Tuesday, September 28, 2021
HomeRecommendedWas Al-Awlaki a Righteous Kill?

Was Al-Awlaki a Righteous Kill?

Last Friday, on September 30, Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born citizen-turned-terrorist, and Samil Khan, a naturalized American, were killed by a US drone strike in Yemen, on the orders of the President of the United States.

On Monday, in a very lively post, Rogue argued stating that we shouldn’t be gloating so much, as this “open and notorious” official sanction of the killing an American citizen sets a very bad precedent.  Some of our finest minds weighed in. Less than a week later, it’s still worth a re-read, including the comments, for the Constitution is clear:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,
unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury…

…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.

And there are no howevers, buts or on the-other-hands found in the 5th Amendment.

Rogue was also speaking to the fact that even as he sanctioned this killing, the President and his Attorney General have refused to make public the “finding” that is required to justify such a presidential action. Compared to the express language of the Constitution, we’d all like to know where else DOJ’s attorneys found their justification.

And that should have been the end of it.

Then Herman Cain stepped in it, sort of, so we need to revisit this.

Earlier in the year, May, when asked if tracking and killing al-Awlaki was the right thing to do, Herman said no, al-Awlaki is a citizen and such a killing would be illegal.

Then this past week he stated he supported the President’s decision.

A flip-flop, as the attached article suggests?

Well yes and no, for I think Cain was right on both accounts, but I’ll let him deal with that politically.

If, instead of Candidate Cain, a President Cain had been asked this question, he would have said the same thing Herman did say, that targeting an American citizen for assassination is illegal.

That is what American presidents are supposed to say.

But the real world sometimes gets in the way of legal niceties, for indeed, al-Awlaki was trying to kill Americans in massive numbers. The Christmas underwear bomber was to have taken down an airliner with 290 passengers. The Times Square bomber could have killed at least as many. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Ft Hood shooter killed over 30. al-Awlaki was no mere lone gunman whose face was on a Wanted poster.

If I could get a clear shot, I surely would not pass it up, especially with the recent memory of the clear shot Bill Clinton had on Osama bin Laden (not an American citizen) still fresh in my mind, result – 3000 deaths.

With the possible exception of Ron Paul, who would simply say that adherence to the Constitution sometimes comes at a cost, I can’t imagine an American president who would pass on the shot offered up to Barack Obama.

There was a time in America, not that long ago, that we all understood this. I can’t recall if 007 ever killed a British citizen or member of the Commonwealth, but I think he did. And for fifty years, the Free World approved. Most nations have officially sanctioned all sorts of assassinations, from the old KGB to the modern Mossad, and yes, our CIA. And a thousand times more in popular fiction since Ian Fleming.

The world still approves, only the world never knows…and that is why it approves.

And that’s the point.

Barack Obama, as a way to get political points, bragged to the world about the assassination of Osama bin Laden, and even went so far as to applaud the guys who carried it off. Two months ago, over 20 Navy SEALS were shot down over Wardak Province in Afghanistan, in a set-up, a trap, in part as retribution against the men who killed Bin Laden. Loose lips, Barack…

For reasons that are inexplicable to me, Obama publicly put out a hit on al-Awlaki through the CIA, based on an “legal finding” of dubious quality, and then, just like bin Laden, bragged about it, for what I can guess are the most tawdry and childish of reasons, up to and including telling the world “Yes, I do have a pair.”

We did not need to know al-Awlaki was dead. What we did need was for him to be dead. Al Qaeda would have been even far more inconvenienced had we left it up to them to announce to the world his departure. What we wanted and needed was for this mass murderer to be out of the game, and not an excuse to spike our Smurf football in the end zone.

For once, Ron Paul is right, Barack Obama should be impeached, only unlike Paul I can find three crimes there, not one. One against the Constitution, one against common sense, and one against the decorum of the Office.

And Herman Cain was also right.

This was an illegal kill.

It was also a righteous kill.

We just didn’t need to know about it.

 

 

 

 

vassarbushmills
Citizen With Bark On

11 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

11 COMMENTS

  1. Totally agree Vassar. This would have been ever so much more ‘righteous’ without the bragging.
    Of course Obama had to brag because he’s got *nothing* else that could be counted as even vaguely positive about his so-called leadership.

