I don't say he didn't deserve to die... we all do, and toward that end we are all traveling... but, whether you like it or not, Anwar al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen denied due process... assassinated by his government.
If the U.S. government can force its citizens to buy a product it does not want or face fines and penalties, then we have ceased to be a republic governed by rule of law. If the U.S. government can target and obliterate any specific individual via hellfire missile (or by any means), then we have ceased to be a republic governed by rule of law.
I do not lament the passing of al-Awlaki, but I do lament the passing of America.
It is the height of hypocrisy for an administration to criticize its predecessors for violating the constitution in the defense of this nation after the events of 9/11, and then violate the very same document by telling every American it has to buy medical insurance of face financial penalties... by trying, convicting, and executing an American citizen without due process.
I used to fear someone would target and kill our president; that would be a great disaster for this nation. But now I see that my fear was misplaced. I should have feared for America.
Monday, October 3, 2011
11 comments:
Your First Amendment right to free speech is a privilege and comes with a measure of responsibility. You have the right to exercise that responsibility here but we reserve the right to inform you when you've used that right irresponsibly.
We are benevolent dictators in this regard. Enjoy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"If the U.S. government can force its citizens to buy a product it does not want or face fines and penalties, then we have ceased to be a republic governed by rule of law."
ReplyDeleteThis is on the way to the Supreme Court. If they say it can, that is the rule of law.
"trying, convicting, and executing an American citizen without due process."
al-Awlaki was an active and potent enemy of the United States. He was not living in a place where he could be afforded "due process" without military "boots on the ground" incursion. American citizens are killed by law enforcement every day when the safety of other citizens is at play and it is impossible or impractical to take the perpetrator into custody.
Let me traslate what Jim just said.
ReplyDelete"Its ok if Obama kills whoever he wants, but if Bush captures and interrogates people its the end of America as we know it"
I support the killing of this guy, our rights only extend to our borders (I think). It would have made far more sense to capture him to find out what he knows but I guess that would have been "in-humane". Obama however, is the a huge hypocrite for criticizing Bush.
The guy lost his citizenship when he decided to commit high treason against the people of the United States. He was an enemy, which negates any American citizenship he might have claimed, though I suspect, he no longer considered himself a citizen.
ReplyDeleteSic semper tyrannis.
And how, pray tell, did he lose his citizenship? Was there a hearing? a trial? military tribunal? ad hoc committee?
ReplyDeleteWhere is it stated in the laws of this country that simply by combating the government and people of this nation your citizenship is instantly forfeited?
What about Bill Ayers? He's still an American. He didn't lose his citizenship. But then he's of Anglo descent, not Arabic. He's "christian" not Muslim.
The law has to work for EVERYBODY or they're not laws at all. They have to work for EVERYBODY or we do not live in a just society. They have to work for EVERYBODY or the Constitution truly is a worthless piece of paper.
I'm saying he forfeited his citizenship by voluntarily committing treason against this country, if he didn't renounce it when he decided to move to Yemen. And, by the way, Treason is punishable by death.
ReplyDeleteTreason is only punishable by death AFTER trial and conviction. I don't recall any judicial body trying al-Awlaki of anything. Furthermore, committing treason does not mean ones citizenship is thereby forfeited.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you in that he deserved what he got. But if we're going to insist that this country return to the constitution as the source of our primary guiding principles (especially after what we've seen has become of this nation as a result of ignoring the constitution) then we have to treat everyone fairly, and lawfully... no matter who they are, or what they've done.
How can we, in one breath, say America needs to hearken back to the constitution, while in another, deny an American (albeit a terrorist for al-Qaeda) their constitutional right of due process? I mean, the Left has been screaming for the better part of the last decade about the lack of due process shown to detainees at Guantanamo... and yet, the Right, in supporting the strike that killed al-Awlaki, is proving to be everything the Left claimed it was during the Bush years.
We can't pick and choose which parts of the constitution we're going to support or toss aside. As an American, al-Awlaki deserved due process. And Jim's declaration....
"American citizens are killed by law enforcement every day when the safety of other citizens is at play and it is impossible or impractical to take the perpetrator into custody."
...is just another "straw man." There were no other U.S. citizens in play forcing law enforcement (military assets) to consider the possibilities or impracticalities of taking the man alive. What the government did-- just like at Ruby Ridge, and the Branch Davidian Compound --was take the law into its own hands, the constitution be damned, because it knew no majority of Americans would cry foul.
Beware the government which feels it can bend or break the laws of its nation and suffer no penalty. Isn't that where we're at now, in America? Isn't this why Obamacare has finally made it to the Supreme Court? Government run-amok?
So what were we going to do, ELA? Let him sit there in Yemen, building bombs, teaching terrorist tactics, hatching plots and recruiting terrorists, or invade Yemen, capture him alive and bring him home? I guess we could have sent him an indictment, invited him to send us a lawyer, have a trial and then either take him out or let him carry on depending on the verdict.
ReplyDeleteYour contempt for the rule of law is palpable. And it's that same contempt which infects your intellect toward everything else that's gone wrong in this country.
ReplyDeleteHere it is in a nutshell... you want what you feel to be fair and right, even if it breaks the law to gain it. You only respect the constitution of this country when it makes you feel good to do so. What's the point in having laws if you can pick and choose which to obey, and which to toss aside as inconvenient?
ReplyDeleteActually, Eric, and I thought I had posted this sentiment here already (apparently not), but I don't believe whackin' this loser is constitutionally problematic as we are at war with people like him. That he happens to be an American citizen is not much of an issue if he is involved with the enemy against us. He is one of them and I would say that if he was on American soil, and his whereabouts were known, then an arrest would be more appropriate. But as he is not, he is just another target and his demise is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI'm with you 100% on this one Marshall.
ReplyDelete