Anwar al-Aulaqi needed a good killing that is a fact, but was the process constitutional?
Anwar al-Aulaqi, a radical U.S.-born Muslim cleric and one of the most influential al-Qaeda leaders wanted by the United States, was killed Friday in a CIA drone strike in northern Yemen, U.S. and Yemeni authorities said, eliminating a prominent terrorist recruiter who inspired attacks on U.S. soil.
Now hear me out… the guy needed to go, no doubt about that. However, he was still a citizen of the US, he hadn’t renounced it and it can’t be revoked without due process and he was still afforded constitutional rights like it or not – now in my opinion if you commit terrorist acts against the United States you forfeit your constitutional rights, but that’s not the law. If you commit a treasonous act you are still receive due process of a trail by jury at which time a verdict is rendered.
So the patriotic part of me says ‘yeah he is dead’ but the Constitutional Libertarian part of me say hold on a damn minute that’s a violation of the constitution and due process and is a violation of the law. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson seem to agree…
Anwar al-Awlaki is dead; and on the occasion of the deliberate targeting and killing of an American citizen by the American government, former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson is less than excited about the precedent that may have been set.
“The protections under the Constitution for those accused of crimes do not just apply to people we like — they apply to everyone, including a terrorist like al-Awlaki. It is a question of due process for American citizens.
The rest of Johnson’s response here.
Texas Congressman and fellow GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul made lots more headlines when he dubbed the killing of terrorist friend and inciter Awlaki (and another American citizen) an assassination. In contrast with the other potential presidents besides Johnson, Paul thought this didn’t bode well for America, saying:
“No one knows if [Awlaki] killed anybody. We know he might have been associated with the ‘underwear bomber.’ But if the American people accept this blindly and casually that we now have an accepted practice of the president assassinating people who he thinks are bad guys. I think it’s sad.”
Paul pointed out how domestic terrorist Timothy McVeigh got a trial, appeals, and an execution, and said that’s what should have been done with Awlaki.
So it’s not DID Awlaki need killing, it’s a question of was it legal to do it in the manner in which it was done… if we as a nation toss out the rule of law to appease a objective then you have to ask where does it stop? What other laws can the government break to appease an objective? This time it’s killing the terrorist Awlaki next time it maybe your constitutional rights of free speech. Just because someone breaks the law doesn’t give you or the government the right to break the law to deliver justice. If Obama thinks you can just do what you need to do when ever you need to do where would it stop?
We have a constitution, it is a the law of the land and if you circumvent the law of the land to achieve a goal is that not criminal too?
Think about it.