Anwar al-Awlaki, why the debate?

On September 30, 2011 inside of Yemen, a convoy was targeted by a predator drone; it fired a missile and successfully hit its target.Prior to targeting, intelligence sources put Anwar al-Awlaki as possibly being among the occupants. Shortly after the strike, it was confirmed Awlaki was indeed killed.

While the many rejoiced to the news, there was not total joy in Mudville that day. It seems a number of liberals and one Republican Candidate seems a little angry. They believe this is a sad day indeed, that America is in the wrong.

What are the upset about? We just took out the current head of an organization we are at war with.It is their beliefs we violated Awlaki’s civil rights. Now after you pick your jaw off the floor from the disbelief of their statement, let me explain why they think this.It is their contention Awlaki is a US citizen and therefore has all the rights of a US citizen. Awlaki is the son of two Yemeni immigrants attending college. He was born in Nevada and therefore is afford the right of dual citizenship with the United States and Yemen. So they believe that a death sentence was imposed without a civil trial. They are appalled that this terrorist was on a hit list without his day in court.

Since he is an American citizen, was he entitled to his rights as a US citizen? The answer is no, and there are multiple reasons. The first and most obvious is because he was the enemy. Our forefathers were wise enough to know that an enemy is not just someone who was born in another country.Notice the wording of the oath taken of almost every important post in this country

Do you solemnly swear that you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that you will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that you take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that you will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which you are about to enter:

So the first thing that must be realized and accepted is that we have enemies here and abroad. And what makes them an enemy? A resolution or declaration of war. In this case there are two of them. The first was a declaration on the US. In February 1998, Osama bin Laden signed a fatwa, as the head of al-Qaeda, declaring war on the West and Israel, later in May of that same year al-Qaeda released a video declaring war on the United States and the West. After accumulation of acts of terror against the US culminating with the attack on the WTC, President Bush responded. On September 20, 2001, during a televised address to a joint session of congress, Bush launched the war on terror when he said, "Our 'war on terror' begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated." This address was after the passage of the formal resolution with the declaration of war on global terrorism, other call it an Authorization for Use of Military Force. It was passed on September 18, 2001. It Is public law 107-40(S.J. RES. 23) of the 107^th Congress

Due to Hubpages terms of service, posting laws or Non-copyrighted Government material is considered duplicate , click on the link below to read the actual law.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hj107-114

What was important in the law/resolution is that it specifically cited the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'. It was also specific in SEC.2 as its targets being " nations, organizations, or persons "

So the resolution for the use of force is quite clear on the reasons to use or take military action. That now only leaves the question, what qualifies him as the enemy? According to U.S. officials, he was a senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved with planning operations for the Islamist militant group Al-Qaeda. Upon the Death of Bin laden, Awlaki became the head of Al-Qaeda. But Awlaki had a long career d following in terrorism. He developed animosity towards the U.S. and became a proponent of Takifiri and Jihidi thinking. His fluency with English, his unabashed advocacy of jihad and mujahideen organizations, and his Web-savvy approaches were a powerful combination. During Awlaki’s collage days, he took numerous trips to Afghanistan and joined the Taliban. After joining, he rose through the ranks very quickly and was developing a strong Anti-American reputation. In 1998 and 1999, he served as Vice President for the Charitable Society for Social Welfare (CSSW) in San Diego. That charity was founded by Abdul Majeed Al-Zindani of Yemen, who has been designated by the U.S. government as a "Specially Designated Global Terrorist" who has worked with Osama bin Laden. During this time Awlaki changed his following from the Taliban and put his allegiance with Al-Qaeda. As was with the Taliban, Awlaki rose quickly in the Al-Qaeda organization, Awlaki was very impressed by Bin Laden, And Bin-Laden was so impressed with Awlaki that he was in Bin-Laden’s inner circle. It is even believed that Awlaki was in the top 5 of Al-Qaeda leaders. Over the years the FBI investigated Awlaki for running several groups in the US with very close ties to and raising funds as well as recruiting for Al-Qaeda. He came to power after he moved to Yemen. While there he was part of the planning of the Times Square Bomber, Richard Reed the shoe bomber, the Christmas underwear bomber, was very instrumental in the USS Cole bombing and more.Upon the death of Bin-Laden, Awlaki has moved into the lead position of Al-Qaeda. In the short time he was leader, he really stepped up planning, recruiting, and fund raising. Worked the internet and published a magazine spouting his propaganda. During the Years, there are many documented and recorded speeches or interviews calling for the destruction of the United States. He actively operated training camps and armed terrorists to meet that goal. With all this and much more, it is extremely clear that Awlaki was an enemy combatant, soldier, and leader in the war on terror. He was the General as it were. There is plenty of evidence showing Awlaki was an enemy on the field of battle and has been one for many years.

