Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Jihad Has Got Him On The Run.

Meet Anwar al-Awlaki, he's an American born Islamic cleric accused of ties to al Qaeda and thus terrorism. He is believed to be linked to the jihadi who murdered troops at Ft. Hood, the Christmas Day pantie bomber and may well have inspired jihad through his sermons. Now admittedly, fiery sermons do fall under the first amendment, does it not? It's kind of hard to arrest a man because he says or implies that he's thinking mass murder, under our system of rights. I may hate guys like this but freedom of speech is freedom of speech. We must have more evidence on this clown. I don't know what the FBI or whomever has, in as much as evidence on this dude, and truth be know I'm usually in favor of guys like him getting whacked for general purposes, however, he did flee to Yemen which may or may not point to guilt. Whatever, guys in favor of jihad against the West, generally, and the United States, particularly, are our enemies, especially when they act upon it. Is it enough or even legal to arrest a man for his speeches to upend our system? I'm pretty sure it isn't. I may hate this guy and others like him for my own petty bigoted reasons, but I'm pretty sure we need to charge them for a heck of a lot more than just their speech. Unless the evidence against him is top secret I don't think the government has any case against this guy, not constitutionally. So what do we do in the face of these revelations? Legally we can't stop a man from making incendiary CD's, videos and literature, and hold to our beliefs in the rights of man. What does one do when one knows there is the potential danger of someones, albeit free but incendiary speech, potentially influencing others into murderous action? We're not speaking of a crowded theater with someone yelling fire here, we're speaking of someone disseminating information in private, in various media formats and in public when invited, by like minded folks. What strategy can be taken to combat these acts, and how can it be done legally. I'm in no way defending this clown or others like him, but it is not our way to waste scum like this because of what they say, no matter how offensive, my point is, how can we catch them in the act if all we have to go on is their god given right to free speech? This is the dilemma faced by free people everywhere, when in the face of an enemy declaring war on them, refuses to reciprocate accordingly with meaningful strategy that may indeed, temporarily, bruise constitutional norms. It is not, I believe, possible for one side to wage a mindless, bloody, offensive war, while the other side wages a defensive legal battle to counter it. Our constitution, while enlightening in the abundant rights of man, is by no means a signpost for our own suicide pact, and there must be rules of war to preserve both us and our notion of our rights. What will it take for us to get serious about our self preservation, must it present itself in a mushroom cloud, more acts of terrorism, in times and places where one would least expect, or is it a lack of will and or cowardice on the part of those whom we charge to make these decisions, or our own? We better find out quickly, because our enemies grow within our shores, relentlessly pursuing their goals to our total submission or death, while being sponsored by our many enemies abroad.

No comments:

Post a Comment