  2. Obama can’t help himself. Everything is about him…and any credit that he can take – he will. This is a man who has no respect or affection for this country.

    These events, in his twisted Marxist mind, combined with his narcissistic personality disorder, are to make him look good and appear important.

  3. Good time to revise and extend.

    Obama’s bragging reminds of a child seeking approval for writing on the wall. Because it was a pretty picture.

    It is hard to work up an objection to al-Awlaki being dead cause him I don’t care about.

    As I said somewhere else, having him shot on a battlefield would never raise a concern. It is even possible in this case it was done properly. For example if they had hard intelligence of his actual and current involvement in operations, as they now imply.

    It’s that secret thing which really raises the flag. Add the premeditated months ago and individually targeted aspect and it becomes a Capo mafia kind of thing.

    Given that I am totally on board with the notion that Americans being killed for being on the wrong side of a battlefield; it’s also necessary to acknowledge the current battlefield is unconventional.
    Meaning he MAY well have been killed on the battlefield.

    If our intelligence services were monitoring a group discussing, with intent, plans to attack the US or our assets and we hit them with a Predator all that can be said is good job guys. If they find a few fingers and an American passport so what?

    But again that secret thing. Now we find there is a secret panel that recommends Americans be put on the hit list. https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005

    And everything about how the panel decides is a secret.
    It’s like the TSA no-fly list. You don’t know how you got on it or how to get off of it. We know 2 year olds and congressmen are on the no-fly list and we have to assume the level of competence in determining the kill list is about the same. Maybe worse. According to the Reuters report the decisions are made by “senior” officials. So political appointees are deciding which Americans get put on the kill list.

    So yes, if the CIA is privy to an overseas conversation where plans are being laid to kill Americans and capture isn’t feasible, they take care of the problem and keep their mouth shut. President might not even be aware of it. Even the capture isn’t feasible aspect means don’t risk your life.

    Having Americans placed on a hit list by political appointees? I just can’t go along with that.

    For the guys who actually pulled the intelligence and did the job Kudos.

    For the President who authorized it? Impeachment.

    • President might not even be aware of it.

      In 99.9% of examples, he isn’t aware of it. Usually the decision is made by people who can still employ the “easier to receive forgiveness than permission” rule. The President will be briefed on it, once the act is complete. Like Attorney General Holder, whether he decides to listen to the briefing or not depends on the President.

    • Yes, we have a child President. Hopefully voters will learn not to elect liberal community organizers, well, liberals. I have no problem with the secrecy. I want secrecy. Moreover, I am pretty sure that Al Awlaki’s public statements and actions clearly show that no matter where he is, its the battlefield.

      But even if all the above were not the fact and even if the AUMF and otehr Congressional acts did not or do not clearly cover this act, I would not deem this act “illegal” or outside the authority of the commander in chief. Our President must have this inherent power and the remedy is impeachment, purse strings, denial of re-election or punish the president’s party.

      Character matter in a President because they must have this power.

      But I don’t think there is any question that this action is righteous because of who we killed, no matter how childish Obama acts afterward.

  4. Still think we shouldn’t have done this one. Here’s why. It’s situational. Under exactly the same circumstances,same target, but change the President giving the “go” order. I would trust (though I might not never know of it) Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II to give the “go,” and not lose a wink of sleep. But there are some other Presidents **especially Obama** it troubles me greatly the thought of summary execution of a US citizen while overseas. Because I can’t say yes to them all, I think I have to say no. But no you don’t just let the scum go. This is when you ask your friends like the Mossad or MI6 for a favor. Yes, it’s done all the time, that’s what friends are for.

    • Al Awlaki is dead.
      …and that’s a good thing – Martha Stewart

      And its good that we did it and admitted same. The deterrent effect is better than farming it out, esp to Israel as that would continue to perpetuate the myth that Israel can do anything we can, as in take out Iran’s nuke program. They can’t. Only we can.

      Lincoln, Grant and Sherman had to kill lots of American citizens that waged war on America, much like Al Awlaki.

    • Yes, since Obama and the Left want to reject the inherent right of the Commander-in-Chief to kill anyone levying war against the United States, they are making up civil law as they go along.

  1. Totally agree Vassar. This would have been ever so much more ‘righteous’ without the bragging.
    Of course Obama had to brag because he’s got *nothing* else that could be counted as even vaguely positive about his so-called leadership.

