As has been apparent from previous posts (here and here), I support the Obama administration’s decision to take out American-born, terrorist-turned, traitor Anwar al-Awlaki before he could do any more harm to America and Americans.
My opinion was reinforced when I read that al-Qaeda—the same gang of terrorists that massacred more than 3,000 innocent American men, women and children; the same organization that has vowed to kill more Americans, to destroy America—is very concerned about our Constitutional rights, our laws, our “freedom, justice, human rights and respect of freedoms” and about the legality of the al-Awlaki killing.
I have already expressed my views on such heartfelt concerns on the part of our good friends in the Yemeni outback. I hope the readers have forgiven me for the frank language I used.
In one of my posts I also expressed my disgust for the infamous Bush administration “torture memos.”
Mr. John Yoo, the mastermind of those “memos,” which provided a “legal” justification for torture in the form of waterboarding, other “enhanced interrogation techniques” and for other illegal and Unconstitutional measures employed by the Bush administration, has now expressed his qualified support for the killing of al-Awlaki in an article at the National Review Online. Yoo calls it “The Administration’s Strange Reasoning on al-Awlaki.”
I am now in the dubious position of having the nominal support of a man some consider to be a criminal—a factor that in some cases could be sufficient for one to reconsider one’s opinion.
However, just as those who oppose the killing of al-Awlaki will take no comfort in al-Qaeda’s sinister sympathy for our Constitutional and legal rights, I continue to support the al-Awlaki action in spite of Yoo’s qualified support.
I say “qualified” because even when putting his unwanted, obscene seal of approval on an otherwise, in my opinion, necessary action to protect our country and our citizens, Yoo manages to interject his twisted philosophy and to disparage the President:
Let’s give partial credit where it is due. Apparently the Obama administration argues that al-Awlaki was a legitimate target because he is a member of an enemy engaged in hostile conduct against the United States. At least Obama has figured out that the war on terrorism is in fact a war, and that it is not limited just to Afghanistan…
But the administration’s former worldview of terrorism still infects their decisions, to the country’s detriment. According to the reports, the Obama administration believes that force could only be used against al-Awlaki because arrest was impractical and al-Awlaki posed an imminent threat of harm to the United States. This is plainly wrong. It may make for good policy, especially toward American citizens who make the mistake of joining the enemy, but there is no legal reason why a nation at war must try to apprehend an enemy instead of shooting at him first. Every member of the enemy armed forces and leadership is a legitimate target in wartime, regardless of whether they can be caught or whether they pose an imminent threat. In fact, the Obama administration continues to confuse war with crime — the idea that you must try to arrest first and can only use force against an imminent attack is the standard that applies to the police, not the military.
Talk about a backhanded endorsement from a dubious source that one could really do without…
I fully realize that Yoo’s questionable support may undermine my arguments. I did not have to mention it, but—just like al-Qaeda’s concern for our Constitutional rights—it is too obnoxious and obscene not to be mentioned. I know readers will consider the source…
Read more of this man’s ramblings here
The author is a retired U.S. Air Force officer and a writer.