Ok, so Ron Paul has done it again. As if saying that Iran should be allowed to have nuclear weapons; that the legalization of marijuana should be defederalized (which in fact would push legalization of this dangerous drug forward); now we have to listen to him attack America for killing an avowed terrorist: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/sep/30/ron-paul-cleric-al-awlaki-assassinated/
Anwar al-Awlaki was killed by a United States air attack in Yemen last week. Ron Paul and the ACLU are outraged that Obama has allowed such a thing to happen, both calling it an assassination. The ACLU - left-wing radicals that they are - has gone so far as to say the attack took place in the peaceful Yemen desert. Hmmm, last I heard Yemen was referred to as a place under multiple uprisings and a hiding place for al Qaeda, our number one enemy. The problem, both Paul and the ACLU agree, is because al-Awlaki was a United States citizen.
Paul is calling the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki an “assassination.” Now, I can understand Paul’s concern about the unwarranted attack or prosecution of an American citizen not proven to be guilty by a court of law. The Randy Weaver case was a travesty of justice in our Nation’s history. Hal Lindsey excellently explained possible repercussions of setting such a precedent in his weekly newsletter. Mr. Lindsey expresses some valid concerns, but he also correctly stated the problem we have created by not allowing a declaration of war. http://www.hallindsey.com/
But unjustly killing an American citizen is hardly the case here. Al-Awlaki left America as a young child. He has no allegiance to this country; instead, he has sworn his allegiance publicly to al Qaeda, our most notorious enemy. And is in fact, the mastermind behind the “Underwear Bomber”, the Fort Hood shooting and the “Times Square Bomber”. The “American born” al Qaeda operative was considered one of the most influential terrorists wanted by the United States. And the truth of the matter, this IS war. Nope, we haven’t declared war on al Qaeda, but they have declared war on us! And in some ways, they have been pretty successful. If not for the documents and policies put in place in 2001 by President Bush, after 9/11, we would be sitting here like the Red Coats during the American Revolution: looking real pretty in red, with our politically correct marching orders, but taking attacks while we blindly march ourselves into oblivion. The problem here I believe, is not allowing us to say we are fighting a “religion”, which is unlike any situation we have ever dealt with in our past history. Fighting a radical religion is likely to put us at war with people from a number of nations – and where they might be from is irrelevant when the group they belong to has declared war on America.
Though of course US Intelligence had been following al-Awlaki and knew he was in that automobile (from half a world away, no less) the strike was a US drone attack on al Qaeda, our bitter enemy. If al-Awlaki wanted US rights and protection, he shouldn’t have been working with al Qaeda as America’s number one enemy.
I do understand the concern about the problems that could arise, and precedents that could be set by such action; but I do believe we have to use a little common sense here. Al-Awlaki was an enemy of the United States. I knew immediately my opinion of the situation, but I also knew my disdain for Ron Paul, so I wanted to be sure that opinion wasn’t interfering with my judgment. I wanted to think “critically” about this and not just regurgitate what I might hear on television or internet. I read, I researched, I even asked my son’s opinion, who by the way, always seems to have thought provoking ideas grounded in common sense. I sought out the opinions of people I almost always believe and trust such as Hal Lindsey and Newt Gingrich. I believe it is a time now in our Nation’s history where we must take the time to verify reports and information. We must think for ourselves, do the extra research and consider all facts. This is not a time to blindly trust anyone.
Gingrich’s take on the issue was especially interesting. Say what you will about the man, I have the utmost respect for him. During his Presidential run, he is the only candidate calling for decency and respect of the other candidates. “We are all on the same side,” he has repeatedly said. “And there will come a time when we need the unity.” He could not be more right about this classy statement, but more than that he has acted upon what he said.
He could have chosen to attack Ron Paul (one of his competitors in the Presidential bid) as making another outlandish statement; so many of the candidates are going after one another verbally in this campaign. But to Newt’s credit, in his newsletter on the issue of the drone attack, he does not mention Dr. Paul’s statement. Instead he states the facts, shows the problem with the ACLU liberal agenda, and comes out with truth that needs to be shared.
