Left-wing commentator annoyed that al-Awlaki didn't get "due process"

The argument is completely immaterial. If, for example, there is an active shooter in a shopping center, school, or neighborhood, he is a clear and present danger to others, and the focus is on stopping him. "Due process" happens for the most part after the perpetrator is in handcuffs. If he won't stop shooting and put down the gun, the SWAT team is not denying him "due process" by stopping him.

Surely we would have captured al-Awlaki alive if we could have, and a fit of legal hand-wringing about every step of how his case was handled would ensue, just as lawyers were standing by in case bin Laden were taken alive.

Another option would have been to try him in absentia, but there would then have been complaints that it was a show trial, and he could not defend himself. And he would not have been "able" to defend himself because he could not be captured in order to be present at trial. The argument begins to go in circles. Meanwhile, al-Awlaki was actively waging war against the people of the United States, and was an ongoing and obvious danger.

This operation was not a petty, grudge-based "assassination" by an annoyed government "whacking" a citizen who turned against it. But this commentary notably avoids discussion of the threat al-Awlaki posed (calling him a "marginal figure"), and the plots he was behind or incited in order to support that impression.

"The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality," by Glenn Greenwald for Salon, September 30 (thanks to Mackie):

It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was "considering" indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki's father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were "state secrets" and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki's inclusion on President Obama's hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that "it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing."
After several unsuccessful efforts to assassinate its own citizen, the U.S. succeeded today (and it was the U.S.). It almost certainly was able to find and kill Awlaki with the help of its long-time close friend President Saleh, who took a little time off from murdering his own citizens to help the U.S. murder its. The U.S. thus transformed someone who was, at best, a marginal figure into a martyr, and again showed its true face to the world. The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.
What's most striking about this is not that the U.S. Government has seized and exercised exactly the power the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar ("No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law"), and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections (questions that will now never be decided in a court of law). What's most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the U.S. Government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process from the U.S. Government. Many will celebrate the strong, decisive, Tough President's ability to eradicate the life of Anwar al-Awlaki -- including many who just so righteously condemned those Republican audience members as so terribly barbaric and crass for cheering Governor Perry's execution of scores of serial murderers and rapists -- criminals who were at least given a trial and appeals and the other trappings of due process before being killed.
From an authoritarian perspective, that's the genius of America's political culture. It not only finds way to obliterate the most basic individual liberties designed to safeguard citizens from consummate abuses of power (such as extinguishing the lives of citizens without due process). It actually gets its citizens to stand up and clap and even celebrate the destruction of those safeguards.
| 94 Comments
del.icio.us | Digg this | Email | FaceBook | Twitter | Print | Tweet

94 Comments

| Leave a comment

Left-wing commentator annoyed that al-Awlaki didn't get "due process"

Oh but he did! It depends on your definition of due process.

The fallacy of the argument begins with the statement, "No effort was made to indict him for any crimes..."

The United States did not indict Adolph Hitler nor Emperor Hirohito before we bombed their countries into the near stone age. That is because these belligerents were waging war on the United States. They were not engaged in "criminal" activity, unless one wishes to consider the concept of "war crimes".

We have been at war with the adherents of the Islamic ideology for 14 centuries. We did not declare this war, they did. Instead of civil rights and habeas corpus, our public dialogue needs to be about which Geneva Convention applies.

Oh, puhleeeze! I certainly don't consider him one of my "fellow citizens." As far as I'm concerned, he renounced his American citizenship status and gave up all the rights that go along with it the moment he joined the jihad against America.

Great explanation using Germany and Japan as examples. But aren't the Geneva Conventions misused, like much of international law is misused? Almost weekly I read of this or that Geneva Convention. I'm thinking it is the fourth Geneva Convention that the jihadists, the United Nations and their far left allies apply to Israel.

Hmmm.. makes me wish that the original 13th amendment wasn't erased from the bill of rights..


====
OT.. Is JW going to do a Holy Terror review?

===

The political left seem to take great comfort in defining the conflict as a 'criminal' matter, as opposed to a war. That's understandable I suppose, since peoples' everyday lives can continue as 'normal' in the knowledge of terrible crimes. But when you actually say 'war', that changes everything. In fact, with the leftward locus of western thought, the idea of war itself seems a greater enemy than real ideology, organizations and people bent on killing us. I used to think these tendencies were rooted in a sort of adolescent contrarianism. I am beginning to suspect bare cowardice.

What's most amazing is that its citizens ........ will stand and cheer the U.S. Government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield,...

Far from any battlefield!!? Islam considers every square inch of planet Earth as the battlefield. In fact, if you're not a Muslim, you're not an innocent. You're in the crosshairs, too.

Glenn Greenwald is a clown!

And if Al Wacky was one of our 'fellow citizens' in America, why was he planning to murder other 'fellow citizens'. 'Fellow citizen' sounds friendly and amicable. Not so in Al Wacky's case.

While I am glad Awlaki is dead, I am also glad for an ongoing discussion on due process. If the government can declare citizens to be non-citizens and enemies of the state with no procedure of presenting evidence, this could certainly be abused. I do not believe it is abused in this case; nevertheless, let's not get too cavalier about assassinations carried out by the government. There should be some procedure involved when an assassination is planned, so that the government doesn't one day abuse a war tactic and apply it in an inappropriate way.

While they're whacking evil imams, the inciters, promoters, enablers, and glorifiers of jihad, there are thousands more of them ripe for plucking. Bereft of the scholarly, pious promulgators of muslim supremacy, eternal holy war, world domination, and muslim victimhood, muslims might begin to concentrate on joining the 21st century instead of on how to conquer the world.

First, this is not flame bait. I'm a long-time JW-er, have read and agree with Robert's books, and most of what I read here.

However, in this instance, I must agree with Greenwald. The distinction here is that the US Federal executive branch put a kill-order on an American citizen, and it was executed without due process. "Due process" means participation by the judicial branch of the Federal government (that's why we have checks and balances). The danger is that, in the future, a US president could put such a kill-order on me because I call for his impeachment, trial, and capital punishment. Without being able to go to court, I'm dead. That's why we have search and arrest warrants issued by a court. Quite simply, I don't trust the Executive branch with un-checked kill-power over US citizens, no matter who is in ofice. The Federal government should have taken the case to trial, had him declared a traitor, and then killed him if he did not surrender.

The Fifth Amendmet is quite clear as to the rights of US citizens:

"No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

SATG - Hitler and Hirohito were not US citizens
CWW - He is (or was) an American citizen; see the above Fifth Amendment.
WJ - It was the US President who violated the rights of a US citizen; Geneva has nothing to do with it.
Buraq - Under your reasoning, it's OK for Obama to put a kill order on US citizns anywhere in the world (including Des Moines), so long as Obama declares that "he was planning to murder other 'fellow citizens'." Don't you see, where will this end?

I'm sorry for being passionate, but I'm a lawyer who happens to believe in the Bill of Rights.

Difference between war and crime, as some above have already mentioned. And so Glenn Greenwald starts off with the wrong assumption, i.e., all this was a criminal matter, and everything goes down from there in the rest of his off-base article. Best to remember that the Constitution is not a suicide pact. Remember this and proper understanding will ensue rather effortlessly, such as reserving many of the safeguards in the Bill of Rights for criminals and not for those who have, officially or effectively, declared war on the United States.

By the very nature of Islam, this guy had renounced all loyalty to America and declared himself an enemy combatant as soon as he joined the Ummah: http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/brothers-and-sisters-in-islam-muslim.html

The problem with 'rational cause' is that it is the government, or one man in government, that gets to decide what 'rational cause' is...The problem with that is anyone can be the subject of it...I don't trust government, nor Rasool Obama that much...

From the 'Sun' article that you posted a link to Zulu, one purported comment , from a supposed fan of al-Awlaki, caught my attention. .''he was the main man, who translated the jihad into English.''

. .whether that bit of reportage is real or invented, we all here know that the real translation of 'the jihad' is to be found here at JWatch.

I wonder if Greenwald cried for Bin Laden, too?

I grow so weary of these specious bullsh*it arguments (like Greenwald's) with their one dimensional disconnect of 'it's a law enforcement matter' when we are engaged in an asymmetrical war with a global enemy - both foreign and domestic.

Thank you, Robt. Spencer for bringing clarity to this matter.

The Volokh Conspiracy says, "Thank you, Mr. President."

"If he won't stop shooting and put down the gun, the SWAT team is not denying him "due process" by stopping him."

Nothing more to add!

Do you think this might dent your presidents approval rating with the Muslims?

It seems that while other Americans are turning away from Obama, his approval rating with the Muslims has been swelling along with their immigration numbers.

According to this research "Obama's core constituency, in the end, may be Muslims. They seem to be singing from the same hymnal."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/586459/201109291833/A-Muslim-President-After-All.htm

But it seems his core constituency is Muslims and their "useful idiots" [I prefer the simpler terms idiots] leftists alliance.


I believe that in about 50 years, some graduate studnet will find that Awlaki WAS tried en abstentia et en camera. We are far too lawyerly a society not to have done this.

I realize the 'it's the economy, stupid' is what's causing Obama's lack of popularity.

But really, prior to being elected he said he would go after these guys.

He got Bin Laden and now's he's got this prick. Can't he at least get some credit for that?

If he hadn't gone after them it would be being used here to claim that he was a closet Muslim.
Now he has gone after them it's claimed here that he's a....
.....closet Muslim.

He could nuke Mecca during Haj and that would still prove he's a Muslim. Right?

amazonas, the cynic in me would answer thus. Muslims have no problem killing fellow Muslims so long as Islam is purified or a greater good is accomplished.

Today's lead story (Fox News): "President intends to embrace idea of U.S. as declining power, saying he can pump it up again"

And who is largely responsible for making the U.S. into a declining, bankrupt power? Who does a weakened Great Satan benefit? If (God-forbid) Hussein Obama is re-elected, who will benefit the most?

I think that's a very good point.

While if in fact Al-Awlaki was a terrorist (which I hope he was) then his assassination is certainly understandable and possibly warranted.

However what's disturbing is that no evidence was provided of his guilt. You'd think that for a hardcore terrorist as everyone at JW believes there would've been a mountain of proof, at least easily provided by the authorities.

Left-Wing opinions are frequently dissed at JW because I think they're perceived as being weak whereas they're just sticking to principle, which are there for good reason.

Personally I believe Left-wing opinions are ok if they are rational. Some leftist principles may be incorrect (such as the assumption that all religions are peaceful and immune to scrutiny) which is causing them to look like idiots just because they adhere to them. Although I see nothing wrong in the principle in question (lack of evidence before assassination) here.

The war today is not a war between the US and Yemen/Saudi/Afghanistan/Pakistan/(insert Islamist faction here). It's a war of ideas, war of civilization over barbarism, and so your arguments have to reflect on the moral superiority that you claim to represent.

And locomotivebreath1901, I doubt Greenwald or anyone else would 'cry for bin Laden', since I don't think there's any lack of evidence tying bin Laden to terrorism.

Over 500 years ago one of the greatest legal scholars of the English common law world, Sir Edward Coke, observed that: "Hard cases make bad law." While I am thrilled that this traitor is dead, as a lawyer, I share bemused's reservations. The Constitution is paramount and the rights guaranteed by it can not be abridged or infringed by executive power no matter how expedient or salutory the objective. The purpose of the Constitution is to LIMIT the power of the government, not to grant it unlimited power.

The analogies used by Marisol (whom I love and treasure) are, nevertheless, in-apposite. The courts have long recognized that where there is a clear and present danger of IMMINENT bodily harm such as a person holding a gun actively shooting or threatening to shoot people, it is permissible to kill him to save those people in direct danger of imminent physical harm. In al-Awlaki's case, however, it is reported that, at the time of his death, Awlaki was riding in a vehicle and while one might presume that he was armed, he not, AT THAT MOMENT, actively shooting or threatening to shoot at anyone. At best, he was, at that moment, conspiring to kill someone at some point in the future, but, AT THAT MOMENT, nobody was in imminent danger of physical harm.

The problem, as always, is the "slippery slope." On the one hand, if we never allow the executive branch to order to killing of a citizen without due process, no citizen can be endangered, but, on the other hand, if we allow the executive branch to kill one citizen without due process, then all citizens are ultimately endangered. History proves that the assumption that all future executives will be reasonable in their exercise of such unbridled authority is sheer folly. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The government and media search for The Next bin Laden has undoubtedly already commenced.....

That would be Zawahiri.

and did so in a way that almost certainly violates core First Amendment protections....

Because folks, this is an issue of religious freedom.

What a tool.

nabi ZK (pbum)

He could nuke Mecca during Haj and that would still prove he's a Muslim. Right?....

Correct, as that would be in fulfillment of mohametan prophesy. Except he is Kenyan and not Abyssinian. But that is a small detail.

nabi ZK (pbum)

You wrote: "WJ - It was the US President who violated the rights of a US citizen; Geneva has nothing to do with it.

I'm sorry for being passionate, but I'm a lawyer who happens to believe in the Bill of Rights.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As a lawyer, I am sure you are aware, presidents historically have trampled on rights we take for granted in time of war, in the interest of national security. Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus comes to mind. Wilson circumscribed freedom of speech during the first world war. Did you oppose Bush administration authorization of FBI eavesdropping on American citizens suspected of plotting terrorism, presumably Muslim American citizens? While I would agree with you in principle, liberty needs to be protected, this is not an absolute principle when national security is imperiled.

This isn't the first time that Salon has aided and supported jihadi beliefs and rights. Hopefully it will be the last.

@ Bemused " The distinction here is that the US Federal executive branch put a kill-order on an American citizen, and it was executed without due process...

The Fifth Amendmet is quite clear as to the rights of US citizens:

"No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

SATG - Hitler and Hirohito were not US citizens
CWW - He is (or was) an American citizen; see the above Fifth Amendment."

Is the Fifth Amendment that you have quoted abridged? I do not read "No American citizen" but "No person".

Is it Ok for the American President to order the Assassination of a person so long as he is not an American citizen?

@ Bemused "The Federal government should have taken the case to trial, had him declared a traitor, and then killed him if he did not surrender."

Do you mean tried him in absentia? Yes I agree there. But which court? Would he have had the right to appeal right upto the supreme court?

Obama does seem to believe in extra-judicial killings to boost his sagging ratings.

@ amazonas "prior to being elected he said he would go after these guys."

Who are "these guys"? He did say Osama bin Laden but not that I am aware of Awlaki.

He also said he would go after big business and the bankers etc - he seems to be selective on his pre-election promises.

"He could nuke Mecca during Haj and that would still prove he's a Muslim. Right?"

Somewhat unlikely he would do that. He approves of the Ground Zero Mosque, he is unlikely to take out the Mosque in Mecca dont you think? Did you see him stooping obsequiously to the Saudi King?

Muslims are allowed to kill Muslims - they do that on a regular basis. Its only a really bad crime when a non-Muslim does that.

I dont think that Obama is a Muslim. Just a sympathiser. I maybe wrong though.

I'm a lawyer too, Bemused, and I respectfully disagree with you for the reason I already stated above, to wit, there is a difference between crime and war. The Bill of Rights guarantees all kinds of rights to individuals in criminal and even civil (e.g., Seventh Amendmnet) cases. It also guarantees other rights (e.g., Second Amdendment). But the Bill of Rights was not meant for those who declare war on the United States and then act upon that declaration. And that's what al-Awlaki did----holy war and all that rubbish.

Wide latitude has ordinarily been accorded by the federal courts to Presidents when acting in their capacity as Commander-in-Chief, especially when America is in the midst of a war. And on those few occasions when judges have tried to limit Presidential power in this area, for example Chief Justice Taney in Ex parte Merryman, Presidents have just ignored such judicial interference with no harm, I would contend, to the Constitution. Right now America is in a war with an opponent that seeks the utter destruction of the United States as we know it. Killing those who desire this malignant and devastating change will not harm the Bill of Rights at all because that's not what the Bill of Rights was meant for.

If you said, I do not think Obama is a practicing Muslim - just as we know there are non-practicing Jews - I could agree with you. It seems to me, he is more than sympathetic. Mr. Obama was born Muslim. His father was a Muslim. If someone is born of a Jewish mother, according to Jewish tradition, he or she is a Jew. One whose father is a Muslim, he or she is Muslim.

Interesting distinction. Thanks. I believe Taney was appointed by Andrew Jackson.

Taney was appointed, wildjew, by Jackson not long after John Marshall died and he served for almost thirty years as Chief Justice. His most famous case, of course, was the Dred Scott decision. I must say I am chagrined by the fact that I misspelled "Amendment" not once but twice. Just won't do.

Jackson threatened war against (was it?) South Carolina over nullification. What's to say Taney's (Indian-fighter / slave-trading) friend wouldn't have done similar to Lincoln (had he been in Lincoln's shoes) in order to keep the Union together?

I downloaded Google toolbar. All you have to do is Google "Google toolbar." My toolbar is at the top of the page. In addition to search, translate, etc. is a "Spell Check" which I use before I publish my posts here and elsewhere. If it is not visible at the top you can click on "More" and then click on "Show gadget."

Don't know if I could do without it because I am not always careful with my spelling.

There is no "edit" opinion on this site.

I meant to write, "There is no "edit" option on this site."

