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.
Abdulmutallab, who is representing himself, has been rather contentious and disrupting in court proceedings leading up to his trial, which began in Federal District Court on Tuesday, 11 October. Jury selection last week included at least one outburst and Abdulmutallab wearing his prison T-shirt to court.
We the Mujahedeen insist on attacking the United States because it promotes the blasphemy of Muhammed (PBUH), and the prophets, and because this country continues to support the Israelis in killing innocent Palestinians, in addition to many other [sic] of our Muslim brothers and sisters in Yemen, Irag, Somalia, Afghanistan and beyond which this country kills.
So, Abdulmutallab saved us a lot of money by avoiding a long trial. The piece de resistance, however, is his testimony to Anwar al-Awlaki’s culpability and role in al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula activities.
I was greatly inspired to participate in jihad by the lectures of the great and rightly guided mujahedeen who is alive, Sheikh Anwar al-Awlaki, may Allah preserve him and his family and give them victory, Amen, and Allah knows best.
Participation in jihad against the United States is considered among the most virtuous of deeds in Islam and is highly encouraged in the Koran.
Judge Edwards set sentencing for 12 January 2012. Many of his charges carry minimum 30 year sentences, some of which must run consecutively. This may effectively equal his expected punishment of life in prison.
Ever since the radical, jihadist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was killed 30 September by a drone attack in Yemen, Republican presidential contender Ron Paul has been crying foul. He contends al-Awaki’s Constitutional rights, as US citizen, were violated, denying him due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. ls al-Awlaki’s “assassination” a dangerous precedent. Paul stated “there has been no formal declaration of war and certainly not one against Yemen.”
What Ron Paul misses is the fact al Qaeda declared war on the United States in 1998 and we reciprocated in 2001. A state of war has existed between the US and all the branches of al Qaeda ever since. Just because Pres. Obama changed terminology to “Overseas Contingency Operations” doesn’t mean the nature of the Global War on Terror has changed in any fundamental way.
Can you imagine being put on a list because you’re a threat? What’s going to happen when they come to the media? What if the media becomes a threat?
But, Paul’s fearmongering is not new, having reared its ugly head in the last presidential campaign. Today, Paul cites Timothy McVeigh and Nidal Hasan as terrorists whose right to due process was not abridged in contrast to al-Awaki. The difference, Mr. Paul, is they were not part of al Qaeda. The difference is al-Awlaki joined Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and actively aided and abetted the terrorist organization. Al-Awlaki was an enemy combatant and AQAP confirmed his importance, calling him the “mujahid heroic sheikh”.
The killing of al-Awlaki, Samir Khan (also a US citizen), and al-Asiri, all members of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), is both lawful and justified. They were enemy combatants engaged in the fight against our way of life.
After seeing the video, I hope the disconnect between Paul’s call for due process in al-Awladi’s case, but no need for same for 9/11 accused becomes apparent. And, forgive me, but every time I hear of Ron Paul, I can’t help but think of Ru Paul.
Update:
03 Oct 2011
It almost seemed too good to be true when I first heard al-Asiri was killed in the Predator strike on al-Awlaki and Khan. Alas, it seems it was more than we should hope for. Yemeni officials said AQAP bombmaker al-Asiri was not killed with al-Awlaki in Friday’s aerial targeting of the terrorist cleric’s motorcade. While there may no longer be a smoking underwear link, the fact remains al-Awlaki served AQAP and was at war with his native country.
Al-Awlaki’s value to AQAP was his knowledge of US culture and his ability at radicalizing, enabling, and recruiting to the jihadist cause homegrown extremists like MAJ Nidal Hassan and the Times Square bomber. Ironically, if he’d stayed in the US, he’d be a criminal (can you say conspiracy?), but since he moved in with AQAP in Yemen, he was an enemy combatant.
The struggle over the holiday is yet another proxy in the fight over the proper role of government. On one side are those who embrace an “originalist” view of the Constitution, where New Deal judicial activism started the country down the path to ruin. On the other are those who say that its language — allowing Congress to levy taxes to provide “for the general welfare,” to regulate commerce, and to do what is “necessary and proper” to carry out its role—affirms the broad role of the federal government that has developed over the last 100 years.
Not satisfied with just cowing ordinary citizens, the today’s government seeks to silence internal dissenters and whistleblowers. The federal hegemonic conspiracy is no longer a Republican or Democratic construct. Rather, it is the result of the government seeking to ensure its own continued survival despite its citizens.
Previously on the Constitution and rights erosion:
As the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks draws near, coming on the heals of the end of Ramadan and releases of a couple reports on Muslims in America, it’s easy for conversations to turn to jihadists—Muslim extremists. The truth is extremists of any kind are dangerous. It’s also true the majority of terrorist activities in the past decade were carried out by people hiding behind the Islamic religion. This does not make them Islamists, although some may have been. The Ayatollahs in Iran are real Islamists. Still, the end result is a very real and deliberate undertone of Islamohobia—the fear of Muslims.
There’s been a lot of flack over Muslim women wearing their traditional head dress out in the public here in America. One of the latest was at Rye Playland in New York where a group of Muslim women were barred from certain rides because of their headscarves. Do we, the other public, know what banning the religious head dress for a particular religious culture could lead to?
