On Point: Ambushing Terror: Surprise, the Predator and the ACLU

by Austin Bay
October 4, 2011

The appalling loss of life and physical destruction of al-Qaida's 9-11 suicide air strikes stunned the United States. The shock of surprise -- the unexpected attack "out of nowhere" on the presumed safe havens of American cities -- psychologically magnified the shock.

Al-Qaida's commanders sent the message that in their war on America and its allies, they possessed a key advantage: surprise. Al-Qaida's smart weapons -- violent zealots willing to die in order to kill thousands -- would penetrate our cities and towns and, at the moment of their choosing, a moment of surprise, turn them into killing fields. America would not be able to stop these unpredictable "asymmetric" attacks. Al-Qaida's commanders, however, would be able to disappear in the global haystack. Difficult terrain (e.g., the Himalayas), anarchic hells (e.g., Somalia) or friendly governments riddled with corrupt officials would provide safe havens.

Then, in Afghanistan, a decade ago, the Predator unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) surprised al-Qaida's grossly ill-informed elites. Armed with the "smart" Hellfire missile and digitally linked to America's vast "symmetric" technical intelligence system, the Predator was an omnipresent sniper exposing al-Qaida's leaders to deadly fire from "out of nowhere." Al-Qaida learned that asymmetry lies in the eye of the beholder.

In fall 2002, a Predator flying over Yemen's Marib province spotted Qaed Senyan al-Harthi, a senior operative involved in 9-11 and the attack on the U.S.S. Cole. A Hellfire killed al-Harthi. In mid-2008, Predator attacks on terrorist targets in Pakistan began to increase. The U.S. demonstrated that even isolated, tribal locales where everyone's a cousin aren't hermetically sealed.

America's armed UAVs are an extraordinary military, intelligence, psychological and political weapon in the Global War on Terror. To restrict their use, or to deny the U.S. the ability to use them, for whatever the claimed goal or legal theory, only benefits the mass murderers who wage a borderless war on America and Americans. Al-Qaida targets its enemies globally, from Bali to Mumbai to Fort Hood, Texas.

Enter the American Civil Liberties Union. For months, the ACLU has bemoaned Anwar al-Awlaki's inclusion on President Barack Obama's list of terrorists that may be killed when identified. Awlaki was born in New Mexico, so the ACLU contends that the president targeted an American citizen for assassination and denied Awlaki legal due process.

In 2010, a federal judge rejected an ACLU lawsuit filed on Awlaki's behalf. The judge said the judiciary had no business intruding into targeting decisions made by the duly elected executive branch. If Awlaki desired American legal protections, he could turn himself in.

Awlaki belonged to an organization at war with the U.S. He took pride in waging war on the U.S. He helped plan terror attacks. In the U.S. Civil War, Union soldiers didn't need a warrant to arrest or kill a Confederate belligerent, just a rifle. Awlaki was a rebel and a traitor. In sum, a nation fighting a war has the right to kill its enemies, and Awlaki was a dedicated enemy.

Last week, a Predator killed Awlaki -- in Yemen.

The ACLU and other lawfare-trumps-warfare organizations, however, remain in an activist tizzy. Why? Many lawfare advocates still don't believe America is engaged in a war; they believe it is an anti-crime action. President Obama himself encouraged this notion when he was Candidate Obama, but the sobering effects of executive responsibility have taught him otherwise.

Extremists in the lawfare mob believe the great courtroom in their minds really does regulate Earth's dark alleys, anarchic hells and chaotic battlefields. Narcissism or solipsism? Let's leave diagnosis to their shrinks.

In practice, the lawfare extremists behave like religious cultists pursuing a litigated utopia. Extremists in some international human rights organizations argue that Predator strikes themselves violate international law; drone strikes "blur" and violate "applicable legal rules." Defending Awlaki is thus a means of restricting use of the weapons with the goal of eliminating them.

In other words, these pillars of black-letter sanctimony would deny the civilized -- that's us -- the benefit of surprise in our long war on barbarians who recognize no rules. 

Read Austin Bay's Latest Book

To find out more about Austin Bay and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.


On Point Archives:

On Point Archives: Current 2023  2022  2021  2020  2019  2018  2017  2016  2015  2014  2013  2012  2011  2010  2009  2008  2007  2006  2005  2004  2003  2002  2001



Help Keep Us From Drying Up

We need your help! Our subscription base has slowly been dwindling.

Each month we count on your contribute. You can support us in the following ways:

  1. Make sure you spread the word about us. Two ways to do that are to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  2. Subscribe to our daily newsletter. We’ll send the news to your email box, and you don’t have to come to the site unless you want to read columns or see photos.
  3. You can contribute to the health of StrategyPage.
Subscribe   contribute   Close