Was the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki legal?

Anwar al-Awlaki. Muhammad ud-Deen photo

By GARY BAUMGARTEN
ReporterGary.com

The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American turned al Qaeda spiritual and cheerleader, by the United States in Yemen is being heralded by people on both sides of the aisle.

President Obama called his killing a “major blow” to al Qaeda.

Republican Congressman Pete King of New York who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee echoed the president, praising the assassination as “a great success in our fight against al-Qaeda.”

Perhaps so. But was it legal?

Can the United States target U.S. citizens abroad?

It’s a question that members of the White House press corp wanted an answer to. But Talk Radio News Service White House correspondent Victoria Jones, reporting for News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network, said, although the question was asked in various ways during Friday’s White House press briefing, Obama spokesman Jay Carney refused to answer.

Perhaps the killing was constitutionally supported. But if so, shouldn’t the administration be forthcoming with an explanation?

I raised this issue during tonight’s show. And was met with a barrage of criticism from those in my audience who felt my questioning the issue was, as one put it “politically correct.” Many believed that because Awlaki presented a clear and present danger to the United States, because he’d have never even blinked had the Times Square bomber or the underwear bomber been successful, he deserved to be taken out.

Maybe so. But was his killing extrajudicial? Or supported by law?

Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas running for the GOP presidential nomination, lamented that Awlaki was killed even though he “was never tried or charged for any crimes.”

The ACLU charged that the killing was a violation of both U.S, and international law.

I don’t know if it was. But I do know that it’s a question that needs to be answered. By Carney. Or better yet. By his boss.

Bloomberg blasted for supporting immigration reform

Bloomberg says hiring illegal immigrants is good for the economy

By ADRIANNA McGINLEY
Talk Radio News Service

WASHINGTON – Roy Beck, President of NumbersUSA, an immigration reduction organization, offered harsh criticisms of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s comments touting immigration reform as the key to job creation.

“He doesn’t seem to have an idea what’s happening to American workers,” Beck said. “He doesn’t seem to know that there are 22 million Americans who are looking for a full-time job, who can’t find one.”

Beck blasted Bloomberg for saying undocumented college graduates should be allowed to pursue employment in the U.S. saying it sends the wrong message to the parents of citizen graduates.

“It’s very offensive to the parents of today’s high school students and college students for Mayor Bloomberg to continually go around and say that these American children are not worthy of getting the jobs when they get out of college, but instead we need to have a whole lot more foreign students come in and take those jobs,” Beck said.

Beck acknowledged that there is a need for comprehensive immigration reform, saying E-Verify should be made mandatory. The NumbersUSA founder added that the green card system should also be reformed, making permanent residence available only to those with “truly world-class skills.”

According to its website, NumbersUSA is a non-partisan site committed to “bringing federal immigration policy back to a logical place.”

Palestinians reject Quartet's proposal to restart talks

Abbas passes on peace talks. Olivier Pacteau photo

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

Does the Palestinian Authority really want peace with Israel? Or is it just looking for political and public relations victory at the expense of Israel?

These questions come to mind today as the Palestinian Authority rejects moves by the Quartet to get peace talks with Israel rolling again.

If the PA really wants peace – and a state of its own – does it matter what path is taken? Why does it matter whether it comes through a UN resolution or through negotiations.

If it comes through a UN resolution – the dispute over land will continue. If the Israelis and the Palestinians agree to boundaries, then the fight over who controls what lands comes to an agreed upon end.

It seems negotiations would be better for the Palestinians.

So why are they rejecting talks?

Perhaps it’s because they don’t feel they are ready to really come into the international community as leaders of an independent nation. The status quo allows them the luxury of positioning themselves as the underdogs. And Israel as the bad guys.

The PA becomes entitled. Operating on the largess of other nations (including Israel) in order to exist. Able to complain when they don’t have all they want. Blaming others. But not accepting responsibility for their own destiny.

Any failure to achieve full freedoms and success can be laid at the feet of the Israelis.

Ostensibly, the Palestinian Authority lays this failure on a return to the peace table, predictably, on the Israelis. It says it won’t enter talks with Israel without preconditions. Israel must agree to pre-1967 boundaries and a settlement freeze before negotiating.

The Authority knows that Israel will not agree to pre-’67 boundaries. Making this condition assures that there will be no peace talks.

Perhaps it is time for Israel to play the same game. Perhaps Israel should draw up boundaries that it envisions. Present them to the world. And tell the Palestinians that Israel won’t return to the bargaining table unless the Palestinians agree to accept those boundaries first.

Of course, if Israel were to do that, it would be viewed as being obstructive to peace. Fair enough. But, then, why aren’t the Palestinians viewed as being obstructive now?

Abbas formally requests Palestinian acceptance as a state at the UN

Abbas submits application for UN membership to Ban. UN photo by Paulo Filgueiras

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

UNITED NATIONS – Much to the chagrin of the United States and Israel, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Friday formally requested that the UN accept a state of Palestine as a member of the United Nations.

