Mr. Awlaki was born in New Mexico in 1971 making him a citizen through birth. He was tied to al Qaeda through emails with the man who tried to blow of the Detroit bound airliner in 2010, the man who tried to set-off a car bomb in NYC, and two 9/11 hijackers. President Obama signed an order in early 2010 making him the first American to be on the kill or capture list. Mr. Awlaki was killed by two Predator drones Friday, September 30th at 9:55 a.m.
In the article, "Was Killing American al Qaeda Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Legal?" the author Michael Crowley addressed the issues that arose from Mr. Awlaki's death. Some Americans feel conflicted upon learning of his death. Although he was a (potential) terrorist, being an American, he legally had rights of due process and his actions would be protected under the freedom of speech. While others are supportive of the Obama administration and see it as another feat (such as the death of Osama bin Laden) against terrorism and protecting national security.
Personally, it scares me that the president has taken the power to execute such power... the implications from this action could create more gray areas in the matters of protecting rights of American citizens and national security. I believe he should have had the chance to go on trial and be charged with treason. The U.S. government should have at least attempted to capture him before hitting the button on his execution. He should have had the right to prove himself innocent. The President's actions in this matter, makes the American judicial concept of "innocent until proven guilty" less permanent and creates the opposite idea: "guilty until proven innocent."Although, Mr. Awlaki's death was important to protecting national security and I am greatly thankful, I feel more worried about how the President's decision will affect the judicial court system and the rights of U.S. citizens.
http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/30/was-killing-american-al-qaeda-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-legal/
In the article, "Was Killing American al Qaeda Cleric Anwar al-Awlaki Legal?" the author Michael Crowley addressed the issues that arose from Mr. Awlaki's death. Some Americans feel conflicted upon learning of his death. Although he was a (potential) terrorist, being an American, he legally had rights of due process and his actions would be protected under the freedom of speech. While others are supportive of the Obama administration and see it as another feat (such as the death of Osama bin Laden) against terrorism and protecting national security.
Personally, it scares me that the president has taken the power to execute such power... the implications from this action could create more gray areas in the matters of protecting rights of American citizens and national security. I believe he should have had the chance to go on trial and be charged with treason. The U.S. government should have at least attempted to capture him before hitting the button on his execution. He should have had the right to prove himself innocent. The President's actions in this matter, makes the American judicial concept of "innocent until proven guilty" less permanent and creates the opposite idea: "guilty until proven innocent."Although, Mr. Awlaki's death was important to protecting national security and I am greatly thankful, I feel more worried about how the President's decision will affect the judicial court system and the rights of U.S. citizens.
http://swampland.time.com/2011/09/30/was-killing-american-al-qaeda-cleric-anwar-al-awlaki-legal/
The biggest problem with this argument is there is no efficient way to capture him. To come to an agreement with the Yemen government to capture him leaves security risks, such as him being tipped off. Although we could have left it to the Yemen government, as they had ordered him to be brought in dead of alive, there was no assurance that they would ever deliver on that.
ReplyDeleteHe was also suspected of training 3 of the 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hassan, that puts the blood of 2,997 people on his hands.
Even though he is a US citizen he willfully engaged in terrorist activities and he refused to give himself up over a year ago when he was added to the capture/kill list.
He could have prevented this by surrendering so the second option was picked for him as there was no way to efficiently capture him.
Elizabeth, I agree with you on this topis. Although Kyle does have a point, that capturing Anwar al-Awlaki would be difficult, I believe as an American citizen, he had the right to a trial. I personally believe that he was guilty but he still had the right to a trial.
ReplyDeleteGiving the President that much power is also dangerous. Supporters of allowing him that much power may quote HJres 64, which passed in 2001, and authorized "the President to use the United states Armed Forces against anyone involved with the attacks of September 11th, 2001 and any nation that harbors these individuals."
If it could have been proved that Anwar al-Awlaki was involved with the attacks of september 11th, Then I would support his execution under this bill, however, it was never proven, and therefore I belive that further investigations as well as attempts to capture him should have been conducted before his execution.