But even despite the all those facts there are those who say we should have arrested him and tried him. It must be because they do not understand the difference between a wartime terrorist, a domestic terrorist and a terror killing. A person that leads those onto the field of battle, directly or indirectly engage us, plots to or participates in said plot, in America or on foreign soil, all for the Jihad they are following is a terrorist. The jihad could be a dislike for us, a dislike of our policies, or as is most likely, a religious jihad. One that consistently follows or helps spread the word of the destruction of the United States because of their jihad belief. Awlaki fits that bill and then some.

Now just because one is against the US or some of its policies, does not qualify them to be a war time terrorist or a terrorist at all. Let’s face it, not every American likes every policy that comes out of Washington. But that does not a terrorist make. The ones that become radical over their point of view to the extent of committing violence then becomes a domestic terrorist. The best recent example of one that became so radical that he became a domestic terrorist is Timothy McVeigh. McVeigh, a militia movement sympathizer, sought revenge against the federal government for its handling of the Waco Siege, which had ended in the deaths of 76 people exactly two years earlier. He also hoped to inspire a revolt against what he considered to be a tyrannical federal government. McVeigh was capture and prosecuted in federal court for this act of domestic terrorism. If McVeigh would have been successful in creating a revolt, his actions would then have escalated to a war time terrorist.

Then there is the last one mentioned a terror killing/murder. The one that fits the bill for this one was David Koresh. Koresh was a lunatic that created a cult following called Branch Davidian religious sect. Koresh believed himself a prophet. His preaching’s of his prophecy of love we strongly interlaced with predictions of the end, how the outside did not believe as they did. Koresh also wanted to be God's tool and set up the Davidic kingdom in Jerusalem. At least until 1990, he believed the place of his martyrdom might be in Israel, but by 1991 he was convinced that his martyrdom would be in the United States. Instead of Israel, he said the prophecies of Daniel would be fulfilled in Waco and that the Mount Carmel Center was the Davidic kingdom. So Koresh brainwashed his followers to stay within the compound, to prepare for the day of martyrdom. Koresh with the aid of several other followers began amassing a military arsenal to prepare for the day in his vision. While the movement was not outgoing or show any attempts towards violence, the DOJ became very concerned when they discovered the amount of military hardware Koresh was amassing. DOJ claimed it made several attempts to work with Koresh. The 1993 raid by the U.S.Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Fire arms and the subsequent siege by the FBI ended with the burning of the Branch Davidian ranch outside of Waco, Texas. Koresh, 54 other adults and 21 children were found dead after the fire. This was not an act of wartime terrorism or even domestic terrorism. This was simply a murder based on terror, the terror of the apocalypse that Koresh convinced his followers was coming and that he made come true.

In wartime terrorism like in all wartimes, on the battlefield there are no rights afforded them by the country of their citizenship. If they are captured on the field of battle and have committed a crime, they are prosecuted by a military tribunal or international courts. For examples, Milosevic was prosecuted for wartime crimes in an international court. Many Germans after WWII were prosecuted in international court for their treatment of the Jews. Now that occurred on their soil but due to the nature of the crime, it was not prosecuted in Germany courts nor did those Germans have the rights afforded them as a German. There have been many crimes committed by our serviceman through the years. They do not have the rights afforded to them by traditional US courts. They have to face military tribunals or international courts as well. A Marine jet hit a cable supporting a cable car killing 20 civilians. An investigation showed the Pilot and crew were at fault. They were not prosecuted in an Italian court or in a US Federal court; they were prosecuted by court-martial in a military court. But the point is they pilot and crew even though they are American citizens, do not have those rights during military service. None of the servicemen prosecuted for the Abu Ghraib incident were read their rights and prosecuted in a federal court.

As you can see there are stark differences between many incidents and despite being a US citizen, you are not afforded your rights during wartime. Could you see the next field of battle, everyone drawing down, requesting Id, reading them their rights, bringing them to the US and give them a trial. I have a hard time seeing a car bomber pulling over when the police give chase, asking him to show his driver’s license, get out of the car, surrender, have his rights read to him and sent to jail at taxpayers’ expense. Sorry, war does not work like that. If one is captured, they are to be made a POW and treated as such. If there are crimes associated with their capture, the need to face a military tribunal or an international court. And sometimes traitors get killed.

American View© encourages comments. In brief:

1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. This blog and its contents are copyright © protected, all rights reserved