Ever since US-born Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed in a Predator drone strike on 30 September 2011, there’s been a hue and cry from the vocal minority of “due processors” calling al-Awlaki’s killing an unlawful assassination. Folks, this is not rocket science. Al-Awlaki is as much a terrorist and enemy combatant as if he’d been one of the 9/11 hijackers. Citizenship and birthplace have nothing to do with it, whatsoever.
I do not like Newt Gingrich and have not since he was Speaker of the House. Maybe it’s something to do with that position; perhaps not unlike “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. Nonetheless, Gingrich clearly articulated the legality of al-Awlaki’s killing during yesterday’s debate of Republican presidential candidates.
Waging war on the United States is outside criminal law; it is an act of war, and it should be dealt with as an act of war, and the correct thing in an act of war is to kill people who are trying to kill you.
Cynical Synapse 
Amen, CS! Amen and Amen!
Comment by The Old Man — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 @ 5:33 pm
Those words from Newt ring somewhat hollow. It’s the message and the messenger. We need to adopt another kind of foreign policy in dealing with “terrorism” whether home grown a la Timothy McVeigh or something that fits into the Islamophobia mold like Osama bin Laden or Anwar al-Awlaki. You cannot effectively wage a war against a people or group who are more than willing to die for their cause than we are. We talk lots of shit but we aren’t so brave. You don’t see any of those people advocating war with Iran anxious to go to the front line, they’d rather send someone else.
Our elected officials are great at sending people off to war in the name of “freedom” but seriously, they are protecting their own interests which do not extend to the population as a whole. I don’t benefit directly from the war in Afghanistan. War is about money, human life is incidental. Don’t think so, see how much money Halliburton, Kellogg Brown Root and Xe have made over the past ten years.
Comment by Kimberly — Sun, 13 Nov 2011 @ 9:48 pm
@The Old Man: Thanks for stopping by!
@Kimberly: Thanks for stopping by, as well.
I’d be interested to hear any ideas on changes in foreign policy designed to improve our security from terrorism, both home grown and foreign. That policy must ensure appropriate support for the fledgling Iraqi and Afghan governments to provide for their own security and well being. It must also be poised to deal with the next threats to global stability and our national security: the nuclear weapons ambitions of Iran and North Korea. Ironically, both are part of Pres. George W. Bush’s “axis of evil”, coined during his State of the State address in 2002.
The challenge in today’s Global War on Terror has more to do with its asymetrical nature, vis-a-vis its non-state actors, than it does the fanatical nature of the enemy. US forces faced plenty of enemy personnel more willing to die than we were in World War II, Korea, and even Vietnam. Our military is effective because of its discipline, restraint, leadership, and use of intelligence and technology. Success requires political will, as well. If our elected officials do not represent the will of the people, we should be voting them out of office rather than reelecting them over and over again.
I agree war is about money, even when ideology is purported to be the rationale. Bin Laden targeted the World Trade Center Towers for economic impact as much as propaganda effect. I submit you do benefit from the Afghanistan War by virtue of its denying al Qaeda safe havens for training and launching other attacks on our way of life. The fact the Afghan War requires the resources it currently does is attributable to the Bush-Cheney distraction in Iraq, if you ask me. Congress, however, authorized military action in both Afghanistan and Iraq.
Comment by cynicalsynapse — Mon, 14 Nov 2011 @ 4:07 pm