It is quite interesting to see how many people oppose President Obama's decision to rid us of yet another terrorist, or should we even use the word "terrorist" in this obsessively emerging politically correct world? It is difficult to find any rationale that would dispute the President's "obligation" to act as he did, which is the only conceivable way to protect the American people from future harm. I am not fond of the President's ideology; in fact, I diametrically oppose most of his agenda. However, his actions resulting in the recent "terminations" of al-Qaeda leaders have shown that he was able to step out of his safety zone, and to act in accordance with the oath he took the day he was sworn in to the top job.
It not only took courage, but it also required that he put aside his personal views, which are probably more aligned with those who oppose his order to exterminate these icons of evil.
“Due Process”! That is what some demanded should have been afforded to al-Awlaki (I suspect that the same should have applied to Osama Bin Laden?). Aside from the fact that the term itself is not even technically applicable in this case, under any scenario, the concept of applying “due process” to a member of an enemy army is bizarre. Of course I do not intend to insult legitimate members of enemy armies by comparing terrorists to them, however, for the sake of argument let’s classify the typical terrorist as such, i.e. an enemy combatant. I am sure there is no argument that the purpose of “war”, even in the conventional sense, is to “eliminate” as many opposing soldiers as possible, without “due process”, without the ability to verify if any member of enemy forces may at one time have been an American citizen. There should also be no argument that any person (citizen or not) who has abandoned his homeland to embark in a war against the same has also implicitly declared his expatriation. There is no constitutional protection for an enemy soldier and there is certainly none for terrorists.
The big question, however, is how to reconcile the President’s “orders to kill” with the position he took in 2009 when his administration rejected the term “enemy combatant” and refused to classify al-Qaeda members as terrorists*1. His recent executive order calling for the ”elimination” of several senior al-Qaeda leaders would arguably only be justified if he also agrees to qualify them as enemy combatants i.e. terrorists.
*1 source : Press Release, Department of Justice, March 13, 2011, http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-232.html
No comments:
Post a Comment