It’s getting a bit ridiculous. Reading an article in the New York Times last Friday titled, “U.S. Approval of Killing of Cleric Causes Unease,” I couldn’t stop and think about how humorous we [the U.S.] must sound to the terrorist networks. The article is summarized in the first two sentences:
The Obama administration’s decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen has set off a debate over the legal and political limits of drone missile strikes, a mainstay of the campaign against terrorism. The notion that the government can, in effect, execute one of its own citizens far from a combat zone, with no judicial process and based on secret intelligence, makes some legal authorities deeply uneasy.We’re talking about the American-born radical cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is hiding in Yemen. C.I.A. officials designating him for death early this year with the National Security Council’s approval, but required no judicial review. How can any American disagree with what our intelligence officials have done?
According to the article, administration officials take the view that no legal or constitutional rights can protect Mr. Awlaki, a charismatic preacher who has said it is a religious duty to attack the United States and who the C.I.A. believes is actively plotting violence. The attempted bombing of Times Square on May 1 is the latest of more than a dozen terrorist plots in the West that investigators believe were inspired in part by Mr. Awlaki’s rhetoric. I agree with our “administration officials.”
I’m going to answer my question with another: why would any American protect a terrorist who seeks to destroy, harm and/or kill innocent Americans, our freedom and our way of life?
Posts
