After the Camp Chapman attack in Afghanistan I quickly plugged into a major al-Qaeda jihad portal and some of the lesser lights to locate information about the bomber, Humam Khalil al-Balawi. It took a bit of persistent monitoring of the sites but eventually the last will and testament of the Shaheed was posted online along with images of the attacker. This rather longer-than-usual document made for a fascinating bit of reading. Toward the end of his gloating screech Al-Balawi named two individuals who had given ideological strategic depth to his thoughts. One, was a Jordanian scholar who has now been released from prison as a “rehabilitated” cleric who now parrots a “moderate” Islam to his adoring throngs. The name of the second individual was like a lightning bolt sent down my spine. I will not release the name of this man because I considered him a highly dangerous propagandist; equal to Anwar al-Awlaki in his soothsaying capabilities. He has penned some of the most virulent pro-Islam/anti-West writings which I had ever encountered. One article in particular, sent me into a flank of research regarding suicide bombing with particular foci.
What I read troubled me so much that I sent a detailed letter to Quantico stressing my belief that drone strikes – a form of extrajudicial punishment – were merited in narrow scope, and with clearly identifiable metric which would not disturb the conceptual arches of democracy.
There are virulent and violent enemies of democracy who remain beyond reach except for a hunt and kill order. It is impossible to physically secure the individuals and transport them in safe manner into the halls of justice.
I still support a limited use of drone strikes. They have served us well.
What I consider an ethical earthquake without precedent is any proposal to use a drone strike to target non-violent individuals who pose no terroristic threat to the sovereign civilian population of a nation.
Today, it is Julian Assange. Tomorrow, might it be you?
Would a drone strike on Julian Assange be any different, categorically, than president X,Y, or Z choosing to use military technology against a citizen enemy who wields the power of information, as opposed to wielding isotopes, pressure cookers, or assault weapons?
Yes! Go after the hostis humani generis who truly pose a potent threat to mankind.
Julian Assange will never fit into any conceivable democratic and humane metric for consideration of a drone strike. Mrs. Clinton is unstable and unfit for the rigors of the presidency.
- The Last English Prince has also had that small, nudging thought while writing this blog. Based on Mrs. Clinton’s reasoning, would she also merit a drone strike? Over time, she also released a large and unsecured data dump of her own which has most likely also harmed the interests of our nation. smile