Anwar al-Awlaki, the American Terrorist Is Dead and the Liberals Are Complaining - Why?
The Enemy We Are At War With
2012 Presidential Candidate Is Upset With Obama For Killing a Terrorist
REPRESENTATIVE RON PAUL, the Conservative-Libertarian 2012 Presidential candidate, took President Obama to task today, September 30, 2011, for ordering the killing of terrorist mastermind Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen. Joined by the ACLU, an organization I generally respect, and passel of liberals, Ron Paul expressed how upset he was that Obama killed an American without benefit of being brought back to America, charged, and tried. His preference, it would seem, is to let al-Awlaki finally succeed in killing Americans, also without benefit of due process, while DoD and the State Department tries to figure out how to invade Yemen in order to capture him alive.
Paul terms the killing of the al Qaeda cleric an "assassination"; he says "no one knows that he killed anyone". The ACLU says the action was against U.S. and International law; they said "As we've seen today, this is a program under which American citizens far from any battlefield can be executed by their own government without judicial process, and on the basis of standards and evidence that are kept secret not just from the public but from the courts," I am amazed they take this position.
These positions of Representative Paul and the ACLU would have merit if America was not effectively at war with international terrorism. But America is at war with terrorism and al-Awlaki publicly turned against the United States and joined the enemy; that makes him, by any definition, a traitor; it also makes him a legitimate target.
Let's assume, for the moment, that al-Awlaki, without denouncing his U.S. citizenship, showed up at the side of Adolf Hitler II where he publicly stated he believed in Hitler's message and will work diligently against the United States to ensure our defeat. He sets out to do that by training German agents, better than anyone else, to infiltrate America to do us harm. Now, given this scenario, U.S. Representative Ron Paul and the ACLU would argue that we must leave al-Awlaki alone and not try to kill him simply because he is an American and hasn't had his due process.
I serious doubt Paul or the ACLU would actually oppose the killing of al-Awlaki in these circumstances so why would they in the current situation in Yemen. If there is anybody from the ACLU reading this hub, please leave a comment as to whether my assumption is correct or not.
I am one of the strongest supporters there is in America of individual liberties and rights; so much so that many Conservatives yell at me about it. There is, however, a line that can be crossed when an individual loses their ability to claim those rights; for me, that line is when they declare war on America, which al-Awlaki did, and when they join the forces of those who have declared and/or are perpetrating war on America, which al-Awlaki also did. Anwar al-Awlaki forfeited his rights to any protection of American law when he made war on America.
The liberals need to understand this. Al-Awlaki was no longer an American, he effectively renounced his citizenship when he voluntarily joined al-Qaeda and he publicly declared war on America. President Obama had every right to take out a man who was doing everything in his power to take out America.
More by this Author
Conservatives flooded the airwaves with messages of doom-and-gloom over how bad PBO has done when compared to ... just about everything. Real data, however, tells you a completely different story.
PBO was elected twice now; people liked what they saw the first time. With the 2014 Midterms upon us, how done since? This hub reviews many of President Obama's major accomplishments, one-by-one.
When I say "Freeloading", that is of course, sarcasm: only a small percentage of those drawing welfare are actually freeloading although Conservatives would have you believe it is 100%.