After my research and heart ponderings, I am comfortable with the belief I have settled upon. It just troubled me that I was actually agreeing with something Obama did. I am no fan of Obama, and I have a hard time not questioning everything he does, but I guess I should be more like Newt and have the strength of character to admit Obama finally got one right this time. Deep within me, though, as often as this President has been out to lunch, on vacation, or at the golf course, I sometimes wonder if he even knew anything about it. On the other side of the coin, I also find myself wondering if this was a political move on Obama’s part, in light of next year’s election. Originally, Obama even wanted terrorists who weren’t U.S. citizens to be tried in our civilian courts. For me, that is one of the most troubling things that could happen in this War on Terror, now labeled “overseas contingency”, at the direction of the Obama administration. But that is for a whole other discussion. I do truly believe the real credit for this successful drone attack goes to our military - the best national defense in the world.
So though I should strive to have character like people such as Newt Gingrich, I don’t have to be silent about Paul – because I’m not running for President. I will continue to express my beliefs about men or women that could one day be the highest official of this great land. Newt may or may not have my vote, time will tell; but Ron Paul definitely will not.
If we were to do what Paul suggests, try the enemy in a civilian court, I guess we would owe lots of apologies. For example as my son says, “We would need to apologize for every Confederate soldier that the Union killed.” And since the Confederates were also United States Citizens, we would also have to apologize for every Union soldier that was killed by a Confederate. I don’t think that is too much of a stretch. War is war, and as sad as it is, sometimes it is needful. It is needed to save more lives in the long run. There are different “rules of engagement” in war; there has to be.
But for the sake of argument, let’s take it back to the perspective of protecting a United States citizen: Gee, I guess we would need to apologize to Bonnie and Clyde, for getting shot by authorities because they wouldn’t give up and instead go to trial. Yes, they had a right to a trial, but they chose otherwise. Whether al-Awlaki had a right to a trial is highly debatable. I don’t believe anyone will ever convince me he should have been granted that right. He chose to run. He chose to hide. And he chose to attack America, even if it was his place of birth.
I could go on and on with my rant in this blog but it really isn’t necessary. Speaker Gingrich said it clearly and concisely in his newsletter this week:
Congress gave the president the authority to use “all necessary and appropriate force” force against Al Qaeda in 2001. Anyone engaged in war against the United States, whether an American citizen or not, is subject to the use of force by the U.S. As John Yoo put it this week, "American citizens who join the enemy do not enjoy a roving legal force-field that immunizes them from military reprisal."
President Obama was entirely within his rights to take action against a top-ranking member of a group that has declared war on the U.S., and who was actively seeking to launch new attacks against this country.
President Obama's legal advisors unanimously agreed. (Personally, I don't really care much about that.)
In addition to eliminating an important figure in the Al Qaeda leadership, Awlaki's killing might be good news in one other regard. I hope it represents a concession by the Obama administration that the view the Left has championed for years—that terrorism is just a "law enforcement" issue—is fundamentally wrong.
This is a war. Now at least one of the administration's legal opinions admits that fact.
In our documentary America at Risk: The War With No Name, Callista and I discussed the refusal of the Left to speak honestly about the enemy we are at war with. Our number one example in that movie was Major Hasan, the Fort Hood Shooter inspired by Alwaki. The section on Alwaki below shows exactly why we must consider this a war: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a2Of36qzZ7M
The ACLU and others accusing the President are in complete denial about the nature of the threat we face. American citizenship cannot be used as protection with which to wage war against America.
I couldn’t agree more. Why Dr. Paul continues to blast this War on Terror is anyone’s guess. But I have seen it enough now; Paul would rather blame America for 9/11 than admit we have an enemy in radical Islam. Even as recently as the first Presidential debate this fall, Paul claimed we are the reason we were attacked on 9/11. Have you checked out who some of his financial supporters are? Neo-nazis and Islamic organizations. So is he on their side, because they give him money? Or are they on his side because of his radical ideology? Which came first the chicken or the egg?
I have posted the link below previously on my blog. It is an old article, but the truth in it remains the same. Rather than see a change in Dr. Paul, or any behavior or facts to disprove what this article claims, I continue to see Paul’s actions and statements reinforce what the author of this article states: