George. "When the U.S. Kills an American Citizen." Editorial. The New York Times. 12 Oct. 2011. Web. 20 Feb. 2012.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Essay 2 rough draft
Monday May 2, 201, this date by itself seems like any other day, but knowing it is the day the US successfully killed Osama Bin Laden, makes it as an important day for the US and the war against al-Qaeda. The death of this prominent al-Qaeda member was taking unanimously as a success and something worthy of praise. The seal team given credit for the mission was idolized thought they remained anonymous, and the President’s decision to carry out the attack was not questioned. Later in 2011, another high-ranking official in an al-Qaeda affiliate was targeted and killed, but this killing created controversy over who the government was allowed to target. On September 30, 2011, Anwar al-Awlaki and several others were killed in a CIA led drone strike in Yemen. When first looking at this, there seems to be little room for controversy over the killing. Anwar al-Awlaki had been placed on the CIA “kill or capture” list in April 2010, and had been accused of assisting multiple terror attempts on US soil since September 11. The controversy comes with Anwar al-Awlaki citizenship, being both an United States and Yeman citizen. He was the first United States Citizen to be placed the kill or capture list, and the first to be targeted and killed in an American lead attack.
Anwar al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico in 1971, where is father studying agriculture. At the age of seven he moved to Yeman where he grew up. He returned to the US to receive and American education and received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and master’s degree in education (NY TIMES OFFICAL CITE LATER). He first attracted attention from the FBI in 1999 with allegations of contact with militants. At the time he was the vice president of an Islamic charity that was believed to be funneling money to terrorists. He also had connections with two of the hijackers from the September 11 attacks. They came to his mosque to pray prior to the attacks ( NY TIMES). His primary threats came with a website on online influence to reach a younger Islamic audience to convert them to Jihadist ways. He moved to London in 2002, but shortly after that returned to Yemen. In Yemen he was imprisoned for a short time and after being released his message became much more extreme and he gained more attention from the FBI and CIA.
Anwar al-Awlaki had communications with many terrorist caught in spoiled attack attempts. In December 2009, the “underwear bomber” plot was spoiled, when explosives did not detonate. Umar Abdulmutallab, the man responsible for the attempt, had been in contact with Anwar long before his attack. Similarily, Faisal Shazad who attempted to use a car bomb in Times Square and Nidal Hasan who went on a deadly shooting in Fort Hood, Texas, both were in contact with Anwar about their planned attacks. Anwar acknowledged contact with these men in early 2010, which subsequently led hid to be put on the CIA capture or kill list. Even with all these facts against him, and he clearly stated hate and desire to harm the US, he was still a citizen, so the legality of killing he comes to question.
Barrack Obama gave a statement on September 30, 2011 announcing the death of Anwar al-Awlaki calling it a major milestone in the fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. He said, “The death of Anwar is a major blow to al-Qaeda’s most active affiliate. He took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans and he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda.” This statement given shortly after Anwar’s death was to inform American’s of what the President saw a something noteworthy. He belittled Anwar to the public through his announcement by stating Anwar’s goals of harming Americans. He presents all of Anwar’s goals, and failed terror plots to justify his death. Barrack Obama, though, never says that Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen. This is done, so initially his decision to have Anwar killed is not questioned. Unless a person was aware of Anwar prior to Obama’s speech, they would not have known he was a US citizen. Through the rapid spread of this event through online media, Anwar’s background was soon revealed and people began to question his killing.
--how do I cite Obama’s speech
It was brought to light that the killing of a US citizen violated many rights guaranteed to citizens through the constitution. The fourth and fifth amendments call for no unreasonable seizures by the government and the right to due process of the law. On top of these, murder is illegal and bans on assassinations. Initially, no justification was given for Anwar’s killing, and because of this activist groups and Anwar’s father filled papers to sue the US government over the killing (NPR). The suit was soon thrown out though because “it involved state secrets and raised questions that should be answered in congress, not the courts” (NPR). In addition to these activist groups calling for justification on Anwar’s “murder”, it cause a controversial issue for politicians to take sides on. Ron Paul had very strong opinions on the matter calling the death an “assassination” on the premises of Anwar’s citizenship and lack of trial.
In response to the uproar on legal justification, the Obama administration released a legal memorandum the offered the needed justification. It was written shortly after September 11, and gave legal justification for acting despite bans on assassinations, and laws against murder. Charlie Savage a writer at the New York Times wrote an in-depth article looking into the justifications from the memorandum. His major issue with it was that the document did not directly state that the actions were justified when carried out against an American citizen. This fact aside, he continues to question the justification. It is not “murder” when killing a wartime enemy. This being true Savage questioned if the missile was fired by a CIA official, who does not wear a uniform, and is not really “at war”. The document stated that when possible, the militant should be captured. Diplomatic issues with placing soldiers on Yemen soil and the risk to American commandos could have been reason that a capture was not feasible, but Salvage points out that both these issues were ignored in the raid on Osama’s complex. So in fact it may have been possible to plan and execute a capture.
Though salvage points out flaws in the justification, parts of it he finds reasonable and true. The document stated that citizens who had joined an enemy force “can be detained and prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies” (CITED). It also looked into Anwar’s location, since he was not in the “hot battlefield,” but since he still posed a threat to the US, the justification still applied. The final point Savage looked into was Yemen’s Sovereignty and firing a missile on their soil, but permission had secretly been granted to the US to carry out the attack. Savage shows mixed opinions on the justification on the killing, looking in depth and questioning all the justification given by the Obama administration.
Online letter to the editors on the New York Times article “ When the US Kills an American Citizen” offers some unique takes on the justification as well. Neil Mullen writes:
Without the rule of law, we are left with might makes right. In this decade, we are the mightiest and may deploy drones or Navy Seals to kill those deemed guilty without a trial and proven evidence. In some future decade, another country may deploy such measures, legitimized by such precedent, against targets on our soil.
Mullen offers a unique opinion about law and power. The US cannot just do as it pleases with its power. It needs to have certain legal justification to carry out military attacks. The US may be the largest world power today, but some day another country could be carrying out similar attack on US soil, which would not settle well with government officials. George Wolf an army veteran had a very different opinion. He writes, “I think that it’s a clear-cut case. Anwar al-Awlaki may have been a United States citizen, but the moment he became actively involved in a military campaign against the United States, he became an enemy our military was obligated to fight and kill.” Having faced war, he knows anything has to be done to stop threats against his country. Because of this he does not see Anwar as a fellow citizen but as any other enemy.
Anwar al-Awlaki was born in New Mexico in 1971, where is father studying agriculture. At the age of seven he moved to Yeman where he grew up. He returned to the US to receive and American education and received a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering and master’s degree in education (NY TIMES OFFICAL CITE LATER). He first attracted attention from the FBI in 1999 with allegations of contact with militants. At the time he was the vice president of an Islamic charity that was believed to be funneling money to terrorists. He also had connections with two of the hijackers from the September 11 attacks. They came to his mosque to pray prior to the attacks ( NY TIMES). His primary threats came with a website on online influence to reach a younger Islamic audience to convert them to Jihadist ways. He moved to London in 2002, but shortly after that returned to Yemen. In Yemen he was imprisoned for a short time and after being released his message became much more extreme and he gained more attention from the FBI and CIA.
Anwar al-Awlaki had communications with many terrorist caught in spoiled attack attempts. In December 2009, the “underwear bomber” plot was spoiled, when explosives did not detonate. Umar Abdulmutallab, the man responsible for the attempt, had been in contact with Anwar long before his attack. Similarily, Faisal Shazad who attempted to use a car bomb in Times Square and Nidal Hasan who went on a deadly shooting in Fort Hood, Texas, both were in contact with Anwar about their planned attacks. Anwar acknowledged contact with these men in early 2010, which subsequently led hid to be put on the CIA capture or kill list. Even with all these facts against him, and he clearly stated hate and desire to harm the US, he was still a citizen, so the legality of killing he comes to question.
Barrack Obama gave a statement on September 30, 2011 announcing the death of Anwar al-Awlaki calling it a major milestone in the fight against al-Qaeda and its affiliates. He said, “The death of Anwar is a major blow to al-Qaeda’s most active affiliate. He took the lead in planning and directing efforts to murder innocent Americans and he repeatedly called on individuals in the United States and around the globe to kill innocent men, women and children to advance a murderous agenda.” This statement given shortly after Anwar’s death was to inform American’s of what the President saw a something noteworthy. He belittled Anwar to the public through his announcement by stating Anwar’s goals of harming Americans. He presents all of Anwar’s goals, and failed terror plots to justify his death. Barrack Obama, though, never says that Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen. This is done, so initially his decision to have Anwar killed is not questioned. Unless a person was aware of Anwar prior to Obama’s speech, they would not have known he was a US citizen. Through the rapid spread of this event through online media, Anwar’s background was soon revealed and people began to question his killing.