  2. Obama can’t help himself. Everything is about him…and any credit that he can take – he will. This is a man who has no respect or affection for this country.

    These events, in his twisted Marxist mind, combined with his narcissistic personality disorder, are to make him look good and appear important.

  3. Good time to revise and extend.

    Obama’s bragging reminds of a child seeking approval for writing on the wall. Because it was a pretty picture.

    It is hard to work up an objection to al-Awlaki being dead cause him I don’t care about.

    As I said somewhere else, having him shot on a battlefield would never raise a concern. It is even possible in this case it was done properly. For example if they had hard intelligence of his actual and current involvement in operations, as they now imply.

    It’s that secret thing which really raises the flag. Add the premeditated months ago and individually targeted aspect and it becomes a Capo mafia kind of thing.

    Given that I am totally on board with the notion that Americans being killed for being on the wrong side of a battlefield; it’s also necessary to acknowledge the current battlefield is unconventional.
    Meaning he MAY well have been killed on the battlefield.

    If our intelligence services were monitoring a group discussing, with intent, plans to attack the US or our assets and we hit them with a Predator all that can be said is good job guys. If they find a few fingers and an American passport so what?

    But again that secret thing. Now we find there is a secret panel that recommends Americans be put on the hit list. https://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005

    And everything about how the panel decides is a secret.
    It’s like the TSA no-fly list. You don’t know how you got on it or how to get off of it. We know 2 year olds and congressmen are on the no-fly list and we have to assume the level of competence in determining the kill list is about the same. Maybe worse. According to the Reuters report the decisions are made by “senior” officials. So political appointees are deciding which Americans get put on the kill list.

    So yes, if the CIA is privy to an overseas conversation where plans are being laid to kill Americans and capture isn’t feasible, they take care of the problem and keep their mouth shut. President might not even be aware of it. Even the capture isn’t feasible aspect means don’t risk your life.

    Having Americans placed on a hit list by political appointees? I just can’t go along with that.

    For the guys who actually pulled the intelligence and did the job Kudos.

    For the President who authorized it? Impeachment.

    • President might not even be aware of it.

      In 99.9% of examples, he isn’t aware of it. Usually the decision is made by people who can still employ the “easier to receive forgiveness than permission” rule. The President will be briefed on it, once the act is complete. Like Attorney General Holder, whether he decides to listen to the briefing or not depends on the President.

    • Yes, we have a child President. Hopefully voters will learn not to elect liberal community organizers, well, liberals. I have no problem with the secrecy. I want secrecy. Moreover, I am pretty sure that Al Awlaki’s public statements and actions clearly show that no matter where he is, its the battlefield.

      But even if all the above were not the fact and even if the AUMF and otehr Congressional acts did not or do not clearly cover this act, I would not deem this act “illegal” or outside the authority of the commander in chief. Our President must have this inherent power and the remedy is impeachment, purse strings, denial of re-election or punish the president’s party.

      Character matter in a President because they must have this power.

      But I don’t think there is any question that this action is righteous because of who we killed, no matter how childish Obama acts afterward.

  4. Still think we shouldn’t have done this one. Here’s why. It’s situational. Under exactly the same circumstances,same target, but change the President giving the “go” order. I would trust (though I might not never know of it) Eisenhower, Kennedy, Ford, Reagan, Bush I and Bush II to give the “go,” and not lose a wink of sleep. But there are some other Presidents **especially Obama** it troubles me greatly the thought of summary execution of a US citizen while overseas. Because I can’t say yes to them all, I think I have to say no. But no you don’t just let the scum go. This is when you ask your friends like the Mossad or MI6 for a favor. Yes, it’s done all the time, that’s what friends are for.

    • Al Awlaki is dead.
      …and that’s a good thing – Martha Stewart

      And its good that we did it and admitted same. The deterrent effect is better than farming it out, esp to Israel as that would continue to perpetuate the myth that Israel can do anything we can, as in take out Iran’s nuke program. They can’t. Only we can.

      Lincoln, Grant and Sherman had to kill lots of American citizens that waged war on America, much like Al Awlaki.

    • Yes, since Obama and the Left want to reject the inherent right of the Commander-in-Chief to kill anyone levying war against the United States, they are making up civil law as they go along.

Must Read