The New York Times has an editorial saying that killing Anwar al-Awlaki is a justified act of war. The editorial is worth reading saying in part
The United States did not claim the power to kill Mr. Awlaki because of his political views or because he was a mere member of a Qaeda affiliate against which Congress had authorized the use of force. It claimed the power to kill him, rather, because he was an operational leader of a Qaeda affiliate that had been involved in terrorist plots on American soil and because he was hiding in a country that lacked the capacity to arrest him and bring him to justice.
Of course the New York Times editorials usually say that what the president did was justified whether it is killing an American citizen we don’t like or invading Iraq. Anyway, it seems to me that Obama is doing a crackerjack job of what Bush the Younger bollixed. I wish that made it right but it doesn’t. We are fighting a war against a bunch of wackos that we should be rounding up and trying in court just like the Symbionese Liberation Army.
How much different the world would be if Bush had declared 9-11 the biggest criminal act in history and committed to tracking the criminals down and bring them to justice. Maybe we wouldn’t have fought two stupid, un-winnable, wars at the cost of bankrupting ourselves.
Instead, we have a war on terror. So maybe that is three, stupid, un-winnable wars.
Criminal acts…I kinda like that. It names the bastards as criminals based on their actions.
But lousy poll numbers, then and now, dictate bold action and imagery to rile the people’s bloodlust. Something big’s needed to take the people’s mind’s off a president who is inept, then and now, at dealing with the nations real problems. I don’t think that having legal luminaries like John Ashcroft or Eric Holder arrange political grandstands in the form of trials is likely to be a vote-winner.
But I confess, I don’t see either how spending a trillion (borrowed) dollars to send 10,000 Americans to die fighting 2 un-winnable wars in order to avenge the killing of 3,000 Americans is supposed to get you re-elected.
Keep up the Good Fight, Steve.
I agree that having criminal trials might not be a vote-winner but isn’t the point of being “a nation of laws” that we are governed by the laws even when it doesn’t get votes. And we may be wrong, check this out http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/10/the-underwear-bomber-goes-to-trial/246092/
when I look at this or read about the trials at The Hague, it seems that the trials do diminish the wackos.