Thanks, wildjew, re Google toolbar.

Let me know if it helps. Sometimes a thing called "Google Chrome" comes with it. I install Google Chrome or I drag it into my recycle bin. I don't know what it is good for.


An accident of birth does not make this guy a citizen. As Wellington said, he declared war on the country of his birth and encouraged others to commit violent acts against Her and her people. He lost any 'rights' he had when he did that.

We're going to be doing a lot 'worse' things than this in order to destroy the savages and their agenda. Get ready, America.


I use Google Chrome instead of Explorer. It uses less memory. The toolbar comes automatically with the installation.

The Russians have no qualms to eliminate their enemies:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,788490,00.html

Russia Hunts Down Chechen Terrorists Abroad

On orders from the Kremlin, Russian agents have been liquidating Chechen terrorists abroad. Turkish investigators suspect that a Russian was also behind the latest killings, the recent murder of three Chechens in Istanbul. Some believe the operations are being planned from Berlin.

dear sheik,

thank you for the link.
this is the **only** way to go!
the bullshit promoted by hussein and holder 'to try terrorists in court'...is just that. bs!

a terrorist, when sighted, is seen better with a crosshair scope.

I thought Google Chrome was a search engine. It can be used as a web browser? I am a computer ignoramus.

1) "They" declared war on us.

2) We have the right to defend ourselves.

3) As far as I am concerned, any American who conducts or coordinates operations to kill or harm fellow Americans from abroad to avoid normal channels of law enforcement or prosecution automatically revokes their right to "due process."

In reply to: Rich replied to comment from amazonas

"I dont think that Obama is a Muslim. Just a sympathiser. I maybe wrong though"

What does the sacrifice of a fellow muslim matter to Obama?.....if it helps to bring down the U.S. Constitution?

Bemused, I've written a few thoughts on Unclecephas.blogspot.com

I somewhat sympathize with your point of view. I'm a rule of law sort myself, and understand that governments are quite fallible (especially when they pretend that they are not). But I am dead certain that had the opportunity presented itself, both the Bush and Obama administrations would've much preferred to have been able to serve the proper warrants on both Usama Bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki (especially the latter, given that he was legally a US citizen) and read them the Miranda rights before leading them off in handcuffs. But how feasible is that when the one is hiding under the noses of a well-armed foreign power (Pakistan) and the other in the rocky deserts of a failed state?

Further, American immigration being what it is, with people going back to the Old Country even with US-born children in tow, I'm sure there were a few US-born Axis casualties during World War II--and hence, technically US citizens--but no inquiries into possible violations of the Bill of Rights by the Roosevelt and Truman administrations.

In this middle-aged guy's own family history, had my grandfather followed through on some of his plans, started his family a tad earlier, and moved it back to Der Alte Vaterland ca. 1910 A.D. after getting sufficient wealth in the New World, my own New York-born Dad (alov hasholom) might well have ended up wearing Field Grey with "Fuer Gott und Kaiser" on his belt buckle, firing at other New York-born young Jewish men in the Argonne 1917-18 (and at a British cousin as well). Thank God Opa decided to stay in the USA!

Also, Obama did not declare an end to the war Mr. Bush waged to answer the 09/11/01 attacks (and waged AFTER consultations with Congress). Anwar al-Awlaki was, by his own statements and actions, at war with a country which he viewed as no more than a birthplace.

Finally, I, like others here, see in this something like a policeman finding that he has a clear shot at a crazed gunman who's already killed a few people in a public place. Certainly Miranda rights ought to yield when it's either the baddie's life or those of innocent fellow citizens whom one is sworn to protect. Yes, the Bill of Rights is very precious, but it's not a suicide pact.

Actually, CGW, an "accident of birth" did make al-Awlaki an American citizen since he was born on American soil and the 14th Amendment provides that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen of this country. But it's of no matter since the rube effectively declared war on the United States. Whether one is an American citizen (e.g., al-Awlaki) or not (e.g., Adolf Hitler), once that person engages in war upon the US, then he is fair game for termination under the rules of war and the Bill of Rights is effectively no longer operative. I might add that a non-American citizen is covered by the Bill of Rights in criminal and civil matters but, of course, not where it is war the non-citizen is engaged in against the US, just as the American citizen who has decided to wage war on America and acts accordingly is no longer entitled to 5th Amendment due process or anything like this. I'm surprised that any lawyer would aver otherwise.

@ wildjew "If someone is born of a Jewish mother, according to Jewish tradition, he or she is a Jew. One whose father is a Muslim, he or she is Muslim."

Not so. A Muslim is an adherent of a religion, whereas a Jew is a race (or supposed to be). Thus you can be a Jew and a Muslim or Christian but you cannot be a Muslim and a Christian. Two different religions.

Wildjew stated things correctly, Rich. Moreover, being Jewish can mean that you are ethnically Jewish, religiously Jewish or both. As an example of how you are wrong here, taking your limited definition of what constitutes Jewishness, i.e., a "race," how then would you explain the Falasha Jew? Case closed I would argue.

Actually, US citizenship law holds that anyone born in the US, unless his parent is a visiting head of state or in foreign diplomatic status, is a jus soli citizen. Further, anyone born abroad to one citizen parent who meets transmission requirements (back in 1992 it was reisdent in the USA for five years, two of which are after the age of 14) is a jus sanguinis citizen.

Yes, Anwar al-Awlaki was indeed a US citizen by birth.

Wellington case not closed unless it mine.

I am not arguing about being a Jew if your parents are Jews.

I am pointing out that the same thing does not apply to a Muslim. A Muslim can apostasise from his religion and then he ceases to be a Muslim, no matter what the religion of his father or mother may have been.

Case closed.

I have spoken to Jews who maintain that if one is not religiously Jewish, then one is not Jewish. The definition of Jewishness is debated to this day, including by Jews. I have determined that one is Jewish if one is religiously so, ethnically so, or both. This is in accord with the thinking of many people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, and not just my own interpretation. Besides, you were the one who asserted that "a Jew is a race." Well, again, what about Falsha Jews or, say, someone who is Chinese ethnically but converts to Judaism? Moreover, under Islamic law, if one's father is a Muslim, then his offspring are Muslim for life whether they know it or not, or even if they become apostates from Islam. And so, by this Islamic way of reckoning things, Obama is a Muslim---forever. Understand, I don't buy into the idea that Obama is some kind of secret Muslim, someone who is keeping his faith under wraps. I'm merely relating what Islamic law has to say on this matter. Frankly, I think you tried to simplify things and in the process engaged in error.

Wellington "Besides, you were the one who asserted that "a Jew is a race."

It is not I who assert that Jews are a race. Some Jews claim to be of a "race", if you read the Bible you would know. I put in brackets (or supposed to be).

This is not MY assertion. It is the assertion of some Jews. But just like the claim of the Nazis to belong to the Aryan "race" it is fallacious. So dont carry on about the Jews.

You have asserted "under Islamic law, if one's father is a Muslim, then his offspring are Muslim for life whether they know it or not, or even if they become apostates from Islam."

Show me the Islamic Law which says that.

An apostate from Islam is one who has left Islam. If he has left Islam then he is no longer a Muslim.

When an apostate is killed under Islamic law he is not washed (after death, in preparation for burial), the Muslim funeral prayer is not offered for him and he is not buried with Muslims, clearly showing that Islam does not consider apostates to be Muslims.

There are many apostates like Salman Rushdie, or Hirsi Ali who are living (not executed). Islam does not consider them to be Muslims.

Wellington, thank you for taking the lead against those lawyers who want to criminalize warmaking.

"Over 500 years ago one of the greatest legal scholars of the English common law world, Sir Edward Coke, observed that: "Hard cases make bad law." "

Yes, this is a hard case, and I submit that you and those with you views are the ones who wish to turn this into bad law: that presidential warmaking constraints imposed by other branches are constitutional [excluding Congressional power to withhold monies]. If you point to court cases such as Hamadi to argue otherwise I would submit those cases were decided in violation of the Constitution (as was Plessy, for example).

You wrote:

"However, in this instance, I must agree with Greenwald. The distinction here is that the US Federal executive branch put a kill-order on an American citizen, and it was executed without due process. "Due process" means participation by the judicial branch of the Federal government (that's why we have checks and balances). The danger is that, in the future, a US president could put such a kill-order on me because I call for his impeachment, trial, and capital punishment. Without being able to go to court, I'm dead. That's why we have search and arrest warrants issued by a court. Quite simply, I don't trust the Executive branch with un-checked kill-power over US citizens, no matter who is in ofice. The Federal government should have taken the case to trial, had him declared a traitor, and then killed him if he did not surrender."

