This morning we received news that Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a CIA drone in
Already there are those who are condemning this act of justice as a violation of Awlaki’s American civil rights. They argue that he should have been tried for treason and brought to justice that way.
I agree, if he had been arrested. In fact all traitors are, like any other citizen afforded the rights to trial by jury. That is a good thing.
So, if this is the case, how can I support the work of David Petraeus and the CIA?
Despite the fact that Awlaki was a
Awlaki was targeted by the CIA because he was an enemy combatant in a war. And congress authorized this conflict against the organization Al-Qaeda.
Whether you agree with the War on Terror, there are battles and casualties. This man should have (and likely would have) received a proper trial if he was arrested. He would have been charged for high treason. But he put himself into the war as an enemy combatant.
It is not a constitutional crisis. He put himself there, and died on a battlefield of this strange war.
All involved in this small victory ought to be commended. (Except, of course Awlaki)
-Jeremiah Lorrig
Hm. The definition of a battlefield is a bit of an emerging concept in the war on terror. Terms of war are being redefined in the wake of Anonymous operations and Stuxnet, throwing in some interesting repercussions. But on this specific subject, I don't think you draw the analogy to an enemy combatant. He was not on the front lines at the time. "Strong evidence of involvement in terrorist activities" is very different from enemy combatant, and is not sufficient for abrogation of the rights of a U.S. citizen.
ReplyDeleteBecause there is a whole different game when we're talking about American citizens. This is just bad precedent. I'm not comfortable with a government that can execute me if it thinks I'm involved with a terrorist group. If I got a gun and am charging at them screaming "allah akbar!' then fine, but that's not what this guy was doing.