So there has been much made of Anwar al-Awlaki and the order to kill him. Which was carried out this past week. A lot of noise and moral hand wringing over Greater Principles and things like that.
Which is justified. This was, and is, a difficult decision and process and it raises questions.
But let's play the Speed game and have a pop quiz:
You have an American actively engaged in terrorist activities against the US but outside extradition.
What do you do?
Now, for guys inside the US, it's easy. We go get them. And we hold them for trial. Captain Underpants, Richard Reed, Jose Padilla, and the like are all within the justice system. And yes, Padilla was eventually moved to the regular justice system. The precedent has been set.
Anwar al-Awlaki has been actively engaged in promoting terrorism and attacks against the United States. All one has to do is watch his videos for confirmation of that fact. Also, under questioning, Captain Underpants has admitted that he received direct instruction from Anwar al-Awlaki. And remember that he sang like a bird after his parents told him to talk.
Also, there is evidence that Anwar al-Awlaki had a hand in the planning of other attempted attacks such as the Times Square attack. I know many here who went through Vietnam may be skeptical of things like this the government releases, but let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that there is some evidence of Anwar al-Awlaki being engaged in planning of attacks.
Now, under Geneva Convention rules, Anwar al-Awlaki, because he is engaged in warfare against the United States, is "fair game" on the battlefield. A "kill order" doesn't have to be released by those measures. If Americans had fought for the Nazis at the Battle of the Bulge, it would have been legal to kill them.
But, people say, the Convention applies to Conventional Warfare.
Fair enough. But there is some wiggle room, as Bush used.
But say you take a stricter interpretation, what then?
If you held a trial in abstentia would that trial hold up? It's held up for Roman Polanski. So they hold a trial and he's found guilty. What then? Do we let him sit and keep doing what he had been doing? And what if one of the attacks he helps plan succeeds?
Do we ask the Yemeni government to please, be nice and hand over one of their citizens? Would they do it? What would their demands be? Would we be required to prop up Saleh?
Or do we just go in and get him, starting another ground war in the Middle East?
Or do you do what was done?
Here's the challenge: In the comments, please talk about what you would do in this case. Not about whether what WAS done was good or not, but what would YOU have done. Play out the whole scenario.
How would you deal with Anwar al-Awlaki?