Controversial Drone Attack on American

With the drone attack on American-born Al Qaeda terrorist leader Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen has arisen a stirring debate about the propriety of the U.S. action. After all, al-Awlaki was an American citizen and hadn't been legally charged with any crime (at least by the U.S.). Didn't that mean he had a more privileged status than non-nationals who are deemed to be a national threat?

Sometimes it is very hard for me to trust my own government when it claims to have special intelligence that implicates a specific party as being a threat to our nation, especially in light of the misguided justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Al-Awlaki had been implicated as being a spiritual adviser for two of the 9/11 hijackers, encouraged and praised the Ft. Hood shooter, and abetted if not planned recent terrorist plots in the U.S., including the failed May 2010 attempt to set off a van bomb just outside Times Square, New York City. Yemen had itself issued a "wanted dead or alive" announcement against al-Awlaki for alleged terrorist activities against that country and its people. But shouldn't our government have pursued a judicial course before acting as it did?

The way I see it is this: If the police see someone walking down the street shooting off an automatic weapon randomly at people, they are not going to wait to obtain a arrest warrant before subduing the individual, very likely with deadly force of arms. That's because the police, an arm of our executive branch of government, are mandated to protect the public from harm. In like manner, on a national level it is the executive, not judicial, branch that is empowered to protect the nation from its enemies. And as for the task of identifying which parties constitute our enemies, judges play no role.

Now in that context, if those entrusted with our national defense concluded that al-Awlaki constituted an imminent threat to national security and was a danger to Americans while making himself personally unapproachable for capture, then they would be in a very similar situation to that police/gunner scenario earlier alluded to.

The real question we have here is how far we are willing to trust those with executive power to accurately identify enemies and their threats to us, and to then act appropriately to deal with them in an effective, timely manner for the national good. Ron Paul, who sees conspiracies of power everywhere he looks, naturally was bitterly opposed to the drone attack. But like it or not, I want my government to protect me from those who mean to harm me and my family. After all, the Times Square attempt occurred at the exact spot where we were staying less than a month earlier. Our visit there came too close to being part of this ordeal.

Hopefully, at some time in the near future, we will get some information that further clarifies the drone attack and which explains it more compellingly in terms of protecting us from terrorism. In the meantime, we need to recognize that depending on our judicial system alone in matters concerning national defense and international (and domestic) terrorism would be disastrous. Yes, the judiciary does need to come into play and have an appropriate role. But it cannot tie up those whom we are entrusting with our defense, either.