Hafrael said:
Therumancer said:
Undead Dragon King said:
In case you havn't heard yet, Al Qaeda firebrand and radical Imam Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a U.S. drone airstrike in Yemen today. Most have applauded the killing as another major victory by the West in the War on Terror. al-Awlaki was an influential and tech-savvy instigator of jihad who radicalized many Muslims over the internet, and was responsible for inspiring the likes of the Ft. Hood massacre and "underwear bomber" of 2009 and the failed Times Square bombing last year. His death will no doubt have a negative effect on international recruitment for al Qaeda.
But al-Awlaki was also a natural-born U.S. citizen who left the country for Yemen in 2002. He was the first U.S. citizen to be placed on the CIA's "Kill or Capture" list. Some people and politicians have claimed that, despite the fact that al-Awlaki was an obvious threat to the security of America, his death might lead the government down a slippery slope of approved assassination of problem citizens, as now we know that just because you are born in the U.S. doesn't protect you from federal assassination.
Discuss. What's your take on this situation?
He effectively gave up his citizenship. Even if he didn't this is a case of outright Treason (even if the US doesn't like to use that term or pursue it for the most part) and as such there is no issue here at all as far as I'm concerned.
Killing people acting against the US? I'm all for that. I don't care where your from, if your trying to bring down the country for another set of principles, this is what should happen. This is only an issue because the US hasn't been assertive enough in the past. It's nice to be merciful and show restraint, but that should never be confused with us HAVING to be that way, or having some responsibility to let crimes and threats go.
I agree with most of this.
But, for a citizen he should have at least gotten a trial in absentia.
I disagree because reaction time is important, and trials like this are extremely expensive and time consuming, not to mention the fact that it would give a lot of time to enemy propaganda. One of the biggest problems with the US is that we don't act quickly and decisively enough when we have to, and when we do, we rarely do it forcefully.
My basic arguement is that in a time of war/conflict, guilt by association is absolutly fine in cases like this. It's sort of like if some guy from the US put on a Nazi Uniform and started goosestepping alongside Hitler's troops, there really isn't much room for misunderstanding, if someone joins the other side and works against the US, that's their problem. If they happen to be some kind of a special agent, that's a dangerous job for exactly this reason, and it falls under the umbrella of the intelligence services to handle this kind of thing. In general people who do deep cover work and long-term infiltrations know they might very well die being thought a traitor, and make that sacrifice just like a soldier would... one of the reasons why spies and secret agents are seen as something of a heroic profession despite all the dirt attached to them.
In this guy's case, the dude works against the US, he admits he works against the US, he rants about it and tells you this himself at great length via his websites and such. The dude was a recruiter who actively worked to convince people to fight against the US. There is no real need for a trial under the best of circumstances, one thing you can say for the guy was that he was quite honest about what he stood for.
But then again, I'm also one of those guys who pretty much thinks that in most cases when there is a confession you can pretty much just forego the trial. All TV dramas and stuff aside, I look at things like the whole "BTK" fiasco. The guy tortures and kills people to get his rocks off, when he's caught he admits it, and pretty much says "yep I did it, had a great time too" without showing any remorse. Why the heck bother to give him a stage to brag, or spend tax money to warehouse the guy? It's a differant version of the same thing, the last thing we need is to give people representing Al-Awlaki a platform.
Besides, I'd also argue that the desician to hunt him down kind of constitutes a trial of sorts, the military/intelligence services don't set targets lightly. All left wing propaganda aside, nobody is going to spend millions of dollars chasing someone down for no reason. What's more I'll be blunt in saying that the nature of the intelligence game means that trials are difficult, especially in cases where there is less overt evidence. If the goverment is acting based on intelligence gained from agents, they can't really out those sources for a trial and still have them. If you for example know someone is a terrorist because he's been fingered by another terrorist who is actually a US Agent acting as a terrorist to rat out and undermine the group, by definition that can't go public. Of course that gets into the whole issue of "spy trials" and military style justice as opposed to the civilian version and so on which is another massive arguement.
In short, I think this went down more or less perfectly.
