WASHINGTON, D.C., Sept. 30, (DPI) — The assassination in Yemen of a U.S.-born Islamic militant cleric today prompted a surprisingly wide range of reactions from readers of American news sites, including strong views that the killing did little to staunch terrorism and ran contrary to our rule of law.
The cleric, Anwar al-Awlaki, was killed by a drone strike in Yemen, another notch on the belt of the Obama administration, which ironically is enjoying greater success with anti-terrorism than any other issue, domestic or global.
Yet the killing of al-Awlaki spurred widespread reader back-and-forth over its justification, since the New Mexico native born to Yemeni parents was the first American-born Islamic extremist targeted, and evidence of his complicity in terrorism was based on apparent phone calls to the Fort Hood shooter and contact with the so-called shoe-bomber.
The New York Times, in fact, promoted the US government’s case on Friday morning, posting a series of photos, on the top of its site, of all the events that al-Awlaki was linked to.
Still, between 20% and 25% of NYTimes.com comments (as of noon Friday) raised concerns about the absence of due process, even with someone as apparently complicit as al-Awlaki, who abetted terrorism with his internet and television rants, often in English.
(Comment #4) “Yes, Awlaki made videos supporting Al quaeda and wrote sermons. But as the Supreme Court has made it unambiguously clear in the past, advocating violence is protected free speech … At the very least, the burden on proof is on the government to show that this man was involved in planning even one attack, before they killed him without any due process whatsoever … A sad sad day for America and for freedom.”
(#10) ” ‘No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’ Does that mean anything anymore? We just had the president order the summary execution of an American citizen without trial. We don’t know if he actually was involved in any of his alleged crimes, because Mr al-Awlaki never was tried by a jury of his peers nor presented with the evidence against him … So this is not a day for celebration. It’s seizing unprecedented power from the judiciary and the citizenry by the executive.”
(#13) “Our remote-controlled grim reapers are one thing George Orwell did not account for. How long before they ply the skies of the U.S. looking for domestic “terrorists?” … Big Brother is not only watching you, he’ll put a Maverick up your tailpipe.”
(#24) “Whack-a-Cleric game rolls on.”
(#51) “The repercussions of this will undoubtedly be staggering. Imagine the flood of new aspirants vying for the top prize in the Cat Stevens lookalike contest.”
Still, the overall response from readers — particularly on WSJ.com, which attracts more conservative readers — was supportive, relieved, even congratulatory.
(#31 NYtimes.com) “Al-Awlaki manipulated hopeless young men and women to kill themselves and innocents in a war of his imagination. He is gone. The most successful achievement of the Obama presidency is the drone program. Now the cynical “holy” men who direct the carnage are no longer safe anywhere, at any time.”
(#81) Too many one-sided comments here. Killing this guy is a good move. Extremists are irrational and need to be exterminated.
Meanwhile, less reflection among WSJ.com readers, who tend to go after one another in their back-and-forth: “I didn’t know “Due Process” applied to enemy combatants. (Name), we need you over there making sure our brothers and sisters apply “Due Process” while they fight for their lives, and your and my life.” Added another: “Due Process? In Yemen!? Against a man who has declared war on the United States of America? And you wonder why liberals continue to be labeled lunatics or at best, enemies of America themselves.”