I don't get the purpose of ordering an assassination on Anwar al-Awlaki. Once he is killed, there are probably many others waiting in line to take his place, right? I don't feel like it would really solve anything. On top of that, he is one of our citizens, which I find adds even more to the argument against killing him.
I disagree with FCLC's comment about "ordering an assassination on Anwar al-Awlaki." I think the comment misses the significance of the event. Rather than send out a "wanted" poster to all American troops to find and kill this man alone, it is more the approval of adding him to a list of people that are dangerous enough to warrant an immediate attack if found. One could even argue that approving the targeted killing of an American citizen is an awkward step in the right direction. America is firmly against terrorism: from Bush to Obama, that point is clear. If we treated a known, dangerous terrorist differently than any other equally hateful, dangerous terrorist, solely because of his place of birth, we would be foolish. Just as (whether you agree with it or not) our country executes its own criminals, we attack our enemies. America's decision to approve the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki is consistent with our domestic policies, and is necessary if we want to continue fighting terrorism in the way we are now with any sort of backbone.
Kristie the Issue I have with this is that these are allegations. According to the article the man is just a cleric who preaches on Islamic faith. It did not say that he gave instructions to do x,y,and z to America. Perhaps the government is hiding information. Judging from the article killing him would be a constitutional law suit waiting to happen. Don't people in America have the freedom of practicing religion? Religious groups such as Christians,or Jews talk bad about each other, and other cultures, there isn't a death list for them. If the man talks about the issues within American culture vs. his new faith, then that is also his 1st Amendment right. Besides he lived in America so he should know the cultural discrepancies that he may speak of. Furthermore the law in America is always innocent until proven guilty. Have they caught any suspects who have blatantly said that Anwar al-Awlaki told me to launch a suicide shoe bombing attack? As Americans who are so rooted within the constitution, they should find him, take him to America and bring him to trial in a court of law. He is an American. Furthermore if they have evidence that he is the master mind behind these terrorist attacks then they can rest assured that the appointed jury and judge is intelligible to be judicious in their verdict. Such as life is prison, exile, etc.
I don't get the purpose of ordering an assassination on Anwar al-Awlaki. Once he is killed, there are probably many others waiting in line to take his place, right? I don't feel like it would really solve anything. On top of that, he is one of our citizens, which I find adds even more to the argument against killing him.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with FCLC's comment about "ordering an assassination on Anwar al-Awlaki." I think the comment misses the significance of the event. Rather than send out a "wanted" poster to all American troops to find and kill this man alone, it is more the approval of adding him to a list of people that are dangerous enough to warrant an immediate attack if found. One could even argue that approving the targeted killing of an American citizen is an awkward step in the right direction. America is firmly against terrorism: from Bush to Obama, that point is clear. If we treated a known, dangerous terrorist differently than any other equally hateful, dangerous terrorist, solely because of his place of birth, we would be foolish. Just as (whether you agree with it or not) our country executes its own criminals, we attack our enemies. America's decision to approve the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki is consistent with our domestic policies, and is necessary if we want to continue fighting terrorism in the way we are now with any sort of backbone.
ReplyDeleteKristie the Issue I have with this is that these are allegations. According to the article the man is just a cleric who preaches on Islamic faith. It did not say that he gave instructions to do x,y,and z to America. Perhaps the government is hiding information. Judging from the article killing him would be a constitutional law suit waiting to happen. Don't people in America have the freedom of practicing religion? Religious groups such as Christians,or Jews talk bad about each other, and other cultures, there isn't a death list for them. If the man talks about the issues within American culture vs. his new faith, then that is also his 1st Amendment right. Besides he lived in America so he should know the cultural discrepancies that he may speak of. Furthermore the law in America is always innocent until proven guilty. Have they caught any suspects who have blatantly said that Anwar al-Awlaki told me to launch a suicide shoe bombing attack? As Americans who are so rooted within the constitution, they should find him, take him to America and bring him to trial in a court of law. He is an American. Furthermore if they have evidence that he is the master mind behind these terrorist attacks then they can rest assured that the appointed jury and judge is intelligible to be judicious in their verdict. Such as life is prison, exile, etc.
ReplyDelete