Yeah, yeah! The Old Man is fully aware of the attacks on America, and Americans abroad, by Muslims. But have we taken our revenge too far? It may be appropriate to check people, and even their clothing, for any weapons or bombs in public gatherings or boarding a public means of transportation. But think about this for a moment. If we are to ban Muslim clothing simply because a certain group of people don’t like it, what are we supposed to do about the other religions??????
Post-Cold War, Russia still seeks to be a first-world power. While Russia has much potential, and much in its corner, it’s an even more distant second place than was the Soviet Union. More importantly, as the attacks on 9/11 showed, threats to our national security don’t even need to be nation states.
During my studies in the Command and General Staff Officer’s Course (2000-2002), there was a lot of discussion about information technology being the next revolution in military affairs. Proponents believed this to be a strength, while I questioned the soundness of the validity of information as revolutionary. Even ten years ago, I thought connectivity was too subject to interruption.
Today, personnel systems, pay, and logistics are all managed by web-based applications in the US military. Even artillery fire depends on the connectivity of radars with fire direction centers to firing batteries. The problem, as I have always seen it, is the tenuousness of this connection.
Two recent polls yielded similar results on the degree of support for keeping Michigan’s decades-old helmet section in the vehicle code. It requires motorcyclists to wear a US Department of Transportation (DOT) approved helmet. The Macomb Daily poll found 71% say keep the helmet requirement while 26% favored repeal and 2% were undecided. A more scientific EPIC-MRA poll found 68% oppose repealing the helmet law, with 31% wanting to ditch requiring helmets and 1% undecided. The EPIC-MRA poll has a margin of error of 4%.
Proponents of the helmet law reduced medical costs with helmet use by bikers. Helemt use can significantly reduce injury severity. In fact, a biker who was killed in a helmet protect ride likely would have lived if wearing an approved helmet. There will be increased costs for Michigan residents, both in insurance rates and Medicaid expenses. Michigan is a no-fault state, so if a motorcyclist is hit, it’s the other party’s insurance that pays, not the biker’s.
Public officials who are sworn into office swear to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States. It seems only fitting that they realize just exactly what they’ve sworn to. It became painfully obvious in the 111th Congress that US Representatives had no clue, nor any concern, with the content or meaning of the US Constitution.
New leadership in the House of Representatives set the tone today. From Motor City Times:
The Constitution has never been read aloud, on the floor of the House of Representatives since it was ratified in 1788 until today. As expected, most Liberals (Democrats) began screeching loudly about the idea.
They complained that reading it was a waste of time. They called it political theater and generally mocked the idea.
Nadler agreed. “A lot of the tea party people, I wonder how many of them have read the Constitution,” he said. “A lot of them, they seem to think the Constitution is the Articles of Confederation.”
Nadler said he anticipates a raft of “idiotic amendments” from Republicans, such as an effort to allow states to nullify acts of Congress, that would blatantly violate the Constitution.
Suspicious and mocking as Nadler was of the Republicans’ motivation for reading aloud what he affectionately characterized as “a long, dry, boring document with details about how Congress will have power to lay imposts and taxes,” he agreed with other constitutional experts, and even the tea party, that there was a potential benefit.
“Maybe,” he said, “it will be a little educational.”
It was uncomfortable for Liberals (Democrats and some Republicans) to read aloud the Constitution because it reminds everyone that there are strict limits to the reach of the governments power.
Thinking about the Democrats, I was watching a little bit of the Constitution being read today on the floor of the House and I said, “This has gotta be like waterboarding to these Democrats.” It has to be torture, because the Constitution is anathema to them, the Constitution limits the power of the government, limits the size, limits the role of government, and to have to not only sit there and listen to it, but to share in the punishment of reading it. I’m sure that’s how they’re looking at this. They wouldn’t have to do this if they’d won the election. They lost, so they’re being punished. They have to read the Constitution, tantamount to waterboarding.
What a novel concept. Maybe Congressmen won’t read the bill, but at least they’ll have heard what the US Constitution says.
So, the Senate passed legislation to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell today. The House passed the measure on Wednesday and Pres. Obama promised to sign it into law next week. The measure ends a prohibition on gays serving openly in the military.
Don’t ask, don’t tell prohibited asking if a servicemember was gay while also admonishing them not to say if they were. Current regulations call for discharging gay servicemembers. The policy has been in effect in since 1993.
While key leaders seem to favor ending don’t ask, don’t tell, I predict some challenges for unit-level leaders. As you may know, I’m a member of the National Guard with 28 years of service. In my early career, I was Infantry, which excludes females. Since about 1991, I’ve been in units with females. Don’t misunderstand—females make great Soldiers. The problem is with sexuality and mixed gender units have higher potential and incidences of sexual harassment and assault. Such cases are demoralizing and challenging enough when they involve opposite sexes.
My concern with the repeal of don’t ask, don’t tell is two-fold. First, there is potential for increased sexual harassment/sexual assault complaints. We have separate male and female barracks in the military, but that does not account for same-sex sexual considerations. Don’t misunderstand—I’m not alledging gay people will assault people en masse because of the end of don’t ask, don’t tell. What I’m saying is separate facilities by gender attempts to reduce a potential for assault. still, eliminating don’t ask don’t tell removes a sanction for assault.
Given the sexual assault argument is relatively minor, my other concern is for the breakdown of military discipline. It’s common knowledge groups tend not to tolerate behavior that’s different from their norm. Only about 8% identify as gay/lesbian/transgender. How do we prevent discriminatory, or even predatory, behavior against same-sex relationships?
