If a Green Beret Is a War Criminal, then So Is Obama

American thinker ^ | 19 Dec 2018 | Daniel John Sobieski

[LavaDog]

One would think that in war the duty of a soldier is to kill the enemy before he kills you or your fellow soldiers. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are different in that the enemy doesn’t usually obey the rules of war, like wearing uniforms and rank insignia, and there are no “front lines” per se, only improvised explosive devices and sniper fire from second-floor windows or civilians used as human shields. That is where Mathew Golsteyn found himself in 2010 when the Green Beret killed a Taliban bomb-maker who had killed two Marines, Sgt. Jeremy R. McQueary and Lance Cpl. Raymon A. Johnson, in a war where only one side obeys the rules and the other is trapped by rules of engagement that make no sense and an Obama administration treating the whole thing as a law enforcement matter.

[budj]

[ßuddaßudd]

he droned a citizen didnt he?

[Leaning Right]

> Obama administration treating the whole thing as a law enforcement matter <

Don’t let W off the hook. He set the tone. Obama just continued it.

[RatRipper]

He killed more of our own troops with insane rules of engagement than he did the enemy. Yes, he is a war criminal . . . of the traitor variety.

[etcb]

he droned a citizen didnt he?

Actually 3 citizens. In addition to al-Awlaki, he got his 16 year old son and 8 year old daughter.

[piasa]

Was it ever proven that the guy he killed was a Taliban bomb maker? Just claiming so doesn’t make it a fact.

Did the bombings stop after he was killed, at least for quite a while?

[piasa]

He was also the president and the top of the food chain so he was within his rights, like it or not, to impose rules of engagement, however crazy and dangerous, just as a president has more authority than others in declassifying information.

There was nothing wrong in using a drone to strike Anwar al Aulaqi and his family if the president deems it necessary; Anwar al Aulaqi had already waged war against the US. The only person to blame for his kid’s demise is Anwar al Aulaqi who chose to take them with him to a war zone of the terrorists’ choice.

The Green Beret may be a hero for taking someone out who probably needed it, but unfortunately for him he did not have the authority to do so and he knew there are penalties for it.

Prosecutors would be within their authority to go after him if they can gather evidence to do so. It’s a pity the guy didn’t keep his mouth shut.

But if it turned out he was right and he did kill a guy who needed it, this new President has the authority to issue a pardon for mitigating circumstances.

[etcb]

There was nothing wrong in using a drone to strike Anwar al Aulaqi and his family if the president deems it necessary; Anwar al Aulaqi had already waged war against the US.

I have no disagreement with anything you said in your post except the above cited idea. Consider the implication of any President having the authority to order the execution of an American citizen simply because he deems it necessary. Would a president have been justified, without due process of law, in ordering the execution of Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, or any other criminal who it could be argued deserved to die. How about Benedict Aronald or possibly an illegal alien who murders multiple citizens. Holding the office of President does not exempt the incumbent from the restraints of the Constitution, nor does the actions of an individual citizen deprive them of it's protection.

As for al-Awlaki, he could have been tried in absentia by a military tribunal for acts of war and if convicted and sentenced to death. Execution by drone strike would then have been perfectly legal and appropriate.