Mr Galt is no longer with us......
Carry on....
doc
Post-banning post for posterity (next time wait until I'm done typing before banning
)
Killing on the battlefield is completely different from targeting someone for assassination. Sure, if Awlaki comes after our troops with an AK-47 they'll shoot him,and be right to do so. If some drug dealer does the same he'll be shot by the police, however what Obama authorized was hunting Awlaki down and assassinating him. This is the first time the assassination of an American citizen has been openly authorized by a president. It's exactly the sort of arrogance I expect from Liberals, what I can't understand is why any of you are defending him. This is Barack Obama, Authorizing the killing of an American citizen, not on the field of battle, with no trial, and you all seem to be ok with it.
I guess the people complaining about there being a lot of liberals here have a real point.
The legitimate killing of military targets transcends the imbecile in the WH. Odds are Obama has abdicated to Gates on most matters concerning the military while he coordinates with the rest of his staff over which ally to insult next. Even still I have no desire to strip honest presidents in the future of the ability to protect the US.
The fact Awlaki and his merry band of goat-****ers operate from private homes rather than battlefields is not the delineating point of a war.
Civil crimes are against civil targets. The very definition of war is armed conflict with the intent of achieving geo-political outcomes. Awlaki is not looking to use violence to become rich or off a nettlesome business rival; he is seeking to overturn the political system and policies of the US through violence. That is the political system the American people call their "freedom".
You would re-define war to grant all aggressors free rein to attack the citizens of the US by simply avoiding direct battle. How do you intend to interdict an enemy in a nation where we have no right to arrest, no treaty to extradite and the host nation is hostile?
All you have done is advertised safe havens for those who readily admit they seek war.
You complain its liberals that distort traditional views of limitations on war. Just the opposite, they constrain it. It was Clinton that treated terrorism via the law enforcement model. Obama campaigned to follow suit. Happily this is one broken campaign promise that works to the benefit of the American people and their liberty.
Your complaint has no precedence in US history. It is a fabrication of day-dreaming isolationists or worse: leftists that would neuter the US as their internationalist cohorts tighten the noose against us, one nation at a time.
Nor is Awlaki's happenstance of birth a "Get out of war free" card. The oath of national defense is to defend the nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
They'll move on to violent domestic terrorists like Tim McVeigh, then the militias and the abortion clinic bombers, then those that organize protests doing things like breaking windows. By the time they are assassinating the leaders of the Tea Party it will all seem perfectly normal.
If those actors were of such size that they overwhelmed civil authorities or they were in locations beyond the reach of civil authority this is to be expected. You have a right protest abortion and since that right is protected to you have an obligation to not resort to violence to affect policies you favor. If a thousand abortion clinic bombers refused to surrender to the police then: Yes, civil authorities would be well within their obligations to maintain civil order by dispatching military troops.
Ever hear of the Whiskey rebellion? I keep mentioning it but you seem impervious to citations of precedent. There are plenty of other examples.