Due process in American law means that one is entitled to trial before a jury of one's peers, that one is entitled to confront one's accusers (which is why in abstentia trials are banned in the U.S.), and one is entitled to a presumption of innocence. Put those three conditions of due process together with the fact these enemies of Ameerica were in a foreign country beyond the reach of any civilian law enforcement, and then tell me how "The Federal government [could] have taken the case to trial, had him declared a traitor, and then killed him if he did not surrender." without violating due process? Please tell us how you manage to escape the same outcome you decry? It seems that you can't.

This is what you need to understand. You write "Quite simply, I don't trust the Executive branch with un-checked kill-power over US citizens, no matter who is in ofice." but you haven't thought through the outcomes of the alternatives. When U.S. citizens make war on the U.S. and the executive branch kills them, as Abraham Lincoln so ordered, the executive branch is still constrained and checked by public opinion in a way that no court can be. All you argue is that the judgement of lawyers who are members of the judiciary is superior to that of the electorate in the matter of war. I suppose you are entitled to your opinion, but the majority of people would diagree, and rightfully so.

Also, I should point out that you call for capital punishment for an impeachment trial. Are you serious? You are calling for a violation of the Constitution much more serious than this case.

Legal considerations aside, one does not mourn the death of a rabid dog when it's taken down to save a life; and I will not shed a single tear for a murderous religious fanatic removed from this world, American citizen or not.

Bemused, the more I think about it, the more bemused I get.

Let's say that a U.S.-born accused terrorist is really innocent, but you get your way, have your in abstentia trial, mistakenly find him guilty, and then execute him by Predator UAV. You haven't protected the accused right of due process, or any other right. All you have done is elevate a judicial process above his rights. You have done nothing to support justice itself.

This is why wars are bad things. The only real justice in war comes with the victory of the defending side. Trying to introduce concepts of due process rights to war is crazy. When it comes to war here is the only right anyone has:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Freedom_From_Fear.jpg

Nobody has taken little Glennie G. seriously for years.

On the 'due process' issue, from JWer Buraq:

In 1803, Thomas Jefferson wrote: "[a] strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means."

It is a browser. Google is the search engine, Chrome the browser.

I wrote: "If someone is born of a Jewish mother, according to Jewish tradition, he or she is a Jew. One whose father is a Muslim, he or she is Muslim."

You answered: "Not so. A Muslim is an adherent of a religion, whereas a Jew is a race (or supposed to be). Thus you can be a Jew and a Muslim or Christian but you cannot be a Muslim and a Christian. Two different religions....."

I cannot speak for Islam. I will let Spencer speak for Islam. I read earlier, Spencer (and I think D. Pipes) wrote that Obama might be considered murtad (or apostate) in Islam but since he allegedly converted to Christianity in his youth, the death penalty might not apply.

I have no problem with your term "race" or tribe (since Jews believe they come from a common ancestor, Abraham) but as Wellington pointed out, we have converts who are as Jewish as anyone who is born Jewish. One who is born a Jew is a Jew for life, even if he or she is non-practicing Jew or an atheist. He or she is still a Jew. If a Jew converts to Christianity (i.e., he becomes an apostate), he can repent and rejoin the fold. He is still a Jew. I personally know Jews who converted to Christianity. I consider them Jews. I believe they will return in time.

I am assuming the same holds true within Islam, unless the apostate is killed for his apostasy. Obama can repent, if he is actually a Christian convert. Of the prospect he is a Christian believer, I am dubious. I think his identity is with Islam (read his Cairo speech at Al-Azhar Univ., June 2009) even if he is not a practicing Muslim.

When you asserted in your 6:32 P.M. post yesterday that "a Jew is a race" it seemed to me that was your opinion and not someone else's. Indeed, Jewishness can be looked upon as an ethcnicity but not technically a race, but one can be a Jew as well if he converts to Judaism irrespective of ethnicity. Respecting apostates from Islam, it has been my understanding that under Islamic law renouncing being Muslim does not make you a non-Muslim but rather a very, very bad Muslim who needs to be dealt with in a severe manner, usually death, though I could be wrong here. If anyone can add to this, I'd appreciate it.

Wildjew wrote "I have no problem with your term "race" or tribe (since Jews believe they come from a common ancestor, Abraham) but as Wellington pointed out, we have converts who are as Jewish as anyone who is born Jewish. One who is born a Jew is a Jew for life, even if he or she is non-practicing Jew or an atheist. He or she is still a Jew. If a Jew converts to Christianity (i.e., he becomes an apostate), he can repent and rejoin the fold. He is still a Jew. I personally know Jews who converted to Christianity. I consider them Jews. I believe they will return in time."

Keep hoping wildjew.

(Some of) You Jews are as bad as, or worse than, the Muslims. You are clearly racist, believing yourselves to be above and more entitled than others.

Joshua was a criminal who killed women and children and carried out ethnic cleansing for no reason other than conquest. More barbaric than Mohammad.

Fortunately for the world there are not many of you. Your main use is a counter to the totalitarianism of Islam. When you are not hiding with your tails between your legs in western countries.

You wrote:

"The Constitution is paramount and the rights guaranteed by it can not be abridged or infringed by executive power no matter how expedient or salutory the objective."
________________________________________________

That is incorrect. The President has very wide-ranging powers of war by virtue of Executive privilege, no matter how "expedient" they may seem.

Precedent has been established, and Obama is merely exercising his power.

Otherwise, Congress can take the matter up again, as they have, previously, under many, different circumstances.

Hi! You wrote:

"The courts have long recognized that where there is a clear and present danger of IMMINENT bodily harm such as a person holding a gun actively shooting or threatening to shoot people, it is permissible to kill him to save those people in direct danger of imminent physical harm. In al-Awlaki's case, however, it is reported that, at the time of his death, Awlaki was riding in a vehicle and while one might presume that he was armed, he not, AT THAT MOMENT, actively shooting or threatening to shoot at anyone. At best, he was, at that moment, conspiring to kill someone at some point in the future, but, AT THAT MOMENT, nobody was in imminent danger of physical harm."
_______________________________________

I will presume from your comment that you are a lawyer. Is that correct?. If not, please correct me.
_______________________________________

I will further presume that you are (since you are schooled in The Law) both familiar with Bastiat's "The Law", and with the Rules of Evidence.
_______________________________________

The RICO act deals with all of this nicely, and refutes your argument above. Awlaki was a CONSPIROR, with Khan, to wage war upon the United States! He did not "need" to "be holding a gun". And yes, it WAS a criminal enterprise that sought to, among other things, extort and threaten Citizens of the USA.
___________________

It matters not that he was a so-called Citizen. He effectively renounced his American citizenship when he ordered the Jock Bomber, Omar, to go on his "merry way" to Detroit on Xmas, as well as another attempt to exterminate us with copying machines.

Finally: killers, or attempted murderers go to jail in the USA for their unlawful acts - if they attempt too strongly to fight the police, they are killed. How is this different from Awlaki and Khan?

Awlaki and Khan's war-like statements are all over the internet, and in the (I suppose), now-defunct Jihadi Mag,"Inspire".
________________________________________

The federal law regarding conspiracy is flawed, but not very...
______

I await your considered reply, Counselor. :)

You smear the Jews, Rich, unnecessarily. Some of the events narrated by the Old Testament are indeed disturbing at times, the Jewish God allowing slaughter on occasion and all that for the benefit of the Jewish people, but the OT is not a paradigm for action for all time (unlike the Koran). Moreover, any authorization of killing in the OT to benefit Jews was to sequester a small parcel of land---Palestine, Israel, Caanan, the Promised Land--- and not an instruction to conquer all the earth. Think degree here.

Look, no people are perfect and no religion is. But to do things like continuing to bring up events from thousands or hundreds of years ago to slime a people or a faith, another example here being the Inquisition of the Roman Catholic religion, which, by the way, terminated the lives of fewer people in its multi-hundred year existence than Islamic terrorists have in any given single year just since 9/11, is to engage in moral equivalency thinking of the most egregious kind. You are guilty here. Big time. And your comment about modern Jews "hiding with your tails between your legs in western countries" smacks very much of anti-Semitism, pure and simple like. In fact, I detect from your last post a built-up, a contained, dislike of Jews finally unleashed which, to say the least, does not redound to your benefit.

You are correct in your position, David. American_Exceptionalist, irrespective of his being a lawyer, does not, apparently cannot, distinguish between those who are charged with a crime and those who are engaging in war against the United States. Might as well argue, pursuant to AE's reasoning, that Confederate soldiers during the Civil War who were not at the time in actual battle could not have been taken out by a surprise attack by Union forces, say in the dead of night. No, they should have first been read their Fifth Amendment rights in such a situation. Ah, disproving the contention that al-Awlaki should not have been killed but rather should have been enshrined with all kinds of Bill of Rights protections is so easy to refute it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

Wellington I do not dislike Jews. Quite the contrary. As a child I accepted their beliefs, including being the "chosen people" without question. It is only later I began to question their unbridled right to do anything.

