We’re Not Worried At All

Thanks to LC & IB Bill Quick, we learn that apparently there are some on the right, or at The American Thinker at least, who aren’t exactly 100% sure that they should celebrate al-Alwaki’s recent departure to hell. No, the writer is not all verklempt that al-Alwaki’s no longer here, we do have the obligatory acknowledgments that the world is a better place without the terrorist bastard, BUT…

But it is worth noting that the United States government has killed a United States citizen without any judicial sanction, merely on an executive branch decision. A line has been crossed, and there are people on both the left and right side of the political spectrum who are given pause by the precedent and prospects for the future.

We’re with Bill Quick here completely. The line that was crossed was crossed by al-Alwaki when he decided to wage war against his homeland because, as the Oath says, those of us who gave it are obligated to defend the Constitution from enemies, foreign and domestic.

There is no “but you get special treatment if you’re an American citizen waging war against us” clause in there.

Al-Alwaki wasn’t “assassinated” (as you so cutely put it) because he owed back taxes or had written a scathing blog post about Ogabe, he was killed because he was waging war against the U.S. It is not only perfectly legitimate for the Commander-in-Chief, no matter who he is, to issue that order, it is his sworn duty to do so.

But you’re right that there are those who should be “given pause”, not because of an enemy combatant who just so happened to be a U.S. citizen getting killed as a result of waging war against us, but because of their seeming lack of understanding of the whole “…and domestic” part of the Oath. They just seem to be all on the same side (not ours) and they all seem utterly unaware of the implications thereof.

Hopefully for them and our nation, they’ll wake up before it’s too late for them.

Thatisall.

P.S.: To preempt any nonsense about his “being killed in Yemen which is not a war zone, waaaaaah”, allow us to quote this:

However, tribal sources told AFP that Awlaki was killed in an air strike which hit two vehicles in Marib province, an al Qaeda stronghold in eastern Yemen early Friday.

So, if the Brits or the French had taken the opportunity to blast the shit out of Adolf Hitler while he was in Paris, celebrating the capture thereof (but before the French had surrendered, therefore making them “not an enemy”), then that would have been an “assassination” too?

0 0 votes
Article Rating
32 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Igor, Imperial Booby
Igor, Imperial Booby
September 30, 2011 15:53

So, if the Brits or the French had taken the opportunity to blast the shit out of Adolf Hitler while he was in Paris, celebrating the capture thereof (but before the French had surrendered, therefore making them “not an enemy”), then that would have been an “assassination” too? According to the liberal loony leftists, YES. Which is why they are… Read more »

angrywebmaster
angrywebmaster
September 30, 2011 16:43

Liberals and idiots, (As if there’s a difference), will say we should have arrested those two and tried them in a court. In some ways, they are correct. If they had walked into any American embassy and surrendered themselves, they would have been entitled to the full protection of the Constitution and laws of this nation. This includes a fair… Read more »

LC Nicki the Resident Misanthropic Bitch
LC Nicki the Resident Misanthropic Bitch
September 30, 2011 16:49

Exactly right, moy bratik! The oath says, “Against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Anyone who wages war on this country is an enemy. If he happens to be a citizen (why he was allowed to hold dual citizenship, I’ll never know), and he’s waging war on his fellow Americans, he’s a domestic enemy. Glad to know he’s getting sodomized by… Read more »

LC Guy S
LC Guy S
September 30, 2011 17:14

AWM got it in one! Had the “former” American, found his way to the nearest embassy, THAN his constitutional rights would have kicked in. As it was he was: 1. An unofficial combatant (akin to a spy, terrorist, or other civilian malcontent) meaning he was not a member of any recognized nations military. To the best of my knowledge, there… Read more »

Sir Fresh Sign
Sir Fresh Sign
September 30, 2011 18:43
LC Gladiator
LC Gladiator
September 30, 2011 19:01

WHEN YOU COMMIT TREASON YOU GIVE UP YOUR RIGHTS AS A CITIZEN

LC Gladiator
LC Gladiator
September 30, 2011 19:14

OBAMA IS A WAR CRIMINAL. IMPEACH AND IMPRISON HIM NOW !!!!

LC PrimEviL
LC PrimEviL
September 30, 2011 19:42

Good. One less apostate*, traitorous, treasonous terrorist assmaggot on the loose.

Wish I could have been the one to push the “fire” button.

*(The punishment for apostasy under Islam is death. Why not hold them to their own rules?)

Darth Venomous
Darth Venomous
September 30, 2011 21:19

Not to put too fine a point on it, but guess who else considers it an “assassination”…? Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul is condemning the Obama administration for killing an American born al-Qaida operative without a trial. Paul, a Texas congressman known for libertarian views, says the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki on Yemeni soil amounts to an “assassination.” Paul warned… Read more »

Samsapeel1
Samsapeel1
September 30, 2011 21:42

I am one of those “concerned” by this. Very concerned. There is no “but you get special treatment if you’re an American citizen waging war against us” clause in there. Not in the Oath, no. But there IS such a clause. It’s Sec. 349 of the Immigration and Naturalization Act: (a)–A person who is a national of the United States… Read more »

Samsapeel1
Samsapeel1
September 30, 2011 21:50

Neal Boortz (heard just this minute):
“I think if you’re a U.S. citizen, you have a right to stand up and say ‘this country sucks’. But, as soon as you stand up and start inciting people; you deserve a Hellfire missile with your name on it.”

SWEEEET!! :em01: :em01:

LC SmokeyBehr
LC SmokeyBehr
September 30, 2011 23:43

@Samsapeel: 18USC2385 is the operative law that triggers Subsection 7: Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by… Read more »

LC Xystus
LC Xystus
October 1, 2011 07:06

Samsapeel1:

But now, once El Presidente has a whim to declare you an “Enemy of the State”, that’s it … SEAL Team 6 doesn’t knock on doors, or serve warrants, or let anyone even see them.

