McCarthy on Awlaki
Here is Andrew McCarthy, National Review Online’s sole adult, replying yesterday to one of his NRO non-adult colleagues on the killing of Awlaki. I’m heartened to see that McCarthy’s main arguments are identical to those that I, without his legal expertise, have also used. He writes:
Kevin [Williamson] would have a stronger case if Awlaki had been killed in the U.S. But he was in Yemen—as an avowed member of al-Qaeda, a foreign enemy our nation is at war with under Congress’s authorization of military force. There already is precedent for conducting military operations against Americans under those circumstances, most recently the Supremes’ 2004 Hamdi ruling.“[Y]ou can see Awlaki as an enemy combatant or as a criminal defendant, but you have to follow through with the logic and consequences of either choice.” Exactly. As I said in a previous entry, if you believe that Awlaki should have been treated as a criminal defendant, not as an enemy combattant, then you must believe that al Qaeda in general must be treated as criminals, not as enemy combattants. You can’t support military operations against al Qaeda in general, and then suddenly say that one of al Qaeda’s most dangerous operatives must not be treated as an enemy combattant, simply because he happens to have U.S. citizenship.
As can be seen from the readers’ comments following McCarthy’s post, the libertarians are out in force on this story, demonstrating, as usual, their uselessness to the human race.
For example, a commenter named DJT writes:
So, now McCarthy and Obama can murder at will any American citizen who may be living or visiting abroad?To which another commenter, Waynester, aptly replies:
Why don’t you go to Yemen or the Sudan, become an Al Qaeda leader, direct operations against the U.S., and find out?
Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 01, 2011 08:15 AM | Send