So, an Islamic militant cleric is killed in a drone strike in Yemen. Great, Obama is on the job protecting us from the bad guys. Let's all cheer and shout, hallelujah a bad guy is dead. Apparently many of our fellow citizens think it is a good policy to authorize killing U.S. citizens without regard to constitutionally protected rights (read this article).
"President Obama has elected to continue the Bush administration’s post-9/11 policy of authorizing the killing of U.S. citizens abroad if there is strong evidence of their involvement in terrorist activities. There is believed to be an official, secret list of those citizens who can be targeted. The elimination of a man who methodically planned to kill hundreds of his fellow Americans is exhibit A for the wisdom of this policy."
This policy was wrong in 2001 and it is wrong in 2011. In the U.S. we have endured a number of individuals who desired to, and in some cases did, kill a large number of their fellow citizens. Most of these individuals have been captured, brought to trial, and sentenced by juries comprised of their fellow U.S. citizens. Last time I checked the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees the right to a trial:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (Amendment 5)
Was al-Awlaki "in actual service in time of war or public danger"? No, he was a cleric calling for criminal behavior to be fomented against the U.S. government, agents of the U.S. government, and the population of the U.S. All of the above mentioned are crimes. Crimes committed by U.S. citizen require "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".
In fact, read the language of the 5th amendment again..."or otherwise infamous crime". Our Founding Fathers, much wiser than our current generation of imbecilic leaders (I indict pretty much everyone elected to office in the last 30 years on charge of idiocy, imbecility, and down right stupidity), believed it to be of utmost importance to protect those believed to be guilty of or charged with "infamous crime". Remember that John Adams himself was the defense attorney for the British troops accused of criminal behavior against the citizens of Boston in what is historically referred to as the Boston Massacre.
And for all of you who want to talk about providing me with security. I'll borrow some more from those who came before us and helped to found this country: Give me Liberty, I'll arrange my own Security.
"President Obama has elected to continue the Bush administration’s post-9/11 policy of authorizing the killing of U.S. citizens abroad if there is strong evidence of their involvement in terrorist activities. There is believed to be an official, secret list of those citizens who can be targeted. The elimination of a man who methodically planned to kill hundreds of his fellow Americans is exhibit A for the wisdom of this policy."
This policy was wrong in 2001 and it is wrong in 2011. In the U.S. we have endured a number of individuals who desired to, and in some cases did, kill a large number of their fellow citizens. Most of these individuals have been captured, brought to trial, and sentenced by juries comprised of their fellow U.S. citizens. Last time I checked the Constitution of the United States of America guarantees the right to a trial:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." (Amendment 5)
Was al-Awlaki "in actual service in time of war or public danger"? No, he was a cleric calling for criminal behavior to be fomented against the U.S. government, agents of the U.S. government, and the population of the U.S. All of the above mentioned are crimes. Crimes committed by U.S. citizen require "presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury".
In fact, read the language of the 5th amendment again..."or otherwise infamous crime". Our Founding Fathers, much wiser than our current generation of imbecilic leaders (I indict pretty much everyone elected to office in the last 30 years on charge of idiocy, imbecility, and down right stupidity), believed it to be of utmost importance to protect those believed to be guilty of or charged with "infamous crime". Remember that John Adams himself was the defense attorney for the British troops accused of criminal behavior against the citizens of Boston in what is historically referred to as the Boston Massacre.
And for all of you who want to talk about providing me with security. I'll borrow some more from those who came before us and helped to found this country: Give me Liberty, I'll arrange my own Security.
No comments:
Post a Comment