Regardless of how a person feels about it, you've got to admit that Barack Obama keeps adding to his impressive tally. The first notch was Osama bin Laden. Next came US citizen Anwar Awlaki followed two weeks later by the man's 16 year old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki (also a US citizen). And, while the death of Muammar Qaddafi wasn't explicitly at the hands of US forces, we certainly set the ball in motion.
I realize that most Americans won't weep over the deaths of bin Laden, Awlaki or Qaddafi. They were bad dudes and we're told that the world will now be a better place because they're gone. What too many of my brethren don't seem to understand is that, with each of these deaths, something else has died as well: the rule of law.
We like to tell ourselves that the reason why America is different is that we follow the law in the prosecution of those accused of crimes. While other nations often devolve into vigilante justice, we abide by our constitution and judicial processes.
While this belief is based on a popular myth, we have now torn that belief asunder. We have shown the world that we engage in vigilante justice just as much, if not more, than the next guy. We expect the rule of law to be afforded to our citizens by other nations, but we thumb our nose at the same rule of law whenever it suits the purposes and designs of our leadership.
I will close this post with a snippet from Glenn Greenwald's latest column. He again shines the light on a very ugly truth!
I realize that most Americans won't weep over the deaths of bin Laden, Awlaki or Qaddafi. They were bad dudes and we're told that the world will now be a better place because they're gone. What too many of my brethren don't seem to understand is that, with each of these deaths, something else has died as well: the rule of law.
We like to tell ourselves that the reason why America is different is that we follow the law in the prosecution of those accused of crimes. While other nations often devolve into vigilante justice, we abide by our constitution and judicial processes.
While this belief is based on a popular myth, we have now torn that belief asunder. We have shown the world that we engage in vigilante justice just as much, if not more, than the next guy. We expect the rule of law to be afforded to our citizens by other nations, but we thumb our nose at the same rule of law whenever it suits the purposes and designs of our leadership.
I will close this post with a snippet from Glenn Greenwald's latest column. He again shines the light on a very ugly truth!
Every now and then it’s worth pausing to reflect on how often we talk about the killing of people by the U.S. Literally, the U.S. government is just continuously killing people in multiple countries around the world. Who else does that? Nobody — certainly nowhere near on this scale. The U.S. President expressly claims the power to target anyone he wants, anywhere in the world, for death, including his own citizens; he does it in total secrecy and with no oversight; and this power is not just asserted but routinely exercised. The U.S., over and over, eradicates people’s lives by the dozens from the sky, with bombs, with checkpoint shootings, with night raids — in far more places and far more frequently than any other nation or group on the planet. Those are just facts.
If you were a solder in WWII and you had an opportunity to assassinate Hitler, would you take the shot? or would you hesitate because just killing him wouldn't be following the "rule of law"? Although these men were not nearly as bad as Hitler, they were clearly guilty of crimes against humanity and they would have probably been sentenced to death anyway even if they were tried.
ReplyDeleteWhen you're in a battle being actively fought by two sides -- both sides are shooting at each other -- then you might shoot Hitler. If you captured him, then you wouldn't shoot him; you'd take him prisoner.
ReplyDeleteOsama bin Laden was captured, then summarily executed. Awlaki, a US citizen, had never been charged with any crime and the ONLY information we have that he was involved in anything illegal comes from the people who executed him. His 16 year old son, also a US citizen, wasn't charged with any crimes either, but we killed him just the same.
Was Qaddafi a tyrant? Yes...but as long as he cooperated with US interests, we conveniently turned a blind eye to his misdeeds. We gave him millions of dollars and sent prisoners to Libya for advanced interrogation (i.e., to be tortured).
He "became" our enemy when he stopped allowing the US to manipulate him. Again, the man was captured and yet we allowed him to be summarily executed.
KaiWen, this is a slippery slope. Why have laws if the government can circumvent them whenever they feel like it? If the US plays by its own set of rules, how are we different than the so-called terrorists?
Killing someone because they 'are bad' as I've said enough to bore myself is bad irony and bad form.
ReplyDeleteSeems a reason for the kill is that if they just caught the person then some inconvenient information may likely emerge. Rather than risk some one like the coronal letting the full story out they silence the key witnesses mafia style.
Here's another thing, KaiWen. From the standpoint of many in the Arab World, George W. Bush and those in his administration as well as Barack Obama and the folks in the current administration are "clearly guilty of crimes against humanity" due to the fact that they've killed tens of thousands of civilians. If they could be arrested/captured and tried, a good deal of them would most likely get the death penalty.
ReplyDeleteSo, would you defend an Arab nation if they swooped into the US and summarily executed some or all of these people?
My guess is that you would not. You'd howl that such actions illustrate the difference between us and them. We live by the rule of law!