I usually try to avoid writing about things until I've thought through what I think and why I think it, but a few days after Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in Yemen, I'm still thinking. I'm not ready to write something and put a "DONE" stamp on it.
Here's the thing... I don't have a problem with the U.S. military going after someone who committed acts of war against this country. As I wrote when Osama bin Laden was finally killed back in May, the world has changed to the point where our enemies aren't capable of signing treaties, so what other recourse do we have? But I also generally favor treating terrorism as a criminal matter than a military one. And in this case, both of the men killed were U.S. citizens.
I hear the people who don't like the idea of unilateral action against U.S. citizens without due process, and I respect where they're coming from. I understand the slippery slope argument. And I'm fine with drawing a line to make sure that, in the future, the U.S. military isn't used against Americans who honestly dissent from the current government. No one wants that... which is why there is already a law against using the military for law enforcement on U.S. soil.
Despite the rhetoric of people on the political extremes, this is still a country where our legal processes work most of the time.
So, where do we draw that line? How about this? When an natural-born American citizen living in a foreign country that's a haven for terrorists, who publicly admits that he's recruiting for a terrorist organization whose stated mission is overthrowing modern Western society, and/or self-labels as a "traitor to America," I think it's ok to take him out.
Yes, I understand the legal issues, and I look forward to reading about them when Constitutional scholars get around to arguing them. But I'm going to sleep alright tonight.
No comments:
Post a Comment