Today, it was announced that Anwar al-Awlaki, an American born radical Muslim terrorist leader was splattered over a portion of the Yemeni desert by a couple of Hellfire missiles launched from a drone overhead. Now comes the controversy. Since he was a "citizen", was he denied his rights to due process? CAIR, Ron Paul , Dennis Kook-cinich and few "civil liberties" organizations seem to think so.
Should we have waited to capture him and try him in some federal court? Did he deserve to be arrested and read his rights? Did the Government over-step its bounds by summarily executing him by remote control?
I say no! And not just no, but a resounding HELL NO!!!
Anwar al-Awlaki was no longer a citizen as far as I am concerned . I don't know about the law, but if there is not a provision that states that if you take up arms against this country, you have forfeited any and all rights you once had as a citizen, then there damn sure should be one.
Suppose al-Awlaki wasn't a leader in Al Qaida. Suppose he was a just another radical jihadi and he and a group of his buddies decided to attack an embassy. Suppose the Marine guards repelled the attack and in so, doing waxed al-Awlaki. Would there be an outcry about a fair trial? Probably not.
Anwar al-Awlaki was more like a high ranking officer instead of a low-level bullet catcher. Al-Awlaki recruited and directed others to attack the United States in some way, shape or form. What is the difference between him actually pulling the trigger, or getting others to do his dirty work? To me, it's no difference.
Al-Awlaki was a traitor. He chose to denounce the United States and swore to cause us harm. At that point, he was done. He might have been born here, but he spent his formative years in Yemen. He came back here for college on a student visa and a Yemeni passport. He has done nothing but preach hate and violence since then.
Al-Awlaki got what was long overdue. Obama made the right decision. One of the few, but he did the right thing.
Welcome to hell, Anwar!
VW










