One of the flat out most disturbing thing that Barack Obama has done is to claim that he has an absolute right to murder anyone, anywhere, any time based on his unilateral declaration that it is in the interest of national security.
Most recently, this was shown in the murder of Anwar al-Awlaki.
This was an extrajudicial killing with the only evidence made public being that he "inspired" people to wage war against us.
I really don't have the words to describe just how awful this is, but the Rude Pundit does. (and the essay is completely safe for work as well)
Just go read him.
I'm just thankful that I live in Maryland, where my vote for President does not matter in 2012, so I won't.*
*No, I won't vote Republican, I just won't cast a ballot for President, or I'll write in Howard Dean.
It is an interesting question.
ReplyDeleteUnder the rules of armed conflict, in a conventional war, the killing of al-Awlaki would be permitted, if he were enrolled in an enemy army.
In peace time, under the rule of law, it is illegal to kill without trial.
In an "assymetric" war -- which AQAP and Obama believes it is in -- where does this fall out?
Could congress declare war on an international organization?
If it has -- arguable -- then one could argue that any self identifying (a criteria for proper conduct of an army) member of AQAP could be killed on sight.