So, yesterday we apparently went in and bombed this guy named Anwar al-Awlaki. This guy was a real leader in al-qaeda, so it should be a good thing that we killed him. The only problem is that this guy just happened to be an American citizen, and the bombing also happened to kill another US citizen. There are a lot of people that say that the US should not have taken this action. It goes against both US and international law. People like Ed Husain, think that the consequences of such an action greatly outweigh the advantages. Not only was the man an American citizen, but the killing was done 8 kilometers away from a town. It was a major risk to kill the man when we did. Overall many people are depricating the attacks. Moreover, many of these outspoken critics are future presedential hopefuls, such as Ron Paul.
However, the US may have acted I believe that the deed is done and that further criticism is only going to hurt the unity of the US. I can't say that morally and lawfully, the deed was good, however the man did present a significant threat to US security. I personally am a very big advocate of human rights and peace and all, yet I cannot find overwhelming weight in the arguments of the critics. While I agree that the man should have had some sort of a trial, the lack of that only is not enough to sway me to become a critic. I have to say that on this issue I am neutral.
To see the article click on the link below:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/politics/targeting-us-citizens/index.html?hpt=po_t2
However, the US may have acted I believe that the deed is done and that further criticism is only going to hurt the unity of the US. I can't say that morally and lawfully, the deed was good, however the man did present a significant threat to US security. I personally am a very big advocate of human rights and peace and all, yet I cannot find overwhelming weight in the arguments of the critics. While I agree that the man should have had some sort of a trial, the lack of that only is not enough to sway me to become a critic. I have to say that on this issue I am neutral.
To see the article click on the link below:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/09/30/politics/targeting-us-citizens/index.html?hpt=po_t2
I'd have to say I'm divided on it. It does go against American and international law, and there were risks to civilians, but on the other hand, it eliminated a major threat to security in America and in the Middle East. It all depends on whether human rights or national security is more important to you, and I would have to side with the human rights.
ReplyDeleteWhat a wonderfully original blog heading and current issue, you deserve recognition for such ingenuity! I too am rather neutral regarding the situation, as while I strongly advocate individualism and equality, seemingly extraneous measures are sometimes required to preserve order. Is the loss of one justified through the preservation of many?
ReplyDelete