Guest Blogger: Chainsaw on Anwar al-Awalaki

As teenagers, we called him Chainsaw, and in the spirit of online anonymity, my guest blogger will keep the childhood nickname that he has never been able to escape. Not only is he someone I admire greatly that I consider a brother, but he is one of the most insightful people I know. I think his words will give everyone something to think about.

 In a brief article, buried inside the New York Times, is an issue that should be garnering more attention than airport pat downs. While I see pat downs as a tightrope, much like I see allowing the government to spy on its own citizens without a warrant, this new precedent goes miles beyond a little prying into our e-mail or junk. 
As the article reports, “a federal judge threw out a lawsuit that had sought to block the American government from trying to kill Anwar al-Awalaki.” While this alone brings up issues--such as why do we release that we are going to kill people and most important who do we think we are that we have the right to kill people--the bigger issue here is the citizenship of the Anwar al-Awalaki. He is an American citizen. 
The judge who ordered the ruling is quoted in the New York times as saying, “The court only concludes that it lacks capacity to determine whether a specific individual in hiding overseas, who the Director of National Intelligence has stated is an ‘operational member’” of Al Qaeda’s Yemen branch, “presents such a threat to national security that the United States may authorize the use of lethal force against him.” 
This seems a fairly weak argument not to mention a bit of a cop-out. It appears to me that if the court is saying it “lacks capacity to determine” the fate of an American citizen, we are headed down a fairly dark path. 
The target has not been given the right to a fair hearing; he has only been accused by the US Government as having taken part in terrorist actions. These accusations, while they may be correct, will not be substantiated by the government under the shield of National Security. 
Ruling that the US Government cannot be reined in by the courts, in matters dealing with the governments killing of American citizens, appears to be saying the checks and balances this country was built on are no longer functioning. It appears to be saying that if the government feels killing is a necessary punishment; than the court has no reason to interfere. 
I question this reasoning simply on the basis of allowing government sanctioned murder. It seems to me that instead of seeking to solve the problem which causes an American citizen to turn on his own government, we are becoming the school yard bully who uses power over intellect to get what he wants. We’re better than that—at least I like to think we are. There are obviously issues at home that need tending to if people feel the need to attack. 
Perhaps instead of killing we should seek to find the issue that causes the problem. If we just keep killing more people are just going to pop up. Where and how does it end? I grew up during the war on drugs, 20+ years ago, where we tried the same tactic—though using jail instead of death (though it could be considered a death as you are taken from society)—and based on the fact drugs are still rampant in this country it seems the tactic has failed. Yet instead of changing the tactic we are just upping the punishment. 
It seems naïve to think that by killing someone we are going to make the world safer—it also seems naïve to think we are concerned about the world and not just the security of the US. As Gandhi so eloquently put it, “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind”. By killing we are only asking to be killed. 
Why can we not take the higher road? Is it time, are we concerned that the problem must be solved in a thirty minute time slot? Do we not have the intellect needed to take the higher road? Come on, what is it? I want to know?