Sunday, October 2, 2011

Obama legitimates assassination.


ISRAPUNDIT

October 1, 2011
By Ted Belman

The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki Friday is result of military operation by U.S. forces. And he was an American citizen. In fact with the greater availability of drones these assassination have increased four fold. What is interesting is that liberals, Obama included, didn’t like administrative detention and instead turned to assassination to avoid detention. Ironic, no?

Remember that Israel’s policy of assassination always drew pious condemnation from the world. Still does. And Israel is still not permitted to assassinate Hamas leaders.

Also the liberal High Court in Israel has gone so far as to hold soldiers accountable for killing terrorists rather than arresting them.

What an upside down world.

Posted by Ted Belman @ 6:13 am
Comments posted on Israpundit:
  1. Bill Levinson says:
    October 1, 2011 at 7:01 am
    Also the liberal High Court in Israel has gone so far as to hold soldiers accountable for killing terrorists rather than arresting them.
    It makes me wonder whose side they are on.
    Enemy soldiers have the right under international law to surrender and become prisoners of war (in which case they cannot be put in jails but must be held in prisoner camps that meet international standards–it’s illegal to lock a POW in a prison cell!). Terrorists are not soldiers and, as far as I (and most military commanders prior to 1946) were concerned, have no rights whatsoever. Russia seems to agree noting how it applied the equivalent of Rule 303 to some Somali pirates a while ago and quite likely to the Beslan terrorists.
    The fact that terrorists like Samir Kuntar get revolving door justice, in which they do not complete a fraction of their prison sentences because of political deals, is another strong argument for Rule 303. The latter need not be applied overtly–if the terrorist is holding a weapon, the IDF can simply not bother to ask him to drop it before it blows him into very small pieces. Asking for an enemy’s surrender is an optional courtesy that a decent person offers enemy soldiers who are in a hopeless situation; it need not be offered to terrorists.
    Anwar al-Awlaki meanwhile always had the option to surrender to U.S. authorities, be read his rights, and be processed through our judicial system. He was a criminal who was wanted dead or alive (but in custody). He chose to take his chances so as to remain at large and commit more crimes so he ended up dead. To hell with him and his friend Osama bin Laden.
    Reply
  2. warmonger says:
    October 2, 2011 at 5:16 am
    The world to Israel: You are NOT ALLOWED to use the same tactics as the rest us. Dont ask for an explanation just do as your told OR we WILL react! We must stay the course and in our minds thumb our nose at these idiots!! We WILL get the last laugh! It will be DELICIOUS! I haven't eaten an Arab for breakfast in a long time and I am GETTING HUNGRY!!
    Reply
    My note:
    Ten years after 9/11 and Americans, including one candidate running in the upcoming presidential elections, screams in outrage over the U.S. using the technology of a Drone to seek out and kill a known terrorist in Yemen.  Drones save lives of U.S. soldiers, while keeping America safer - so, it's time to update the Rules of War, since these Islamic terrorist do not go by the book and are well adapt at blowing us up!  Anyone with sympathies towards terrorists attacking U.S. citizens SHOULD NOT be a candidate for taking out the trash, never mind "President of the U.S.".
    And yes, Israel is constantly condemned, blamed and ridiculed for protecting its citizens from the constant attacks of known terrorists, so same goes for Israel; again, update the Rules of War against terrorism - and STOP allowing other nations to dictate how you should protect your citizens 
    Terrorists have no rules and are cowards! FIRE UP THOSE MISSILES!!


Posted by at