--how do I cite Obama’s speech
It was brought to light that the killing of a US citizen violated many rights guaranteed to citizens through the constitution. The fourth and fifth amendments call for no unreasonable seizures by the government and the right to due process of the law. On top of these, murder is illegal and bans on assassinations. Initially, no justification was given for Anwar’s killing, and because of this activist groups and Anwar’s father filled papers to sue the US government over the killing (NPR). The suit was soon thrown out though because “it involved state secrets and raised questions that should be answered in congress, not the courts” (NPR). In addition to these activist groups calling for justification on Anwar’s “murder”, it cause a controversial issue for politicians to take sides on. Ron Paul had very strong opinions on the matter calling the death an “assassination” on the premises of Anwar’s citizenship and lack of trial.
In response to the uproar on legal justification, the Obama administration released a legal memorandum the offered the needed justification. It was written shortly after September 11, and gave legal justification for acting despite bans on assassinations, and laws against murder. Charlie Savage a writer at the New York Times wrote an in-depth article looking into the justifications from the memorandum. His major issue with it was that the document did not directly state that the actions were justified when carried out against an American citizen. This fact aside, he continues to question the justification. It is not “murder” when killing a wartime enemy. This being true Savage questioned if the missile was fired by a CIA official, who does not wear a uniform, and is not really “at war”. The document stated that when possible, the militant should be captured. Diplomatic issues with placing soldiers on Yemen soil and the risk to American commandos could have been reason that a capture was not feasible, but Salvage points out that both these issues were ignored in the raid on Osama’s complex. So in fact it may have been possible to plan and execute a capture.
Though salvage points out flaws in the justification, parts of it he finds reasonable and true. The document stated that citizens who had joined an enemy force “can be detained and prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies” (CITED). It also looked into Anwar’s location, since he was not in the “hot battlefield,” but since he still posed a threat to the US, the justification still applied. The final point Savage looked into was Yemen’s Sovereignty and firing a missile on their soil, but permission had secretly been granted to the US to carry out the attack. Savage shows mixed opinions on the justification on the killing, looking in depth and questioning all the justification given by the Obama administration.
Online letter to the editors on the New York Times article “ When the US Kills an American Citizen” offers some unique takes on the justification as well. Neil Mullen writes:
Without the rule of law, we are left with might makes right. In this decade, we are the mightiest and may deploy drones or Navy Seals to kill those deemed guilty without a trial and proven evidence. In some future decade, another country may deploy such measures, legitimized by such precedent, against targets on our soil.
Mullen offers a unique opinion about law and power. The US cannot just do as it pleases with its power. It needs to have certain legal justification to carry out military attacks. The US may be the largest world power today, but some day another country could be carrying out similar attack on US soil, which would not settle well with government officials. George Wolf an army veteran had a very different opinion. He writes, “I think that it’s a clear-cut case. Anwar al-Awlaki may have been a United States citizen, but the moment he became actively involved in a military campaign against the United States, he became an enemy our military was obligated to fight and kill.” Having faced war, he knows anything has to be done to stop threats against his country. Because of this he does not see Anwar as a fellow citizen but as any other enemy.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Revised Blog
I chose a blog from unit one discussing how I have seen blogging thus far through the class. Upon re-reading my blog, I feel I presented a very short discussion on what blogging has really done for me. Through revising it, I forward and counter multiple points I previously stated to present a stronger position on my opinion of blogging.
Writing has typically been something I have despised doing, but blogging has provided a new medium for writing, that for me, does not feel like traditional writing and therefore I seem to not despise it, but strangely enjoy it. Yes writing a 250-word response is easy to do for an article, and originally that’s all I did. But I have since started to expand my pieces beyond that, which I find surprising due to my mindset that I do not like writing. By no means are my lengthier blogs essays, which would be expected for a traditional writing class, but they have defiantly become more encompassing and in depth than my once bare minimum 240-250 word blogs. The original appeal to the blogs was that they could be short, but I now do not feel satisfied with just 250 words. Getting more in the mind set that blogging is conversational, my writing, which originally started as more formal writing in blogs, has become more relaxed and allowed to expand on ways I did not feel like I could in traditional writing. I originally stated that my attitude toward reading and writing on the web have remained unchanged, and I feel this was due to me not looking deep enough into what blogging has done for me. My opinion of writing on the web has improved through blogging. I feel it has advanced my writing in many ways, and provided a means of writing that I kind of enjoy reading (hard for me to believe I am actually saying that). Reading and writing are important for us to be doing, and while I have always believed that, before this class my writing on the web was minimal. I said they were things we cannot ignore, but for the longest time I was ignoring one of them. Now that I have personally seen the advantages to writing on the web, I feel I am in a better position to say they are important and advocate it to others. I had said that without knowing how to read and writing on the web we will fall on reading and writing standards. I can now say this is very true, and reading others blogs of classmates, some of whom are more experienced in writing on the web and in general, I can see how I have fallen behind on my ability to write on the web. It is important for everyone to read and write on the web so that they can stay connected to the world, and not be without the abilities to do both of these when needed.
