Sherman said it first: “War is Hell!”
By BILL DUNCAN
The Elder Statesman
I don’t pretend to understand the logic of those who say the President and the military violated the Constitutional rights of due process by hunting down and killing Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.
Critics like Republican Senator Ron Paul contend that al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen from New Mexico, should have been arrested and brought to trial.
Easy for a politician seeking the presidency to say. Obviously, not all Republicans shared Paul’s views:
Rep. Peter King, R-New York, chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said the lethal strike was lawful. “It was entirely legal. If a citizen takes up arms against his own country, he becomes an enemy of the country. The president was acting entirely within his rights and I fully support the president,” King said.
In my opinion al-Awlaki gave up his Constitutional right to due process when he left this country and joined its enemies. He declared war on the United States.
So what is it about war that the critics don’t understand? Back in the dark days of the Vietnam War the daily newspaper I worked for in Los Angeles sent me to Camp Pendleton to interview a Marine general about that war. A statement the general made during that interview seems to answer those critics:
“You cannot put a rifle in a Marine’s hand and send him to war as a diplomat.”
War is brutal. There is nothing Constitutional about it. There is no due process on the battlefield.
It simply boils down to kill or be killed.
No veteran that I know is in favor of war. The Americans who take up arms, do so for one reason only: to insure their fellow Americans continue to live in freedom. They are willing to die for that reason.
I don’t believe in cheering and clapping over the death of any human being, but I have no moral quandary over the killing of Osama bin Laden or al-Awlaki, both sworn enemies of the United States and as such have innocent American blood on their hands.
The legality of using a drone to take out al-Awlaki, I believe is answered by Kenneth Anderson, an international law scholar at American University’s Washington College of Law. Anderson said U.S. citizens who take up arms with an enemy force have been considered legitimate targets through two World Wars, even if they are outside the traditional battlefield.
“Where hostiles go, there is the possibility of hostilities,” Anderson said. “The U.S. has never accepted the proposition that if you leave the active battlefield, suddenly you are no longer an enemy.”
Benedict Arnold, the American turncoat during the Revolutionary War escaped retaliation, but was branded as a traitor and died a pauper in England. However we don’t have to go all the way back to the Revolutionary War to find justification for killing dangerous people who do evil things – it happens nearly every day in police shootouts with killers.
Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence in 2010, told a congressional hearing that the U.S. was prepared to kill Americans affiliated with al-Qaida. Harold Koh, the State Department’s senior legal advisor, in a speech to a Washington legal symposium, said:
“The U.S. is in armed conflict with al-Qaida as well as the Taliban and associated forces in response to the horrific acts of 9-11 and may use force consistent with its right to self-defense under international law.”
Adwar al-Awliahi freely chose his allegiance and thusly renounced his Constitutional right to due process.
(Bill Duncan can be reached by writing to P.O. Box 812, Roseburg, OR 97470.)