http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-is-killed-in-yemen.html?scp=8&sq=awlaki&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/world/middleeast/secret-us-memo-made-legal-case-to-kill-a-citizen.html?scp=1&sq=awlaki&st=cse
Anwar al-Alwaki was a American citizen born in New Mexico to a Yemeni family. Earlier this month he was executed in Yemen for his ties with Al-Qaeda. For several years, he has had ties to the terrorist organization, rising from a religious leader just giving anti-American sermons to actively recruiting people for terrorist activities. He was executed in Yemen a couple weeks ago, gunned down by a drone in a covert operation.
The "secret memo" discussed in the second news article outlines the justification for his assassination. Basically, it weedles its way through every law against killing people. For example: it's lawful to kill him if his capture is not feasible; it was covered by a movement of congress to use force against Al-Qaeda; it wasn't "murder" because we're at war; it wasn't prohibited by the executive order against assasinations because that was specifically for political leaders outside of war, not a person during an armed conflict. It didn't matter so much that Yemen is no where near Afghanistan, or that another U.S. citizen was killed at the same time, or that it was CIA, not a uniformed soldier, that pulled the trigger.
I agree that Mr. Alwaki was a person of interest in the war on terror, but I do not in any way agree with how America handled it. There is such a thing as "taking the high road" even in time of war. Even if by digging around and finding all the loopholes it was technically legal, it was not the right thing to do. At that point, why make the laws in the first place, if we're just going to find a way around them?
This is just straight up politics. They know what they did crosses over into a really gray area, and now they're just trying to cover it up with a flimsy justification that barely works. I agree with your opinion on this, and really do think that they should've brought him in for a trial. Though he was a traitor, he was still a U.S. citizen; and by skirting around our laws to kill him, our finest politicians aren't setting a great example.
ReplyDeleteThe United States has been making and breaking laws for a very long time when its national security comes into question. From the Japanese Internment camps, to Guantanamo Bay, to wiretapping without a warrant after 9/11, it's very hard to decide which of these are necessary AS they are happening, because the issue that is being coped with isn't going to present every detail of itself. Although I believe the US has definitely acted outside of it's appropriate boundaries, I think this is a rather small hiccup compared to what it has done in the past. Another example is the Bay of Pigs.
ReplyDeleteAwlaki's killing was totally justified, as was that of the other American with him- a known al- Qaeda collaborator. Awlaki planned and participated in the execution of several attacks on American soil. Though most failed, he was a major player in causing the Ft. Hood shootings. He is, therefore, a traitor (in assisting a group that has declared war on America); a charge that carries the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteHis killing is further justified in that the Yemeni security forces are too inept to deal with a complicated snatch operation. Flying in our own troops (and finding him again) would have caused an even greater outcry from the Yemeni public. In the time it would have taken to find him again, plan an assault, and execute a snatch he could full well have initiated another attack. Ergo, his death was the most expedient and effective way of taking him off the board. Americans have killed Amerikan men recruited by the taliban in Afghanistan: how is this any different?