The request, made in a speech before the General Assembly, has been forwarded by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to the Security Council, where it will be studied. That’s a process that could stretch months, giving the United States opportunity to try to convince enough Security Council members to vote nor or, at least, abstain, so that the proposal falters.

Should there be sufficient votes to accept the Palestinians, the United States has pledged a veto. But that’s something Washington is trying to prevent in order to avoid straining relations with the Arab and Muslim world.

There were celebrations in the West Bank, which is controlled by Abbas’ Fatah Party following his speech, which was greeted with standing ovations at the UN. But some of the celebrations turned violent. But the reaction from the Gaza was much different. With the rival Hamas faction accusing Abbas of selling out by requesting a return to 1967 borders.

If successful at the UN, Palestinian Authority could go broke

Does Abbas really want what he's asking? Olivier Pacteau photo

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

The Palestinian Authority formally requests statehood status at the UN this week. The problem for the Palestinians is, they might not really like what they get if they win.

Actually, the situation isn’t all that dire for them, because the United States has pledged to veto a Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state should one pass. So this may all just be for diplomatic show – to highlight the desires of the Palestinians for a state – while making the United States and Israel look bad.

At the end of the day, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas can go home with a diplomatic victory but without the responsibilities of running a nation. And with money from the United States still in hand.

On the other hand, should the U.S. renege on its promise, and should a Palestinian state be declared, the PA will be hard pressed to actually run a new government. Because the United States has told Abbas that it will withhold millions of dollars in aid should that happen.

Van slams into school, would have been a mass casualty incident had classes been in session

Had this happened when school was in session it likely would have been a mass casualty incident.

As luck would happen, a minivan slammed into St. Leo the Great School in the Lincroft section of Middletown, New Jersey on a Saturday. It went through one classroom, then through the back wall, across a courtyard and through a third wall into a second classroom. The driver, a man in his 70s, and his passenger wife, miraculously, only suffered abrasions from their air bags.

It is believed the driver meant to hit the brakes but pushed down on the accelerator instead by mistake.

Due to structural damage to the building, Monday classes have been canceled.

Recession warning no surprise to unemployed

The Wall Street Journal quotes a number of economists who are saying a recession is in the offing.

Did we really need this panel of experts to tell us what we already know?

This comes as no news to those who have been unemployed. Out of work for days, months, years.

Now there’s a debate over the extension of unemployment benefits. I actually saw a guy interviewed on set at CNN yesterday say they should not be extended. Because that’s a disincentive to finding work.

He allowed as to how people on unemployment would rather wait until the benefits are about to expire to look for a job. They’ve got to get off their duffs and find jobs, he insisted.

The anchor seemed a bit taken back by all this. Asking the “expert” where the jobs are.

I know people who have been out of work for two, three and even four years now. Folks who have been hard working contributors to society all their adult lives.

Of course, by the CNN guest’s measure, they are all just enjoying retirement on the government’s dime. As if the meager unemployment benefits keep them in the lavish lifestyle to which they were accustomed when they were gainfully employed.

Then there are those who are employed. But make so little money that they have to hold down two, three or even four jobs.

Sometimes the jobs are related to their life long careers. Often they are not.

And sometimes, they are lucky enough to find jobs “off the books.”  Working for cash money. That’s never reported to Uncle Sam.

Which, of course, contributes to the government shortfall. But at least they are working.

I guarantee you the people I know who are out of work would rather be gainfully employed than getting unemployment insurance.

I also guarantee you that to them, the Wall Street Journal article that we’re headed into another recession, comes as no news at all.

The real threat to Iraq's Muslims

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

Ron Paul made an interesting point during last nights's GOP debate - one that caused some in the audience to boo him.

He suggested that the reason the U.S. was attacked on 9/11 was because of America's foreign policy. Which, he said, angered fundamentalist Muslims.

In fact, it has been argued, the post-9/11 policy has angered them even more. The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, those who hold this view argue, are seen by many Muslims as Christian crusades. The infidels, it is held that they feel, must be repelled and attacked at every quarter.

It's a valid argument, worthy of consideration and debate. (For the record, I do not hold that the invasion of Iraq was a Christian crusade but rather a misguided mission motivated by other factors.) But, now that the U.S. troops are no longer engaged in combat missions in Iraq, where is the similar outrage over the killing of Muslims by Muslims?

Today, in Iraq, another attack on a group of Shiite pilgrims. Folks who were on a bus, heading to a Shiite holy site to pray.

The bus was stopped. The women ordered off. The men then taken to another location. And killed.

About two dozen people, whose only crime was belonging to a different sect than the Muslim gunmen who killed them, dispatched in the name of religion.

If that is not a holy war, what is?

Sadly, this attack was not an isolated one. Hundreds of other Shiites have been similarly killed in Iraq.

When atrocities occur in the Middle East, nations there line up either supporting or criticizing the governments involved. Depending on what sect is in charge.

Iran, which is not particularly known for its own tolerance toward dissidents there, is, for example, critical of Sunni-controlled Bahrain for its crackdown on Shiite demonstrators.

