In a significant new blow to al-Qaida, U.S. airstrikes in Yemen on Friday killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an American militant cleric who became a prominent figure in the terror network's most dangerous branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits for attacks in the United States
OK. But there's a principle here which is actually important.
The ACLU, the Libertarians, and Ron Paul all have reservations--and have been excoriated for them.
We might all agree that Al-Alawki was a traitor and terrorist. There's lots of evidence to support that.
Have you seen all the evidence?
See, the President of the US and various US intel outfits declared this jackwad to be a bad guy. Based on their declaration, the guy was eliminated.
Does the President of the US think that any other US citizens are "bad guys"? Can they pin something on those citizens, thus justifiying a Predator bombing?
If George Soros pulls a trillion-dollar 'short' on the USD, collapsing the country, is he a "bad guy"? Should he be eliminated on sight?
What about Andrew Breitbart, who is becoming more outspoken? If the President 'finds' that Breitbart is a traitor or 'terrorist'--on grounds and evidence which the President 'finds', but which no one else sees--should he be Predator-ed? What about the Catholic Bishops? Anti-abortion protesters?
There's the principle, folks.
As I said, we may all agree about Al-Alawki.
Who's next?
Much more from AmSpec on the precedent and principle.
5 comments:
I'm curious why you failed to include this "who's next?" logic in your strident defense of enhanced interrogation. Was it because Dick Cheney wasn't personally singling out who to torture?
Al-Alawki, the jackwad, was a US citizen.
And Dick Cheney calls me every week to send signals.
You mean he doesn't call YOU?
As far as Breitbart, I'd go along with it. :-)
Yah, well, I have a few favorites, too.
No doubt. ;-)
Post a Comment