The radical Muslim cleric tied to suspects in both the Fort Hood shooting and failed Christmas Day bombing has become a key terror target, with a top member of Congress calling him "terrorist number one" and officials confirming he has been added to a list that would allow U.S. operatives to capture or kill him for his role with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.
Rep. Jane Harman, D-Calif., called Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen believed to be in Yemen, "terrorist number one" at an intelligence conference Tuesday.
"He is very much in the sights of the Yemenis, with us helping them," said Harman,
chairwoman of the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence.
Now, here's my question. The U.S. is trying to kill him but if we happen to capture him, we'll read him his rights and give him a civilian trial. Is that about right?
6 comments:
And how would that be different than any other dangerous criminal at large? If this guy is half as dangerous as they say he is apprehending him will more than likely lead to a firefight, and if it does and he's killed in one, so be it. But if they can get him, great.
Frankly, I'm disappointed that doing what the Constitution obligates law enforcement to do is somehow considered morally wrong. I mean, this is the federal criminal justice system we're talking about, a system that created the term "supermax", abolished parole, and has a 95% conviction rate. Its basically Guantanamo without the beatings and the waterboarding.
There's no more wantd dead or alive posters. What are you talking about? No criminal has a shot on sight order against them.
AG;
I guess you'd label Hitler as a criminal.
Warfare is not controlled by our internal legal system, until this Administration. It's conduct and the procedures have been under the Geneva Conventions, and, in fact, "illegal combatants" (which is the accepted worldwide label for someone waging war and not identifying themselves with the armed forces of a sovereign nation are) may be summarily disposed of upon capture.
Get your fact straight. This terrorist is not covered by The Constitution by his actions.
Hi Xformed,
As much as I'd like to agree with you, I think the line gets blurred by the fact that he is a U.S. citizen. You're absolutely right that the average terrorist caught on the battlefield, up until the recent Supreme Court ruling, had no rights even under the Geneva Conventions, because they are illegal combatants.
Since he is a U.S. citizen, however, there's really no incentive at all to try to capture him. We aren't allowed to interrogate anyone any more, so why capture anyone? Why risk messing up the investigation and crime scene by ever walking around or laying hands on the enemy? Just shoot him.
Of course, we not only give up all intel from captured enemies, we also create a force of enemies that knows that, once engaged by our forces, have no choice but to fight to the death.
What could possibly go wrong with our brilliant ROE's?
That wasn't exactly either of our points. The first point is that criminals don't have bounties on their heads. The second point is that we are trying to kill the guy but if captured alive we give him full rights. That simply doesn't make sense.
Did everyone forget 9/11 already. This guy may not have been involved in 9/11 but what he has planned, and thank God has failed, so far could be far worse than 9/11. I don't live in NY anymore but I was born and raised in Brooklyn. I say send him to NY and let the street justice take care of him. I believe that all is fair in love and war, but as for war it is soldier against soldier. Not radicals that think they are fighting for Alla against innocent citizens.
Post a Comment