Writing has typically been something I have despised doing, but blogging has provided a new medium for writing, that for me, does not feel like traditional writing and therefore I seem to not despise it, but strangely enjoy it. Yes writing a 250-word response is easy to do for an article, and originally that’s all I did. But I have since started to expand my pieces beyond that, which I find surprising due to my mindset that I do not like writing. By no means are my lengthier blogs essays, which would be expected for a traditional writing class, but they have defiantly become more encompassing and in depth than my once bare minimum 240-250 word blogs. The original appeal to the blogs was that they could be short, but I now do not feel satisfied with just 250 words. Getting more in the mind set that blogging is conversational, my writing, which originally started as more formal writing in blogs, has become more relaxed and allowed to expand on ways I did not feel like I could in traditional writing. I originally stated that my attitude toward reading and writing on the web have remained unchanged, and I feel this was due to me not looking deep enough into what blogging has done for me. My opinion of writing on the web has improved through blogging. I feel it has advanced my writing in many ways, and provided a means of writing that I kind of enjoy reading (hard for me to believe I am actually saying that). Reading and writing are important for us to be doing, and while I have always believed that, before this class my writing on the web was minimal. I said they were things we cannot ignore, but for the longest time I was ignoring one of them. Now that I have personally seen the advantages to writing on the web, I feel I am in a better position to say they are important and advocate it to others. I had said that without knowing how to read and writing on the web we will fall on reading and writing standards. I can now say this is very true, and reading others blogs of classmates, some of whom are more experienced in writing on the web and in general, I can see how I have fallen behind on my ability to write on the web. It is important for everyone to read and write on the web so that they can stay connected to the world, and not be without the abilities to do both of these when needed.
Monday, February 20, 2012
"Taking an Approach
Harris’ idea of taking an approach is moving beyond a stereo typical school writing that often just adds additional to points already argued. One must transform and reshape the ideas, no merely replace them. Taking an approach can be similar to both forwarding and countering but one takes on a style of a writer. It has more to do with how the ideas are presented and how a conclusion is reached. He offers three main methods of position one’s work to take an approach; they are acknowledging influences, turning an approach on itself, and reflexivity. Acknowledging influences can be further broken down into defining concerns, characteristic methods and style. Defining concerns is identifying what problems the author presents and why those were chosen. Characteristic methods is how the author answers the problems and the style is looking at what qualities of the writing appeal to you. It is all about identifying which parts of an authors writing appeal to you, so you can approach your writing in a similar manor. Turning the approach on itself is asking the writer the same questions presented to the reader, using both the subject and method of analysis in your approach. Reflexivity is looking back on one’s own writing to make sure you are on the proper approach.
The Onion always takes a more “out there” approach because their stories are meant for entertainment. The Onion can report on current events, publishing a story partially based on facts. These facts can be twisted and turn in order to be entertaining, but they are still presented in a professional manor. Their approach mimics that of a trustworthy news site and because of this they have been mistakenly cited as one. In this approach the validity of the story is traded for entertainment, and the reader must recognize this. The New York Times can be seen “taking an approach” on political issues. The paper in general takes a liberal approach, which can cause a story to be slightly swayed and in favor of a liberal take on an issue. This makes it difficult for a fair, unbiased political story to be presented.
The Onion always takes a more “out there” approach because their stories are meant for entertainment. The Onion can report on current events, publishing a story partially based on facts. These facts can be twisted and turn in order to be entertaining, but they are still presented in a professional manor. Their approach mimics that of a trustworthy news site and because of this they have been mistakenly cited as one. In this approach the validity of the story is traded for entertainment, and the reader must recognize this. The New York Times can be seen “taking an approach” on political issues. The paper in general takes a liberal approach, which can cause a story to be slightly swayed and in favor of a liberal take on an issue. This makes it difficult for a fair, unbiased political story to be presented.
