With the recent killing of Anwar al-Aulaqi controversy is growing over the morals of killing a US citizen. Aulaqi was born in New Mexico to Yemeni parents. The family returned to Yemen when he was 7...enough of his life history.
Aulaqi is believed to have been behind:
- The Fort Hood Shooting in Nov. 2009
- The following month the attempted bombing of an airliner bound for Detroit by a Nigerian student
- The Pakistani-American man who tried to set off a car bomb in New York City in May of 2010.
According to the Washington post "In April 2010, the Obama administration authorized his targeted killing. Aulaqi had been the target of previous U.S. strikes and was quoted as laughing off an attempt to kill him in May."
As a fluent speaker of English and Arabic, and a savvy user of Web sites,
Aulaqi was able to gather a following online and radicalize Muslims he had never met,
earning him a reputation as “the bin Laden of the Internet,” U.S. officials said.
The Free World should be rejoicing the death of a person who clearly wants to destroy the Western World, instead many are disputing the judgement of Obama and the legality of targeting a US citizen.
I have read and heard such comments as:
- He whacked a US citizen in cold blood. End of story.
- But they did not even try to arrest him. It was a government assassination of an American.
- Andrew Sullivan of the Daily Beast said, : "My own position is that we are at war, and that avowed enemies and traitors in active warfare against the US cannot suddenly invoke legal protections from a society they have decided to help destroy."
Ron Paul calls it an assassination. "He was born here, Al-Awlaki was born here, he is an American citizen. He was never tried or charged for any crimes. No one knows if he killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the underwear bomber. But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys, I think it's sad."
Members of the Fox News Sunday panel with Chris Wallace had the following to say:
- Bill Kristol argued that while it’s hard to issue someone a warrant when they’re hiding out in Yemen, the main reason the killing was justified is that al-Awlaki proudly boasted of his anti-American reactions and his responsibility in the deaths of U.S. citizens.
- Juan Williams highlighted the comments made by Ron Paul on the issue and the notion it was a violation of al-Awlaki’s Fifth Amendment rights, but he ultimately sided with Kristol and agreed Obama made the right decision in this circumstance.
- Mara Liasson did not seem to take any sides, but did point out that aside from Ron Paul, Dennis Kucinich, and the ACLU, no one from either party seems to have an objection to the president’s actions.
Despite all the bickering over the moral ethics, I do believe everyone agrees the world is a much safer place due to his death. I personally believe he denounced his citizenship and loyalty to our Country many years ago.
Known as the Bin Laden of the Internet, he organized, recruited and brainwashed followers to do the dirty work for Al-Qaeda. I think he played a huge role in world wide terrorism. His goal was to kill all Westerners and we're supposed to pity him for the way his death occurred and question the legality of killing a self confessed terrorist!
Perhaps...only perhaps the killing of Bin Laden and Aulaqi are the only things Obama has done right.
The bastard was given the opportunity to turn himself in and have a trial, but he just laughed it off. Anyone who can publicly declare that America is Evil and make threats on our Country is NOT a United States citizen! I am ashamed that anyone would even considers him a citizen of this Great Country or be given privileges entitle to citizens.
The Fifth Amendment appears to be what is legally challenging the Morals of this action.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be
twice put in jeopardy of life or limb;
nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
We are at war with Al-Qaeda and all terrorists so legal action was not necessary to take this person out. The Fifth Amendment does NOT apply to Aulaqi.
As Anwar al-Aulaqi was born here, he is considered a citizen. I believe that when a person acts on the views of a terrorist he is a TRAITOR and should be abolished from this Country...permanently! He is not entitled to the benefits of our judiciary system!
What do you think,
should he have been given a Civil or a Military Trial or just taken out?
TeaPartyDeanie
