Anwar and peace

For those unaware of recent events, Sept. 30 a terrorist died in Yemen, killed by a predator drone on the order of President Barack Obama.  

Normally this wouldn’t really register with us; as a society we’ve become desensitized to the loss of life.  Plus, after all, this was one of the bad guys – why do we care?  Because the terrorist, Anwar al-Awlaki, was a United States citizen.

A very compelling argument can be made against this decision. Does the government have the right to kill its citizens?  

There aren’t any easy answers to this question. We kill criminals in some states for the murder of others.  While the states themselves are committing those actions, they do reflect upon us as a civilization.

This isn’t a perfect example. After all, even Texas gives its mentally deficient killers a trial to ensure their guilt. Anwar al-Awlaki most certainly was never brought to trial for his actions, which include conspiring with Fort Hood shooting suspect Nidal Malik Hasan and the infamous Underwear Bomber.

There is another comparison to be made, however. In some situations, police forces may be forced to kill a perpetrator who poses a threat to the well-being of the general populace.  While the ethics of this action are equally fuzzy, they do set precedent for this action.

Sure, it’s not the police force taking down an armed bank robber or a drug lord, but it’s not too much of a stretch to say that the federal government can’t kill its own citizens when they are threatening the safety of other citizens. This isn’t the first time.  

President Lincoln maintained that the Confederacy was a made-up idea and that its members were U.S. citizens. During prohibition, several U.S. citizens, who were, incidentally, gangsters, were listed as public enemies with the order to be shot on sight.

Still, is it moral?  

Well, morality is sort of a subjective concept. Actions can be, at once, moral and immoral.  All human life has value, certainly, and shouldn’t be extinguished at the whim of anyone, no matter who they are.  Some individuals are a threat to other people and if they cannot be brought to justice, may have to be brought to an end.

Without a trial, it can’t be said for certain that Anwar al-Awlaki was directly involved in the deaths of anyone, American or otherwise.  But evidence entered into the trial of Nidal Malik Hasan would suggest he did have a role in supporting the deaths of American citizens, at least the ones at Fort Hood.  This may not make the killing justified, but it does make it understandable and it does appear to be in the best interest of the nation.

Morality, even killing, is not so cut and dry as we would like to believe. Not to make a utilitarian argument, necessarily, because the ends don’t justify the means. It’s a loss of life as bad as any, an act of evil, to kill even a terrorist. Unlike the old sayings we’re taught as children, two wrongs can make a right.  

The lives saved are a net plus for our society, and for that, I’m thankful.

Alan-Michael White is a senior English major and linguistics minor from Dumas. Follow him on Twitter @nintfjr.