There
are many things for which President Obama will be held accountable in the 2012
election. He initiated, approved of and presided over many decisions which have
been and will be injurious to the economy of this country and it's security.
The citizenry of this nation have never felt so exposed and unsure. Because of those decisions, the
future hope of this country, on many levels and without definitive course correction is bleak.
The
killing of Anwar Al-Awlaki however, was not one of those decisions.
A
few voices are beginning to ring out in dissension over Awlaki's being
vaporized by US Predator drones last week which is astounding on many levels. I fully expect some knuckle-head to recommend a statue to this guy at ground zero any time now. The only legitimate argument against his killing is that he was born on
American soil. However, being born on American soil does not guarantee ones
actions or words will be in concert with the goals, aspirations and vision of
either the Founding Fathers or the US Constitution they ratified in 1789.
While
I agree that the first amendment guarantees freedom of speech, there are
certainly legal statutes which limit our behavior as it affects the lives and
well-being of fellow Americans. Awlaki broached that line with the temperament of
an Islamic zealot having actively participated in renouncing the United States,
United States citizenry, the US Constitution by his adherence to the doctrines
of Islam and his repeated calls for Jihad against the United States.
Anyone
not fully understanding the ramifications of that call, needs to "tune
up" their understanding of the doctrines of the "religion of
peace" and do a little research on this character in particular. By
actively calling for volunteers to take up arms against the United States, he
challenged the sovereignty of the US - through rhetoric and physical threat,
effectively denouncing his citizenship! By definition he is a traitor! If
nothing else resonates with those who agree with those dissenting voices, you should know that Awlaki looked forward to his own death by taking on the mantle of
a Jihadist.
Would
any of this stand up in a court of law? I don't know. What I do know is legal
decisions have a lot more to do with influence, ideology and money than they do
right and wrong..
Ron
Paul saw fit to condemn the killing as "denying" an "American" his constitutional
rights. Of course, once again, a dissenter is doing so from a comfortable environment while wearing the costume of a businessman rather than the uniform of a
combatant who is sworn to the defense of that same Constitution. Mr. Paul might want
to consider the fact that the former reprobate known as Al Awlaki was calling
for the killing of American citizens and was, at least by proxy, responsible
for the killing of Americans - from foreign soil, thereby effectively denying
them their Constitutional rights.
He
might also want to consider using his rhetorical skills to speak for those who
have willingly suspended their rights so he can exercise his to defend the
indefensible. For all of his supposed libertarian posturing, I have yet to hear
much from the good Congressman about the plight of American Warriors unduly
exposed by the insanity of COIN in an environment as naturally hostile to
Americans as the Serengeti to a rabbit.
While he may find these wars - or all
wars personally offensive, he should never-the-less be showing at least a
little more concern for the American Serviceman already in harm's way than he
does humanity in general and this
because he dares suggest to be the right man for the Office of President of the
United States.
He
can argue for the Constitutional rights of the indefensible, the right to life
for the ideological murderers of the world and the legality of wars big and
small from now until the Second Coming, BUT; his first loyalty in this narrow
discussion should be to the American Serviceman in harm's way. Instead, he
speaks to NPR, the Christian Science Monitor, various domestic and foreign news
agencies and anyone else who will listen as he castigates the decision makers involved
in the killing of a man who intentionally separated himself from American
society and then planned, plotted and carried out the killing of American
citizens through his ideological laity!
In this
piece, he tries to compare the actions and ideology of Awlaki with that of
Timothy McVeigh. Again; it is astounding that someone could not understand the
difference between one man and his friend acting out of anger, frustration and
probably insanity - on American soil and the actions of an ideological leader
of a faction dedicated to the perpetual death and destruction of everything
that disagrees with them.
There
simply is no comparison.
While
Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols committed a single act of multiple murder and
the destruction of a federal building on American soil, Awlaki joined a
religiously motivated militant movement. This movement is destined to force the
entire world into submission or destroy it in the process. Awlaki's decision in
joining that movement and his follow-on actions made him an enemy of this
country while McVeigh's and Nichols' actions made them uncommon criminals.
Muddying
the waters with political tripe is not helpful. Attempting to demonize a
government agency or individual for the killing a self defined enemy of this
nation is unconscionable. It is an especially deplorable act when that agency
is already forced to balance acts of security with the perverted need to not
"offend", the offensive zealots of the world.
It
looks like we are at yet another crossroad; are we willing to hold these
ideological murderers accountable or are we now preparing to lay down our arms
and submit to Allah?
Semper
Fidelis;
John
Bernard