The deeds of Joshua are as monstrous and unacceptable to any civilised human as are the massacres of Muhammad and the Muslims.

You say "Moreover, any authorization of killing in the OT to benefit Jews was to sequester a small parcel of land---Palestine, Israel, Caanan, the Promised Land--- and not an instruction to conquer all the earth. Think degree here."

Try explaining that to the Caananite mothers who saw their children slaughtered before they were too.

I still admire most Jews for their battle against Islamic terrorism and absolutely support Israel. But this support is because they uphold democracy and the rule of (civilised) law. Not to give a blank cheque to Zionist terrorists and their supporters.

Unbridled right to do anything? You really think the bulk of the Jewish world believes it has the "unbridled right to do anything?" You're proving my point.

As for Zionist terrorists, yes, there were some, for instance those of the Stern Gang. But what people have not produced extremists from time to time, especially when under the exigent circumstances Jews in British Palestine found themselves in the 1930s and 40s? The Jews are no different here from really anyone else. Moreover, and this is the huge difference between the Jewish world and the Arab Muslim world, the large bulk of Jews in British Palestine and then Israel moved to eliminate any Jewish terrorists while the Arab Muslim world moved to eliminate any Arab moderates.

All peoples, no exceptions, have sins from their past. But great peoples know how to try and become a better people. The Jews are such a people. The Arabs are not.

Wellington - I did not say that "the bulk of the Jewish world" believes it has the "unbridled right to do anything", but some do maybe a significant percentage.

and you say "the bulk of the Jewish world believes it has the "unbridled right to do anything?"

And you say "All peoples, no exceptions, have sins from their past. But great peoples know how to try and become a better people. The Jews are such a people. The Arabs are not."

That is clearly a racist statement.

The Muslims are not - because they are locked into the time warp of their regressive medieval ideology.

But there are non-Muslim Arabs also (including Jews who live in Arab lands). The non-Muslims in Arab lands have been subjugated and artificially suppressed and the capacity to rise to better things taken away from them.

And who do you call "The Arabs" anyway? The Egyptians? They had the worlds most civilised society for millenia longer than the Christian era. The Mesopotamians? Syrians? Carthagians? Lebanese (Phoenicians)?

They have only been subjugated by the Arabic Islamic ideology so they are not really Arabs except for their language and Islamic culture but they were once great peoples in their own times before the conquests and subjugation.

We are getting sidetracked into a discussion about Jews.

Obama could possibly be indicted for criminal treachery for this:

"William Lajeunesse writes at Fox:

Not only did U.S. officials approve, allow and assist in the sale of more than 2,000 guns to the Sinaloa cartel — the federal government used taxpayer money to buy semi-automatic weapons, sold them to criminals and then watched as the guns disappeared.

I don’t wish to understate it: elements of the U.S. Departments of Justice, State, Homeland Security, and Treasury are responsible for supplying an arsenal to narco-terrorists waging a civil war against an American ally. Our federal government may bear responsibility for at least 200 murders committed with “walked” firearms, in what Mexican Attorney General Marisela Morales describes as a “betrayal” of her country by the Obama administration.

Are there legal ramifications? Perhaps. According to Title 18, 2331 of the U.S. Code, Operation Fast and Furious may amount to international terrorism, which carries with it stiff penalties for conspiracies that result in homicide. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act — which was originally used to prosecute the mafia — and the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) may also fit, as may assorted state and federal charges. Charges may also result from two investigations launched by Mexican authorities, and Mexico could conceivably file charges with the International Criminal Court.

This is objectively the most important political and legal story in America right now."

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/msm-sheep-ignoring-the-scandal-of-the-century/?singlepage=true

This is a story that Robert Spencer might want to take up along with others.

"This [Operation Fast and Furious] is a story that Robert Spencer might want to take up along with others."

And how does that story pertain to Islamic Jihad? Please explain...

BTW, you are repeating a particularly bad idea regarding the RICO statute. It is patently impossible for the U.S. government to declare ITSELF to be a corrupt organization as defined by the statute. C'mon, the idea is crazy!

Damn it. Don't accuse me of racism when it is you who have painted the Jews with a very broad brush. And now you're weasling out of your statement that "It is only later I began to question their unbridled right to do anything." How in the hell could anyone not interprest such a sentence as meaning the bulk of the Jewish world, most of the Jewish world, perhaps all of the Jewish world? What did you mean by the possessive pronoun "their?" You in no way indicated that it was "some" or a "significant percentage" until I called you on the carpet for your statement.

As for the Arab world, my God man, it's just about the most dysfunctional world on earth. Even some Arabs know it, for instance Fouad Ajami who wrote "The Dream Palace of the Arabs." And my statement that the Arab Muslim world has not dealt with its extremists is an absolutely true statement. So is my contention that the Jewish world has effectively dealt with any Jewish extremism.

And what in the hell you mean by bringing in the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, etc., I have no idea. Are you aware that the ancient Egyptians were not Arab, not a Semitic people, but a separate people of their own, Hamitic in language. Your claim therefore that the Egyptians had a civilization longer than has the Christian era is totally irrelevant to the matter at hand. The ancient Egyptians spoke a language that was not Arabic though distantly related to it.

By Arab, I mean the people originally from the Arabian peninsula who, until the seventh century A.D., were largely confined to such peninsula but who, with their new religion of Islam conquered huge areas previously not Arab at all or very little so. And with them they brought the Arabic language. Enough here.

Wellington "Are you aware that the ancient Egyptians were not Arab, not a Semitic people"

Are YOU aware that the modern Egyptians are also about the same people as the "ancient" Egyptians, being their descendants, (along with a mixture of other people) - just as the Jews (or any other "peoples" or "races") are a mixture of the "Ancient" Jews (or any other "peoples" or "races"), along with a mixture of other people?

Since the "ancient" Egyptians were far more numerous than the Jews, and have continuously inhabited Egypt, their genes are likely to be in a far greater percentage of "modern" Egyptians than the "ancient" Jews genes are in "modern" Jews, who have moved and intermarried all over the world.

The same applies to Iraqis, Syrians, Lebanese etc. - They are NOT Arab though they maybe Muslim.

Wellington "And what in the hell you mean by bringing in the Mesopotamians, Egyptians, etc., I have no idea."

You are real slow in the intake / uptake. They are the ancestors of the same peoples as today.

You have said "The Jews are such a people. The Arabs are not." [people who can better themselves].

I suggest to you that has nothing to do with their race but with the Muslim ideology.

Afghans, Somalis, Boko Haramis, Berbers, Indonesian, Pakistani, etc etc - Islamic products - who are NOT Arabs suffer from the same lack of improvement.

Some who have moved to western nations and broken away from their religion have done quite well and indeed improved themselves, showing that its the ideology not the "race" or "peoples" that are responsible for their backwardness.

War was declared by many global jihad leaders, including al-Awlaki, on the U.S. President Obama wants to grant all such jihadists U.S. citizenship and give them due process protection. But, is this how a President protects his country from the enemies who have declared war and are actively planning, recruiting, and engaging in attacks against us and our allies? We need a president who will prioritize U.S. citizens before the Muslim world, before those who have declared themselves enemies, before the interests of the global jihad.

The modern Egyptians are definitely not the same people (with the possible exception, remote as it is, being the Copts) as were the ancient Egypitans. Your historical ignorance is profound. Modern Egyptians are overwhelmingly Arab and that is because Arabs took over Egypt in the seventh century A.D. The ancient Egyptians are no more, though the Coptic language can be traced back through the Demotic, New Egyptian, Middle Egyptian and Old Egyptian stages. Furthermore, the people inhabiting Syria, Iraq and Jordan today are also overwhelmingly Arab and not related to the ancient peoples of Mesopotamia. The earliest people in Mesopotamian history were the Sumerians, followed by the Akkadians, followed by the Amorites, followed by the Kassites, followed by the Assyrians and finally the Chaldeans. Most, if not all, of these peoples are completely extinct. It is possible to trace to the present day a connection to the Assyrians with the Assyrian Christians, but even here so much intermarriage occurred with other peoples over the millennia that it is tenuous to assert that those claiming to be Assyrian today are directly related to the ancient Assyrians.

I have no doubt of how Islam has pulled down one people after another. For instance, if 98% of the Arabs were Christian they would, I am certain, be a much more together people. But to assert, as you have, ridiculous things like the modern Egyptians "are about the same people as the 'ancient' Egyptians" leaves me so stunned by your ignorance that I can now see why you have come to the strange conclusions that you have.

