Talk:Anwar al-Awlaki

egregiously biased claims, false footnotes

 * Al-Awlaki became the first U.S. citizen to be targeted and killed by a U.S. drone strike without the rights of due process being afforded.[12][13] President Barack Obama ordered the strike which was effectively ordering the execution of a U.S. citizen without a trial.[14]


 * Neither {12} nor {13} contain any reference to legal implications.


 * {14} does not report that the strike amounted to an extrajudicial execution of a United States citizen without trial. It says that administration lawyers had a "wrenching legal debate" about the decision to strike and that the ACLU lost a lawsuit attempting to challenge it. That is all it says about legal issues.

I realize that whoever made these terrible edits genuinely believes that the strike was an illegal extra-judicial execution violating due process, and that this is extremely obvious, and they can point to any number of Guardian op-eds or whatever to support that view; but that's a highly politicized and legally doubtful view, although it is certainly a significant view represented in reliable sources. In fact it is not at all clear what level of due process a person targeted for killing as an enemy combatant is entitled to (it may be quite minimal) and it is not at all clear that the killing was "extra-judicial" because killings during armed conflict by lawful combatants complying with IHL are by definition not "extra-judicial."

The article body is more honest although it still gives WP:UNDUE weight to the ACLU, New York Times editorial board, etc.


 * According to U.S. government officials, as well as being a senior recruiter and motivator, he was centrally involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda,[7][8][9][10][11] but have not released evidence that could support this statement.[11]

Obviously it is true that he was a senior recruiter and motivator, even though the article phrases this confusingly as if it might be in doubt. And in fact there is a lot of public evidence of his operational role, some of which was released by the US government. There are text messages where he is working out the details of how to blow up an airplane, an Inspire article about operations bylined by AQAP's "Head of Foreign Operations" that appears to be obliquely signed by Awlaki, and the word of arrested terrorist foot soldiers Abdulmutallab and Minh Quang Pham.

I'll try to come back and fix this all later unless somebody objects. I'm pretty appalled that it's been right at the top of the article for years. 74.12.134.40 (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The opposition view (of the NYT, Guardian, ACLU) is notable and should be covered, including the question of whether this killing was even part of an armed conflict where International Humanitarian Law would apply. AA is the precedent for the US government carrying out a death sentence on one of its citizens without a trial.  Thundermaker (talk) 07:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I always thought al-Awiaki's actions to be treason myself. Helping, aiding and abetting an enemy of the US by a US citizen would constitute treason wouldn't it? Ergo he was a traitor to the US nation and as such deserved the punishment meted out. 2001:8003:E9DB:FB00:E099:BCEE:1EC6:9BF4 (talk) 11:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
You cite Hamdi v. Rumsfeld as evidence that there is "quite minimal" due process protections for targeted "enemy combatants". You neglect to mention that the US govt. and Donald Rumsfeld LOST that case to Hamdi, detained without due process in Guantanamo, and ruled that he had the right to challenge his detention. Though this was never decided by the Supreme Court, if Hamdi can challenge his detention, it would follow that Al-Awlaki should have some due process rights to challenge his targeting for assassination. Mr Specific (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Mr. Specific

Since when are the 9/11 perpetrators "alleged"?
"He appeared on law enforcement's radars when federal investigators discovered three of the alleged 9/11 hijackers had attended the same mosque in Virginia during the same time Al-Awlaki served as imam, despite the fact that no solid evidence emerged linking Al-Awlaki to the 9/11 plot." I would add that the writer of this article is making an illogical jump by trying to insinuate that Al-Awlaki must not be guilty of crimes he is directly accused of because he was not linked with the 9/11 terrorist incident. The only relevant point about coming up on the radar was that it made Al-Awlaki known to law enforcement. He was not killed because of radar but because of terrorist acts. Southerness (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)Southerness, October 30, 2020
 * None of the 9/11 hijackers will ever be convicted, because they are dead and cannot receive a fair trial; so I can see why a cautious writer would say "alleged". But the identities of the hijackers are accepted as fact, and neither the referenced news article nor hijackers in the September 11 attacks uses "alleged", so I will remove it from this article.
 * The interesting part about the law enforcement timeline is that they knew before he left the US that he was encouraging jihad, but they allowed him to leave, which eventually led to putting him on a kill list and drone-striking him without a trial. His father even sued to stop it but was denied standing because kill lists are secret.  Thundermaker (talk) 20:19, 1 November 2020 (UTC)