So it shocks me that some people are upset that we killed an American citizen, Awlaki, who waged war against us as an al Qaeda jihadi. I'm happy President Obama ordered the kill, and I won't apologize for waging war on our enemies. Via Instapundit, Walter Mead has more:
Mr. Al-Awlaki chose to make himself what used to be called an outlaw; a person at war with society who is no longer protected by the laws he seeks to destroy. He was not a criminal who has broken some particular set of laws; he was an enemy seeking to destroy all the laws and the institutions that create them. His fiery sermons inspired numerous jihadists, like Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan, to attack Americans. He was personally involved with planning the attempted Christmas Day bombing in 2009 and he mentored several of the 9/11 bombers. That he was at war with the United States may not have been proved in a criminal court but is not really up for debate.
By waging private war against the United States, he placed himself in jeopardy, and our Chief Magistrate, obedient to the commitments he made when he took his oath of office, fulfilled his solemn duty by returning Mr. Al-Awlaki to his maker by the most effective means at hand.
Having made trying unlawful combatants impossible and attacking our right to hold unlawful combatants until hostilities are over, people like Glenn Greenwald and Ron Paul who protest the drone strike made the drone strike more likely as the only way to carry out the government's primary duty to protect us.
I've gone on about privatized warfare over the years. Al Qaeda is an example of non-state actors waging war on us. We have no obligation to treat people trying to kill us as mere lawbreakers. They want war with us? They got it. Or they should, in any case.
If the so-called "civil libertarians," who think Awlaki (and probably Osama bin Laden) should have been cuffed, read his rights, provided with a court appointed attorney, and enjoyed the sight of television reporters using the words "alleged terrorist" every time they discussed the trial, get their way and we can't even kill the bastards who wage war on us, it will get even worse.
Do you think that if the government is hamstrung in fighting terrorists that terrorists won't be fought? Do you really think that the sight of people waging private warfare on America and Americans won't be met by privatized warfare from Americans who will band together to protect themselves from being killed when their government will not or is not allowed to defend us?
You think that is far-fetched? Look south of the border if you doubt me:
It happened in Colombia, and it may be happening in Mexico, too. A group calling itself a people's defense organization has declared that it has taken armed action against a drug cartel. The group issued a press statement on video and claimed that it had killed 49 members of Los Zetas, in and around the city of Veracruz (Veracruz State). Hence the group’s name: the Zeta Killers (Mata Zetas). The group said that it respects the Mexican military but understands that the military is handcuffed by the law. The extortion, kidnapping, and murders committed by Zetas gang members are so out of control someone had to do something.
It could happen here, too. Actions have consequences. And if the people who oppose our war on terror get their way, the war will simply transform into another form of war if our jihadi enemies continue to attack us. Remember that the drone that killed Awlaki was piloted and fired from back here in America. It could have been a civilian, if lawfare stops us from fighting.
It is mind boggling that some argue we have a duty to wage war to protect foreigners from being killed (as we did in Libya but not in Rwanda) but think we cannot wage war to defend ourselves. But heck, perhaps I lack sufficient nuance and their real goal is to goad the sainted international community to intervene in America to protect us when our government will not.
UPDATE: Thanks to Instapundit for the link.