@ Wellington "The modern Egyptians are definitely not the same people (with the possible exception, remote as it is, being the Copts) as were the ancient Egypitans. Your historical ignorance is profound."

Politeness makes me refrain from saying things that are obvious. You make sweeping statements without an iota of either evidence or even a modicum of logic or common sense.

"Modern Egyptians are overwhelmingly Arab and that is because Arabs took over Egypt in the seventh century A.D."

Your ignorance stupefying and credulity astonishing.

The Arabs took over Egypt they did not exterminate them. The Egyptians were very much more numerous than the Arabs conquering them.

Arabs and other Muslims conquered India but the ethnic Indian populations didnt just disappear.

Please educate yourself here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeogenetics_of_the_Near_East#DNA_studies_on_modern_Egyptians

A few excerpts:

"A study by Krings et al. from 1999 on mitochondrial DNA clines along the Nile Valley found that a Eurasian cline runs from Northern Egypt to Southern Sudan, and a Sub-Saharan cline extends from Southern Sudan to Northern Egypt.

Another study based on maternal lineages links modern Egyptians with people from modern Eritrea/Ethiopia such as the Afro-Asiatic-speaking Tigre.

Similarly, an mtDNA study of modern Egyptians from the Gurna region near Thebes in Southern Egypt revealed that Eurasian haplogroups represented 61% of the population, with the remainder 39% being of Sub-Saharan origin. The oral tradition of the Gurna people indicates that they descend from the ancient Egyptians.

A study using the Y-chromosome of modern Egyptian males found similar results, namely that African haplogroups are predominant in the South but the predominant haplogroups in the North are characteristic of other North African populations.

A study of Coptic ethnic group in Sudan found relatively high frequencies of Sub-Saharan Haplogroup B (Y-DNA). The Copts are descendants of Egyptians who have recently migrated from Egypt. According to the study, the presence of Sub-Saharan haplogroups is consistent with the historical record in which southern Egypt was colonized by Nilotic populations during the early state formation.

OTHER STUDIES HAVE SHOWN THAT MODERN EGYPTIANS HAVE GENETIC AFFINITIES PRIMARILY WITH POPULATIONS OF NORTH AND NORTHEAST AFRICA, AND TO A LESSER EXTENT MIDDLE EASTERN AND EUROPEAN POPULATIONS. [GET IT?]


Studies done on ancient Egyptians' remains have shown uniformity and homogeneity among the samples, and cranial/limb ratio similarity with populations from North Africa, Somalia, Nubia, Southwest Asia and Europe.

Blood typing and DNA sampling on ancient Egyptian mummies is scant; however, BLOOD TYPING OF DYNASTIC MUMMIES FOUND ABO FREQUENCIES TO BE MOST SIMILAR TO MODERN EGYPTIANS and some also to Northern Haratin populations.

ABO blood group distribution shows that the Egyptians form a sister group to North African populations, including Berbers, Nubians and Canary Islanders.

Some genetic studies done on modern Egyptians suggest that most do not have close relations to most tropical Africans,and other studies show that they are mostly related to other North Africans, and to a lesser extent southern European/Mediterranean and Middle Eastern populations."

So to recap the Arabs may have subjugated the Egyptians mentally and culturally but the fact remains they still carry the genes of their ancestors.

After you have educated yourself and taken a few lessons in reason, logic, genetics, history and not shooting your mouth off without any knowledge or thought, you can come back and speak to me in a few years.

Here is another place you may educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_history_of_Egypt#DNA_studies_on_modern_Egyptians

"Egypt has experienced several invasions during its history. However, these do not seem to account for more than about 10% overall of current Egyptians ancestry when the DNA evidence of the ancient mitochondrial DNA and modern Y chromosomes is considered."

The "several invasions" dont only mean the Arab invasions. There were many before and since. Please read up on Egyptian history.

Rich

you make an eloquent case for the majority of modern Egyptians being descended from their ancestors, even if their brains have been colonised and addled by the ideology of Islam.

And yet, above, you seemed to state that you don't believe that modern Jews have a recognisable and distinct genetic identity as a people.

That surprises me, because if you're 'into' genetics, you ought to know that all the latest genetic research shows that the Khazar nonsense is exactly that - nonsense - and that Ashkenazi and Mizrahi and Sephardi Jews are clearly related to each other and are all recognisably members of an interrelated and distinct genetic population...which is Middle Eastern/ Levantine rather than European or Central Asian.

Pursuant to my posting above.

A couple of articles on the results of recent genetic research within the Jewish community.

http://www.jpost.com/HealthAndSci-Tech/ScienceAndEnvironment/Article.aspx?id=177446

New research: One people!
By JUDY SIEGEL-ITZKOVICH
06/04/2010 05:10

"Jews the world over share age-old genetic ties.

"The Jews have been not only a national and religious group since the 2nd century BCE but also have common genetic links derived in the ancient Middle East despite their dispersion throughout the world, sophisticated genetic analysis based in New York has concluded.

"The study, which was published on Thursday in the online edition of The American Journal of Human Genetics, also provides the first-ever detailed genetic maps of the three major Jewish subpopulations – a precious resource that can be used to study the genetic origins of disease in non-Jews as well.

"The important study, called “Abraham’s Children in the Genome Era: Major Jewish Diaspora Populations Comprise Distinct Genetic Clusters with Shared Middle Eastern Ancestry,” was conducted by Dr. Gil Atzmon and Prof. Edward Burns at Yeshiva University’s Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Prof. Harry Ostrer of New York University’s School of Medicine. It also included Prof. Eitan Friedman, head of oncogenetics at Sheba Medical Center at Tel Hashomer, and others.

"They performed a genome-wide analysis of Eastern European Ashkenazi Jews;
Italian, Greek and Turkish Sephardi Jews;

and Iranian, Iraqi and Syrian Jews."...


"Jews from the different regions of the world were found to share many genetic traits that are distinct from other groups and that date back to ancient times.

"The researchers wrote in the 10-page article to appear in the journal’s print edition that Jews from the major Diaspora groups formed a distinct population cluster, albeit one that is closely related to European and Middle Eastern non-Jewish populations.

"Each of the Diaspora groups also formed its own cluster within the larger Jewish cluster.

"In addition, each group demonstrated Middle Eastern ancestry and varying degrees of mixing with surrounding populations.

"The genetic analysis showed that the two major groups – Middle Eastern and European Jews – split from from each other about 2,500 years ago...

"The new research, however, showed “distinctive Jewish population clusters – each with shared Middle Eastern ancestry, proximity to contemporary Middle Eastern populations and variable degrees of European and North African admixture.”

"Thus, this study demonstrates that European/Syrian and Middle Eastern Jews represent “a series of geographical isolates or clusters woven together by shared identity-by-descent (IBD) genetic threads.”

"It also **disproved claims of large-scale genetic contributions of Central and Eastern European and Slavic populations to the formation of Ashkenazi Jewry** [my emphasis - dda]".

{In other words: there has been some intermarriage but by no means enough for anyone to claim that a Jewish person from Central and Eastern Europe is 'not really Jewish'}.

Another article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/science/10jews.html?src=me&ref;=homepage


Studies Show Jews’ Genetic Similarity
By NICHOLAS WADE
Published: June 9, 2010

"Jewish communities in Europe and the Middle East share many genes inherited from the ancestral Jewish population that lived in the Middle East some 3,000 years ago, even though each community also carries genes from other sources — usually the country in which it lives."..

"A major surprise from both surveys is ** the genetic closeness of the two Jewish communities of Europe, the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim** {my emphasis - dda}.

More:

"**They refute the suggestion made last year by the historian Shlomo Sand in his book “The Invention of the Jewish People” that Jews have no common origin but are a miscellany of people in Europe and Central Asia who converted to Judaism at various times.** {my emphasis - dda}.

"Jewish communities from Europe, the Middle East and the Caucasus all have substantial genetic ancestry that traces back to the Levant; Ethiopian Jews and two Judaic communities in India are genetically much closer to their host populations {one may note that the Ethiopian and Indian Jewish communities were probably much more isolated from other Jewish communities over time and so perforce had to intermarry to avoid dangerous inbreeding - dda}.

...

"The shared genetic elements suggest that **members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population, which is about 10 times higher than the relationship between two people chosen at random off the streets of New York City** {my emphasis - dda}, Dr. Atzmon said.

Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews have roughly 30 percent European ancestry, with most of the rest from the Middle East, the two surveys find."

So far as I can see, the Jews considered broadly are - like any other long-established nation or people - a human gestalt with *both* a discernible and distinctive genetic identity and a very strong 'memetic', historical/ ideological/ religious/ cultural identity.


Rich----from DDA's post above...