I don't know the number of Muslims who have been killed by Muslims in the name of religion. Perhaps there is a credible accounting somewhere. But any killing of anyone based on religion is too much.

Some religiously motivated massacres seem worthy of reporting and condemnation. Others, sadly, are largely ignored.

Defense spending expert says U.S. foreign policy creates homeland security concerns

Williams says the Gitmo detention facility should have been closed. JTF Guantanamo photo by U.S. Air Force Senior Airman Gino Reyes

Click here to hear the interview with Dr. Cindy Williams.

The war in Iraq, the evolution of the war in Afghanistan, the drone attacks in Pakistan and the continued existence of the detention center at Guantanamo Bay all tarnish the perception of the United States in the eyes of Muslims around the world. And they all make it that much harder to keep the United States safe from terrorist attacks.

That opinion is offered by Dr. Cindy Williams, a principal research scientist of the MIT Security Studies Program where she examines, as she did in government service, the allocations of military resources.

Williams (not to be – as she has in the past – confused with actress Cindy Williams) in an interview with News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network, says the war in Iraq, in particular, left a bad impression of the U.S. for many Muslims.

The war in Afghanistan, she says, when conceived in 2001, was the right thing to do, because the Taliban and al Qaeda had teamed up to take control of a nation to use as a launching spot for attacks against the United States. But she says, while she supported that invasion, the decade that the U.S. has been there has turned a war-weary population against the United States. A view shared by many in the Muslim world.

Further, the U.S. military should have bottled al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Once the terrorists moved freely across the lawless border with Pakistan, it created a situation where the United States felt compelled to launch drone attacks in a country considered an ally.

Finally, Williams says, while she recognizes the political ramifications of closing Guantanamo Bay, President Obama should have stuck to his promise to shutter the detention facility within one year of taking office. Keeping it open has strained relations between the United States and Muslims around the world – many of whom previously viewed the USA as a shining city on a hill worth emulating.

Former NYPD cop: Keep security high after 9/11

stlphotoblogger photo/Flickr

Click here to hear the interview with Gary Moskowitz.

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

A current credible threat over a possible terrorist attack targeting New York City and/or Washington, DC coinciding with the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks has prompted a ratcheting up of police security in both cities. But a former NYPD officer who now consults on counterterrorism issues tells News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network that this level of security should remain in place after 9/11.

Gary Moskowitz says that there are always threats to the homeland and that terrorists could strike at any time.

Moskowitz says the United States needs to follow the example of Israel, and maintain strict security all the time. That includes, he says, better training police officers across the nation to be able to spot and prevent potential threats. As well as an education campaign for the general public.

He also says that greater cooperation with the Muslim community is needed, because that’s where most of the terrorist threats originate. Obviously, he says, the people who live in that community are in the best position to spot suspicious behavior.

Moskowitz gives high marks to the NYPD for its counterterrorism surveillance of suspected fanatics in the Muslim community. He says that while the department strives to strike a balance between prudent investigations and protection of civil rights, sometimes the lines are difficult to maintain.

Counterterrorism expert: Intel, law enforcement making strides in protecting homeland

Clare Lopez

Click here to hear the interview with Clare Lopez.

By GARY BAUMGARTEN

An obvious and logical question that comes up as we approach the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks is: are we safer now than we were then?

The answer, says former CIA officer Clare Lopez, is yes.

In an interview with News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network, Lopez says the various intelligence and law enforcement agencies that were criticized for not sharing information which might have thwarted the September 11 attacks are cooperating now. A testament to their efforts: the numerous documented cases of plots thwarted.

But Lopez says the real first line of defense is not necessarily the intelligence agencies and law enforcement, but members of the public who report suspicious activities. The stopping of the Times Square bomber, she says, is a prime example.

It’s exceedingly difficult, she says, for homeland security personnel to keep track of all the possible threats because of the asymmetric nature  of the battle.

Lopez also says those who believe that U.S. interdiction of suspected terrorist operations overseas put the nation at greater risk are misguided. The goal, she says, of radical Islam, is to convert the rest of the world and bring it under Sharia law. Nothing the West does accelerates that goal.

That being said, Lopez holds in high regard Muslims who reject the call to jihad and who cooperate with authorities in helping prevent terrorist attacks. In the eyes of the radicals, they, she says, are apostates and are literally putting their lives at risk by doing so.

Finally, Lopez defends the NYPD against criticism for its undercover work in mosques. The cops are not, she argues, engaged in violations of civil rights. Rather, they are, following strict protocol, following up on leads. They should be, she says, commended, not criticized, for their work.

Clare M. Lopez is a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on national defense, Islam, Iran, and counterterrorism issues. Currently a senior fellow at the Center for Security Policy and the Clarion Fund and vice president of the Intelligence Summit, she formerly was a career operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency, a professor at the Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, Executive Director of the Iran Policy Committee from 2005-2006, and has served as a consultant, intelligence analyst, and researcher for a variety of defense firms. She was named a Lincoln Fellow at the Claremont Institute this year.