Let's start off by saying I'm not sorry Anwar al-Awlaki is dead. If he is the man our government says he is well so be it. He was treasonous beyond treason, inspiring and encouraging Jihad against the U.S. Live by the sword die by the sword though he never actually took up the sword. However, here are a few things that I find troubling. First off he is, regardless of whether he has renounced his citizenship publicly, still an American citizen and as all Americans are entitled to certain civil rights such as a trial before being executed. And it's not like he was here in the U.S. cornered and surrounded by police and agents and fighting back. He was in a country that is in the Middle East and one that has a suspect government and may be control center for Al Qaeda operatives who no doubt couldn't exist without support from either some of the citizens or parts of the government. So is it one man we are out to eliminate or a network of corruption and murder? He was in a foreign country and taken out by a drone.
Another problem is why trumpet the fact that it was our operatives via drone who did him in? Why not keep it a secret? Why not keep a network of murderers in the dark as to what could happen to them. Obviously we have the technology and the on the ground ability to "take out" individuals. Osama Bin Laden is a good example. It may have taken 10 years but it was done. But he also wasn't an American citizen and he had taken responsibility for the most murderous act in recent history that took place on U.S. soil. So execution without trial is just as it should be. But even better would have been keeping everyone in the dark about what was done. "It has been reported in such a such newspaper that Osama Bin Laden has been killed. And there are witnesses to the corpse."
Al-Awlaki's crime was stirring up trouble but he could never be linked to anything that caused any kind of destruction except to the pathetic individual who blew up his own balls and even that is suspect since the terrorist never claimed a link. Nor did the terrorist in the Fort Hood shooting claim anything more than inspiration. In fact al-Awlaki was never officially charged with any crime at all by the U.S. So a man who has the protection of the first amendment suddenly can be executed for exercising that right. Even if it was done from overseas, it's no more than a crime punishable by a few years in a federal pen. Even Mildred Gillars, Axis Sally, was released from prison after 11 years. . .and let us not forget the story of Ezra Pound.
And what of Terry Jones? What of any number of loudmouths like Rush Limbaugh and other media loonies who inspire murder and mayhem in the U.S.though they may not say so directly against liberals, blacks, gays, etc. What of the Neo-Nazi movement? Would Jared Laughner gone out of his way to start a mass shooting in a parking lot where he knew a U.S. congresswoman would be? Why aren't the loudmouths ever indicted for anything? Because what they say is protected speech. Even if it was treasonous, they as I said before would serve a brief sentence if anything.
No I'm not pleased that Obama had to trumpet this because it's political on his part. (Also the trial of the pathetic underwear bomber is coming up.) It's political because Obama's numbers are in the tank, the recession is growing ugly again, the war in Afghanistan is clearly a lost cause, and he needs to look like a tough guy on foreign policy because none of his opponents will have that kind of experience and he will be banking on that in the next election. Well he's just given me one more reason for not voting next year. Obama supported by many in and outside government is playing fast and loose with the U.S. Constitution. How much further along will we have to go with this precedent? What happens with this precedent if we end up with a right wing thug in the executive branch citing this precedent? What happens when the next people they go after are here in the U.S. arguing against the violation of civil rights? Will it happen? Who knows. Best to keep a low profile.