"The shared genetic elements suggest that **members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population, which is about 10 times higher than the relationship between two people chosen at random off the streets of New York City** {my emphasis - dda}, Dr. Atzmon said.
____________________________________

This is a STAGGERING number, Rich. I maintain that it is much, much more unified than the "human gestalt", referred to above by DDA.

dumbledoresarmy "you seemed to state that you don't believe that modern Jews have a recognisable and distinct genetic identity as a people"

dumbledoresarmy are you trying to engage me in a "yes you did say this" / "no I did not" exchange?

What I have said is perfectly clear (which is nothing like you think I said I believe. I havent stated my beliefs at any stage).

PS The brilliant Wellington informs me that "The ancient Egyptians spoke a language that was not Arabic though distantly related to it." I wonder if he believes he is the Oracle of Delphi.

He thinks Hieroglyphics resembles Arabic. He probably wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a dalmatian and a dinosaur.

Though even a blind man can see there is not the slightest resemblance and you do not need Wikipedia to convince you, this is what Wikipedia says "Although Egyptian is the oldest Afroasiatic language documented in written form, its "morphological repertoire" is greatly different from that of the rest of the Afroasiatic phylum and Semitic in particular" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_language#Classification

There are no pure races in the world. You would have to define what you mean by "a recognisable and distinct genetic identity as a people" before I could give any meaningful reply.

What I said was that modern Egyptians carry the genes of the "ancient" Egyptians and probably more so than modern Jews do of "ancient" Jews.

This was just a feeling based on the logical reasoning that Jews are much smaller in number and dispersed among a much larger population, whereas Egyptians were a large stable population.

On doing a quick search I find that I am probably correct.

"the Y-chromosome of Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews .. suggested that the male ancestors of the Ashkenazi Jews could be traced mostly to the Middle East...

David Goldstein, ..reported in 2002 that, unlike male lineages, the female lineages in Ashkenazi Jewish communities "did not seem to be Middle Eastern", and that each community had its own genetic pattern and even that "in some cases the mitochondrial DNA was closely related to that of the host community." ..

a 2006 study by Behar et al., based on high-resolution analysis of haplogroup K(mtDNA), suggested that about 40% of the current Ashkenazi population is descended matrilineally from just four women, or "founder lineages", that were "likely from a Hebrew/Levantine mtDNA pool" originating in the Middle East in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. ..Haplogroup K is common throughout western Eurasia,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenazi_Jews#Genetics

So 60% non-middle east among the womens genes, among the mens depends on what "mostly" means - anything over 50%. I would say that even modern Ashkenazi Jews, who are 80% of all Jews, would have far less than the 90% of the genes that the modern Egyptians share with ancient Egyptians.

Correction: I would say that even modern Ashkenazi Jews, who are 80% of all Jews, would have far less of "ancient" Jew genes than the 90% of the genes that the modern Egyptians share with ancient Egyptians.

David Dowse ""The shared genetic elements suggest that **members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population, which is about 10 times higher than the relationship between two people chosen at random off the streets of New York City** {my emphasis - dda}, Dr. Atzmon said

This is irrelevant to the percentage of genes modern Jews carry of ancient Jews.

Let us assume that your some of your great great great grandchildren decided to intermarry amongst themselves, their progeny would be related closely to each other but would still carry a relatively small percentage of your genes.

Rich, unless I'm misunderstanding you - 4th or 5th cousins are something quite distinctly different than "great, great, grandfather's genes".

4th or 5th cousins may very well be alive contemporaneously - no way can my great, great grandfather be alive!
________

And by the way, I think your tone toward a couple of other posters is un-called for.

In fact, it reminds me very much of a certain, "Horse", who used to post with similar language.

You're not "Horse", are you?

David,

You are correct. I am a lawyer.

I must confess that I am not familiar with Bastiat's The Law but I am familiar with the Rules of Evidence.

Nothing in the RICO statute gives the government the right to assassinate anyone for RICO conspiracies. The most the government can do under RICO is prosecute someone as a criminal.

You are correct. It does not matter whether Awlaki was a citizen. The Fifth Amendment refers to persons, not citizens. The Fifth Amendment applies to non-citizens within the jurisdiction of United States courts.

Killers, or attempted murderers only go to jail in the United States if convicted of their crimes after a TRIAL. The police can not kill a suspect for fighting arrest. They can only kill a suspect if they reasonably believe that he is armed and is either shooting at them or threatening to shoot at them or kill someone else within range of whatever weapon they possess. The difference with Awlaki and Khan is obvious. Nobody was trying to arrest. The government was only interested in killing him.

The issue in this case is whether or not the Constitution allows a president to order people assassinated without any meaningful oversight and without any established guidelines for how that decision is taken and, if so, under what circumstances.

It simply boggles my mind how many people on this site are so ready, willing and able to allow the president of the United States to simply order people "whacked" by fiat without any articulated standards or meaningful review of that decision. All I am saying is that we must not allow our joy at Awlaki's death to blind us to the inherent danger of granting one man the unrestricted power to order another man assassinated.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with crime vs. act of war. As Niemoller said:

"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak for me."

I am not saying that we shouldn't ever kill someone like Awlaki, just that it should only be done with appropriate oversight and procedural safeguards in place to protect the rest of us. Otherwise, if we place no constraints on the government's power to kill us, what stops a future president from putting greasy Islamophobes on the hit list?

Rich wrote:

The deeds of Joshua are as monstrous and unacceptable to any civilised human as are the massacres of Muhammad and the Muslims.
.................................

Oh, good grief. When Jews start massacring innocent gentiles all over the world in the same manner as al-Awlaki urged be done to Kaffirs—and, moreover, do so while citing Joshua as Muslims cite the model of Muhammed—*then* I will be concerned.

As it stands now—with all due respect—this is just idiocy.

No I am not horse. I retaliated to similar tones made on me.

And gravenimage while it is true that Jews are not massacring innocent gentiles all over the world and are not doing so while citing Joshua, it still does not change the fact that the deeds of Joshua are as monstrous and unacceptable to any civilised human as are the massacres of Muhammad and the Muslims.

And it is possible that some religious Jews are still influenced by Joshua to react in thought or action to innocent gentiles in Israel or Judea and Samaria.

if you seriously cannot discern any moral and intellectual difference between Judaism and Islam, I think you have rocks in your head.

Read this and then tell me that the TaNaKh - which sees humanity as the bearer of the divine image called to respond to a God who calls by name - is no different from the Islamic texts, which see humanity as a grovelling, cringing slave of an unknowable and amoral divine despot.

http://www.azure.org.il/article.php?id=131

God's Alliance with Man

JOSHUA A. BERMAN.

And I also advise you to read Tom Cahill, 'The Gifts of the Jews'.

A reading of that, together with a reading of the works of David Bentley Hart (an Eastern Orthodox theologian, btw) has convinced me that Jerusalem redeems Athens and Rome - not the other way around.

We of the west are who we are, in all sorts of ways, because of certain basic insights that come to us - via Christianity - from the House of Israel; insights and assumptions that are coded into even the most apparently archaic and 'primitive' texts of the TaNaKh.

And those insights and assumptions are not to be found in Islam.

The whole cosmology, anthropology and theology - the way of thinking about world, man and god, and the interactions between them - in Judaism is totally different from what one finds in Islam. Indeed we should speak not of 'difference' but of antithesis.

And in the long run, historically, that produces entirely different cultural and social results. The 'atmospherics' are different. The way of relating to the sacred texts and to history is different.

The simple fact that Judaism at a certain point in its history chose to stop practising stoning, is one piece of evidence that this is so. So is the fact that although Jacob had more than one wife, Jews ultimately decided to practise monogamy, without regarding themselves as unfaithful to their scripture (indeed Jesus, born and raised a Jew among Jews, derives monogamy from the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman; certainly all Christian tradition from the earliest point has read his words on that subject as an exhortation to monogamy).

Furthermore: do you really think that a Christian living in Israel is in exactly as much danger - qua Christian - from the surrounding Jews, as a Christian living in Pakistan or Egypt is from the surrounding Mohammedans?

Of course, the vast majority of Gentiles currently resident in Judea and Samaria, and the majority of Gentiles resident within Israel, are death-worshipping 'honor'-murdering rabidly Jew-and-Christian-hating Arab Mohammedans who dream of mass-murdering Jews...and then of polishing off the Sunday people (whom they are already persecuting relentlessly, even if news of it doesn't get out much, due to most of the local Sunday people being thoroughly crushed by dhimmitude) once they finish with the Saturday people.

I

Couldn't agree more with the Salon article - well written and extremely well thought out and argued.

A nice piece of sanity to contrast with the insanity posted on this blog everyday.

Leave a comment

NOTE: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.