"Countering"
Countering a text is not simply proving that a certain text is wrong or has flaws in areas. Countering is adding to an argument in both its strengths and weaknesses. Harris’s view of countering is to offer a different way of thinking on a particular topic. A deep understanding and close attention is needed for successfully countering in order to properly expand and redirect arguments. The three main methods of countering Harris presents are: arguing the other side, uncovering values, and dissenting. Rarely is an argument completely wrong, arguing the other side addresses the need to look at the other argument to show what the author did well in order to expand on. This can also include looking for something the author may have left unclear. Your argument can be based off clarifying these vague areas in another argument. Uncovering values is looking at the definitions of all the words to see if the author was unclear on a definition or assumed a certain meaning for a word without stating it. Harris writes that noticing what a certain text fails to consider is not an easy task, but is a key to writing good criticism and to establish a good counter. Dissenting is understanding the limits of an idea, and being able to identify when an author has crossed those limits. With a shared idea, you can present how another argument is with in the limits of an idea, supporting yours while offering evidence against the other text.
The Onion counters many arguments presented through major news sources. The goal of the Onion is to provide entertainment and it does this by presenting news stories that are blown out of proportion or intended to show the ridiculousness of an actual news article. The Onion countered a fairly recent article about Peyton Manning posted around the web, notably on Sport Illustrated here. The articles states that Manning, who has had 3 neck surgeries in the past 19 months and vertebrae fused, has been cleared to play football again. The Onion presents a similar article, dissenting Manning’s real ability to play. The question that even though Manning’s neurosurgeon cleared him to play, with his history is it really best for him to continued to get beaten and clubbed. In the Onions satirical manor the article states Manning’s doctor has cleared him to be clubbed and thrown to the ground by 300-pound men. When first reading the article on Sports Illustrated one might think it’s a good thing for him to get back to playing, but realizing some of the truth presented in the Onion article, one might reconsider if it is smart for him to continue playing. The Onion provides some facts that might get over looked when not presented to the reader.
The Onion counters many arguments presented through major news sources. The goal of the Onion is to provide entertainment and it does this by presenting news stories that are blown out of proportion or intended to show the ridiculousness of an actual news article. The Onion countered a fairly recent article about Peyton Manning posted around the web, notably on Sport Illustrated here. The articles states that Manning, who has had 3 neck surgeries in the past 19 months and vertebrae fused, has been cleared to play football again. The Onion presents a similar article, dissenting Manning’s real ability to play. The question that even though Manning’s neurosurgeon cleared him to play, with his history is it really best for him to continued to get beaten and clubbed. In the Onions satirical manor the article states Manning’s doctor has cleared him to be clubbed and thrown to the ground by 300-pound men. When first reading the article on Sports Illustrated one might think it’s a good thing for him to get back to playing, but realizing some of the truth presented in the Onion article, one might reconsider if it is smart for him to continue playing. The Onion provides some facts that might get over looked when not presented to the reader.
"Forwarding"
Harris describes forwarding as a way to extend texts. You are taking the ideas in one text to support or advance your own texts. The four main ways “forwarding” is done are: illustrating, authorizing, borrowing and extending. Illustrating allows the reader to visualize and see an example that supports the text. Illustrating can be seen as creating metaphors for the reader while also drawing in the readers’ attention more. Authorizing is using another person’s text, who is knowledgeable in their field, to support and back up your own text. Citing a person of authority or well versed in your subject can validate your argument or point. Borrowing is using an idea of a text to advance your process of thinking through a topic. One can borrow an idea without coming to terms with an author’s entire piece, but simply understanding and correctly applying the borrowed idea. Extending is similar to borrowing except it expands on a larger amount of a text. A characteristic marker of extending is a substitution of a tern in the authors idea to support your own. The most effective forwarding is using these methods in combination with each other.
The Onion often forwards major news events through its blog. The Onion borrows a major point in its article seen here. It is an article around Mit Romney’s win in the Florida primary. Since the Onion presents its news in a satirical manor, it borrows only a small idea from a major news story, which can be seen covered by the New York Times here. The small-borrowed piece provides people with a minimal amount of current news, while the Onion satirically expands this news into a false story about a rave Romney threw. Informing people on Romney’s win remains the same through the forwarding, but all other facts about the primary full results of the election is lost.
The Onion often forwards major news events through its blog. The Onion borrows a major point in its article seen here. It is an article around Mit Romney’s win in the Florida primary. Since the Onion presents its news in a satirical manor, it borrows only a small idea from a major news story, which can be seen covered by the New York Times here. The small-borrowed piece provides people with a minimal amount of current news, while the Onion satirically expands this news into a false story about a rave Romney threw. Informing people on Romney’s win remains the same through the forwarding, but all other facts about the primary full results of the election is lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)