Neither do we.

LC Proud Infidel
LC Proud Infidel
October 1, 2011 11:31

Another terrorist head honcho has been sent to hell, time to celebrate! I’ve been having a ball bashing the pissy-diapered trolls at Human Events and cns News on his alleged “rights” that he surrendered when he decided to wage war on the USA!

LC Gladiator
LC Gladiator
October 1, 2011 12:35

Hamas: ‘Resistance’ against Israel is only option left for Palestinians Hamas leader Khaled Meshal addresses Tehran conference ‘in support of the Palestinian Intifada’; Iranian supreme leader tells conference that UN bid for statehood will fail. Hamas leader Khaled Meshal told an international conference in Iran on Saturday that “resistance” was the only option left for the Palestinians. Meshal was addressing… Read more »

LC Xystus
LC Xystus
October 1, 2011 15:32

What’s new about these rantings from a HamAss honcho? Hasn’t this “resistance” crap always been the Philistine leadership’s default position?

P.S.: Resistance is futile. Bwahahahaha!

dasbow
dasbow
October 1, 2011 17:40

It’s simple, really. If you go to war against us, we go to war against you. See how well that works out for you.

spc67
spc67
October 1, 2011 20:04

I suppose I understand the general concern about the Feds killing citizens. In general it is a terrible thing.

But in THIS case it isn’t even a close call. These jokers “provided aid and comfort to the enemy.” They have committed treason and are now belligerents.

Unless they are easily captured (and I mean EASILY) summary execution is entirely appropriate.

LC Sir Rurik, K.o.E.
LC Sir Rurik, K.o.E.
October 1, 2011 20:16

Why was Awlaki (oil lacky?) even considered an American citizen? In what way was he American? What thing did he have in common with us? Fluency in the English language? If that is the criterion, then it is time to declare non-citizens several million cholos in the Southwest. And many more gangbangers and Ebonics babblers in our big cities. The… Read more »

irish19
irish19
October 1, 2011 23:26

I’m in the minority here, but I agree with Samsapeel. I think this is something that could come back and bite us on our collective asses if we’re not careful.

LC Sir Clambake, Imperial Black Ops Technician, K.o.E.
LC Sir Clambake, Imperial Black Ops Technician, K.o.E.
October 2, 2011 07:21

angrywebmaster says: However, since they didn’t and were in the process of committing repeated acts of treason, (Taking up arms against the United States), they were fair game. Exactly, thank you for my answer! The Emperor had said almost exactly what I had thought of writing this morning, so I was just going to link this post, but you’ve just… Read more »

Samsapeel1
Samsapeel1
October 2, 2011 11:03

LC cmblake6, Imperial Black Ops Technician says: Sams, back there at 10 & 11, which one is the right one? This fuckwad had been actively inciting against America. Sorry, sarcasm doesn’t always come across in writing, and I hate using “sarc” or “/sarc” as it defeats the purpose. I was being sarcastic with my response to the Boortz quote. It… Read more »

Samsapeel1
Samsapeel1
October 2, 2011 11:10

I should note that I am not a lawyer. And, if I were a lawyer, I doubt that this area of the law would be my specialty. The Act that I cited may not be the best or most appropriate way to go about revoking Awlaki’s (or anyone’s) citizenship. If not, I apologize, but it doesn’t take from my argument… Read more »

Samsapeel1
Samsapeel1
October 2, 2011 11:46

Thinking more has made me mightily pissed off. Don’t like me? Fine. Don’t believe me? Also fine. Don’t listen to me? Don’t worry, nobody does. Nevertheless, I give it one last shot. Read what someone else has to say: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/278845/assassin-chief-kevin-d-williamson That’s the first and only one I bothered to link. I didn’t even read it to the end. Too pissed.… Read more »

LC Draco
LC Draco
October 2, 2011 17:02

We have actually gone from one extreme to the other. I know air strikes that were called off due to a JAG officer telling the Division Commander, “We might have issues”. Pissed me off. We are in a war that started over a decade ago and will continue for the foreseeable future. There are checks and balances, but when it… Read more »

spc67
spc67
October 2, 2011 19:48

Samsapeel, While I understand your concerns it seems to me that when Congress authorizes general action, as it clearly did under W it also authorizes the specific acts encompassed in that general action. In this case actively pursuing enemy belligerents and killing them. It seems to me that an American citizen should not be able to escapenthe consequences of becoming… Read more »

Bones
Bones
October 3, 2011 07:29

Sam, I have held off commenting for a bit while I mulled this over. You are absolutely correct in your assessment (my opinion only). This sets a VERY bad precedent. I’m not worried as much about this being used against my grand-children, but against me in the here and now and my grown children in the next couple of years.… Read more »

LC Nicki the Resident Misanthropic Bitch
LC Nicki the Resident Misanthropic Bitch
October 3, 2011 10:21

Bones @ #: I have to disagree with you there. This is not a criminal issue. It’s not a law enforcement issue. This is war. He has declared it – several times over – on the United States, and he was treated like a warrior on the battlefield. I actually wrote about this over the weekend, and I stand by… Read more »

irish19
irish19
October 3, 2011 13:28

An “enemy of the state”, as defined by a government controlled by idealoges (either side) is an entirely too broad of a definition

Exactly!!

Guest
October 3, 2011 17:43

#13 LC Xystus Samsapeel1: But now, once El Presidente has a whim to declare you an “Enemy of the State”, that’s it … SEAL Team 6 doesn’t knock on doors, or serve warrants, or let anyone even see them.Neither do we. With apologies to Gilbert & Sullivan: And that Nisi Prius nuisance, who just now is rather rife, The Judicial… Read more »