Not Peace But A Sword by Robert SpencerDid Muhammad Exist? The Muslim Brotherhood in America, by Robert SpencerIslamophobia: Thoughtcrime of the Totalitarian FutureMuslim Persecution of Christians, by Robert Spencer Obama and IslamThe Ground Zero Mosque: Second Wave of the 9/11 Attacks
The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Koran


Stealth Jihad


The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam


The Truth About Muhammad


What they’re saying about Robert Spencer
“My comrade-in-arms, my pal, my buddy.”
Oriana Fallaci

“Robert Spencer incarnates intellectual courage when, all over the world, governments, intellectuals, churches, universities and media crawl under a hegemonic Universal Caliphate’s New Order. His achievement in the battle for the survival of free speech and dignity of man will remain as a fundamental monument to the love of, and the self-sacrifice for, liberty.”
Bat Ye’or

“Robert Spencer is indefatigable. He is keeping up the good fight long after many have already given up. I do not know what we would do without him. I appreciate all the intelligence and courage it takes to keep going despite the appeasement of the West.”
Ibn Warraq

“America's most informed, fearless, and compelling voice on modern jihadism.”
Andrew C. McCarthy, Senior Fellow at National Review Institute

“Robert Spencer is the leading voice of scholarship and reason in a world gone mad. If the West is to be saved, we will owe Robert Spencer an incalculable debt.”
Pamela Geller, Atlas Shrugs

"The consummate Islam critic and expert." — Bruce Bawer

“Over the years, we have become friends, and I have received his assistance on several pieces of legislation I proposed.”
Former Congressman Tom Tancredo

“Few people are capable of applying scholarship, analytical reasoning, and objectivity to their topic -- while simultaneously being readable and witty -- as can Robert Spencer.”
Raymond Ibrahim

“A national treasure...The acclaimed scholar of Islam.”
Frank Gaffney, Center for Security Policy

“I am indeed honored to call him my friend.”
Brad Thor, novelist

“A top American analyst of Islam....A serious scholar...I learn from him.”
Daniel Pipes

“A brilliant scholar and writer.”
Douglas Murray

"One of my best teachers."
Ashraf Ramelah, Voice of the Copts

“Thank God there’s at least one man with balls left in the West.”
Kathy Shaidle, Five Feet of Fury

“I read people like [Mark Steyn] and Bob Spencer and the rest of them, and I say, ‘Boortz, you’re pretending you’re an author. These people really are. They really write some entertaining, some standup stuff.’”
Neal Boortz

“Robert Spencer is the Stephen King of Jihad.”
Chris Gaubatz, Muslim Mafia

“Armed with facts and fearlessness, Spencer stands up for Western civilization.”
Michelle Malkin

“Widely read in conservative foreign policy circles.”
New York Times

“Widely read in many quarters in Washington.”
Washington Post

“A canny operative who likely has the inside track on the State Department’s Middle East affairs desk should the tea party win the White House.”
New York Magazine

“A hero of the American right.”
Karen Armstrong

"The leading anti-Islamic intellectual in the United States....The go-to Islam expert for the right wing."
Salon Magazine

“Robert Spencer is an Edward Said turned upside down.”
Stephen Suleyman Schwartz

“One of the nation's most notorious Islamophobes.”
Hamas-linked CAIR

"Geller and Spencer are probably the most important propagandizing Islamophobes in the world. These people's voices speak very loudly — not just here in the United States but overseas."
Heidi Beirach, Southern Poverty Law Center

“Satanic ignoramus.”
Khaleel Mohammed

“The Likud anti-Christ.”
Dar al-Hayat newspaper (Saudi Arabia)

“Zionist Crusader, missionary of hate, counter-Islam consultant.”
Al-Qaeda’s Adam Gadahn, “Azzam the American”



Follow me on Twitter
facebook islam
RSS feed

Monthly Archives



Donate
Jihad Watch is a 501 (c) 3 organization. Donations are tax-deductible.


Robert Spencer debates on The Quran Teaches WarVideo: Robert Spencer on CPAC Breitbart News
Crucified Again by Raymond Ibrahim
SIOAFreedom Defense InitiativeJihad Watch VideosAmerican Freedom Law Center
Note: Listing here does not imply endorsement of every view expressed at every linked site.

» ACT for America
» Always on Watch
» American Center for Democracy
» American Coptic Association
» American Council for Kosovo
» American Freedom Alliance
» American Freedom Law Center
» American Islamic Forum for Democracy
» American Sheepdogs
» American Thinker
» Americans Against Hate
» Americans for Legal Immigration
» Amerisrael
» Amillennialist Contra Mundum
» Annaqed
» A New Dark Age Is Dawning
» Answering Islam
» Answering Muslims
» Anti-CAIR
» Apostates of Islam
» Aramaic Broadcasting Network (ABN)
» Armies of Liberation
» Assyrian International News Agency
» Atlas Shrugs
» Atour — The State of Assyria
» Australian Islamist Monitor
» Biafra Nation
» Blazing Cat Fur
» Bosch Fawstin
» Brad Thor
» Brussels Journal
» CAIR Watch
» Campus Watch
» Caroline Glick
» Christians Under Attack
» Citizen Warrior
» Coalition for the Defense of Human Rights
» Conservative Nation News
» Copts.com
» Creeping Sharia
» Daniel Pipes
» David Horowitz Freedom Center
» The David Project
» David Thompson
» David Yerushalmi Law
» D. C. Watson
» Dearborn Underground
» DEBKAfile
» Dhimmitude.org
» Dry Bones
» Ellis Washington Report
» Europe News
» Eye On Islam
» Ezra Levant
» Faith Freedom International
» Father Zakaria
» Federale
» Five Feet of Fury
» Foundation for Democracy in Iran
» Free Congress Foundation
» The Free Copts
» Freedom Defense Initiative
» FrontPage Magazine.com
» Geert Wilders
» Genocide1915.info
» Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center
» History of Jihad
» Hizb ut-Tahrir Watch
» Honest Reporting
» Honor Killings
» Human Rights Congress for Bangladesh Minorities
» India Defence
» Infidel Blogger’s Alliance
» Infidels Are Cool
» The Intelligence Summit
» International Analyst Network
» International Free Press Society
» Internet Haganah
» The Investigative Project on Terrorism
» IOwnTheWorld.com
» IranPressNews
» Iran va Jahan
» Islam Review
» Islam Speaks
» Islam Versus Europe
» Islam Watch
» Islamic Terrorism in India
» Islamist Watch — Middle East Forum
» Israel Matzav
» JihadOnBuddhists.org
» Kejda Gjermani
» KRSI: Radio Sedaye Iran
» Liberated
» Logan's Warning
» Looking At the Left
» Mahdi Watch
» Mapping Sharia
» Mark Steyn
» Martin Kramer
» MEMRI TV
» Middle East Facts
» Middle East Quarterly
» Middle-East-Info.org
» Middle East Media Research Institute
» Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA)
» Militant Islam Monitor
» Morning Star
» Muhammad Tube
» The Muslim Issue
» Muslim World Today
» Myths and Facts
» National Vietnam & Gulf War Veterans Coalition
» NewsReal Blog
» No Mosques At Ground Zero
» Nonie Darwish
» Northeast Intelligence Network
» Occidental Jihadist
» One Jerusalem
» Open Speech
» Operation Give
» Operation Gratitude
» Organiser
» Orwellian Culture
» Palestinian Media Watch
» PamelaGeller.com
» Panun Kashmir
» Pedestrian Infidel
» The People's Cube
» The People of the Book
» Persecution Project
» Political Islam
» Politically Incorrect
» Politiskt Inkorrekt
» Q Society of Australia
» Radio Farda
» Radio Jihad
» RAWA: Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan
» Raymond Ibrahim
» Red Alerts
» Refugee Resettlement Watch
» Religion of Peace
» Republican Riot
» Reuters Middle East Watch
» The “Reverend” Jim Sutter
» SANE: Society of Americans for National Existence
» The Second Draft
» Shire Network News
» SITE Intelligence Group
» Small Wars Journal
» Smoke-Filled World
» The Snooper Report
» Snow Report Blog
» StandWithUs
» Steve Lackner
» The Stiletto Blog
» STOP! Honour Killings
» Sultan Knish
» Tell the Children the Truth
» Terrorism Awareness Project
» Theodore’s World
» Tom Gross Media
» Translating Jihad
» Una via per Oriana
» Undaunted
» United States Central Command
» Urban Infidel
» Walid Shoebat
» Winds of Jihad
» Women Against Shariah
» World Council for the Cedars Revolution
» Yid With Lid
» Z Street
» Zilla of the Resistance
» Zionist Conspiracy
David LittmanOriana Fallaci Thousands of Deadly Terror Attacks Since 9/11The incredible Reza Aslan automated insult generator! iGoogle Gadget
Site Meter