Slava Novorossiya

Slava Novorossiya

Sunday, September 30, 2012


Last year on this day (30 September 2011), in northern Yemen's al-Jawf province, two Predator drones fired Hellfire missiles at a vehicle containing al-Aulaqi and three other suspected al-Qaeda members. A witness said the group had stopped to eat breakfast while traveling to Ma'rib Governorate. A Predator drone was spotted by the group, which then tried to flee in the vehicle. Please read more about Alwaki from Wikipedia

Anwar al-Aulaqi in Yemen in 2008.

Predator launching a Hellfire missile.

            There is another Pro Death Penalty argument in response to The Debate in my previous post, “THE DEATH PENALTY DEBATE: CAN CAPITAL PUNISHMENT BE SIMILAR TO THE ARMED FORCES?”

PAGE TITLE: The Mail on Sunday
ARTICLE TITLE: “Of Course it was Right to Kill Awlaki – Why Would You Even Ask.”
DATE: Friday 30 September 2011
AUTHOR: Charlie Wolf    
AUTHOR INFORMATION: Charlie Wolf (born 12 April 1959) is a British-based American radio talk-show host, disc jockey and political commentator, originally from Boston, and formerly the Communications Director of Republicans Abroad UK. Wolf is best known for the TalkSport show he hosted on Saturdays and Sundays from 1am to 6am, following Mike Dickin. Wolf was forced to leave talkSPORT 2006 when the station hired Jon Gaunt, shifting Ian Collins back to overnights and Mike Mendoza to the weekend shifts occupied by Wolf, leaving no space in the schedule for him. He is now a featured writer and blogger for the Mail Online's "Right Minds" page edited by Simon Heffer.

Charlie Wolf

When I heard the news this morning that the American Islamist radical, Anwar al Awlaki, was killed in Yemen my first thought, after those of the joy that a very dangerous and evil man had been neutralised, was to wonder, “how long until some holier-than-though lefty, from the false heights of his shaky moral high-ground will argue speciously that this was an unfair and unjust killing.”

It didn’t take long.

I caught the news this morning on the Fox News Channel when the story first broke with sketchy details. Not much later, on Twitter, like the tinkling of brass in the hollow echo chamber of the chattering intellectual classes, there were calls of a “lack of due process” and “the targeting of American citizens by their government,” and that Awlaki had “no trial.”

Yes, Awlaki had US citizenship; he was targeted for assassination by the CIA and US Military; his death reportedly signed-off by the president himself. The killing, by a couple of Hellfire Missiles, arriving silently from an American Predator drone, hit him from out-of-no-where and moved him swiftly from this earth to Jihad Hell.

Was it right to kill al Awlaki? Yes, of course it was, I can’t believe anyone would even ask. That’s not to say that we should not take issues of due process seriously but in this instance the decision was clear; our actions correct and needed.

Awlaki was a very dangerous threat to America –not to mention the world and the local Yemeni Muslim population, many who died at al Qaeda’s hands-- and this outweighed all other considerations.

Due Process? Does a man who inspired fellow Americans to kill their countrymen; to put bombs in their underpants to take down commercial aircraft, sound like someone who believes in due process himself? Awlaki, a member of a foreign –though non-state military entity—was at war with the United States. He was in foreign, hostile territory; there was no way the CIA or US Marshals could walk up to him, cuff him and read him his rights.

Do not be confused or misled. There are many who would falsely lead you astray in thinking that Awlaki deserved rights that weren’t his. Awlaki was not a common criminal – this did not involve domestic law; these were acts of war –a clear and present danger—and the US responded accordingly. The US killings were deliberate and judicious using the minimum force required. Hellfire missiles are pretty precise and deadly. There was a legal process here involving civilian government authority and military command and control. Before the president signed-off on a kill order he was fully briefed by the CIA. A convincing case –presenting solid evidence— was presented. We are at war, a war declared by al Qaeda and recognised by the United States. Congress gave George W. Bush the authority to use all necessary means to fight this war – and that authority carries on with President Obama along with the authority to kill enemies like Awlaki.

Obama’s decision was right, legal and proper.

Anyone who wants join al Qaeda will think twice and anyone replacing Awlaki should be constantly looking over their shoulder.

Awlaki was a mastermind recruiter. In many ways he was more dangerous, effective and prolific than bin Laden himself. Bin Laden was old school where Awlaki was a jihadi internet rock star; with his fluent English and American accent he had the unique ability to speak directly to, and recruit and radicalise young Americans to join al Qaeda; or inspire them to work independently as lone wolves. His internet magazine, “Inspire”, published on the web by Samir Khan (also killed in the attacks) has been likened to a breezy Martha Stewart style magazine for jihadis, murderers and terrorists. Filled with terrorist propaganda, one online article taught how to make a bomb in your kitchen.

The October 2010 issue includes an article penned by Khan, entitled “I Am Proud to be a Traitor to America.” The English language magazine, featuring speeches by Osama bin Laden, is aimed at American and British audiences. It is an effective radicalizing tool.

Khan was Awlaki’s ‘webmaster’ getting his message of radicalisation out to the world on the internet. Khan ran radical Islam’s Facebook page.

Awlaki was the man behind the underpants bomber, the plot to put bombs into toner cartridges placed on commercial aircraft; Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Detroit bomber; Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square bomber; and connected to Roshonora Choudhry, who stabbed a Labour MP and was in communication with Major Nidal Hassan, the American Army psychiatrist who is being tried for shooting fellow US military servicemen at their base, Fort Hood in Texas, killing 13 and wounding 29 others.

The case for his elimination was conclusive.

Two other men killed in the attack include one of bin Laden’s former right hand men and a leader of al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. Also killed was Ibrahim al Asiri, a master bomb maker who developed a way to make non-metallic bombs that could get past airport metal detectors. He designed the failed underpants bomb. He will fortunately be very hard to replace.
Al Qaeda is far from finished, though they are weakened and dispirited. It is harder to recruit to an organisation when they are losing and on the back foot.

We have them on the run and we are not going to stop!


In her seminal book , “Londonistan,” the Daily Mail and Mail Online’s Melanie Philips wrote how the UK government, through years of “denial” allowed radicals to freely move, settle and publish from London, and had turned the city into jihad central. “Under the noses of the British government, parliament, intelligence services and the police, Britain had become the European hub for the promotion, recruitment and financing of Islamist terror and extremism,” she wrote. Yet, ten years later this has yet to be fully addressed.

Astonishingly, according to the Henry Jackson Society, Awlaki was a frequent visitor to London, even as recently as 2009 by “which time his views on violent jihadism were well known.” This is a worrying and stunning revelation knowing Awlaki’s penchance for recruitment and radicalization.

The Henry Jackson Society delineates these visits:
-- In June 2003, Awlaki spoke at a number of events organised by the Muslim Association of Britain (MAB) and the Federation of Student Islamic Societies (FOSIS), Muslim Brotherhood-aligned organisations. He was introduced as a "distinguished guest" to Muslim students from across the country at the FOSIS annual conference.

-- In December 2003, Awlaki spoke at the East London Mosque (ELM), in Tower Hamlets. He participated in a "Stop Police Terror" event, where he told the congregation not to cooperate with the authorities' counterterrorism investigations.

-- In January 2009, Awlaki returned to the ELM, headlining - via video-link - a New Year's Day event titled "The End of Time". In a clear echo of the 9/11 attacks, the promotional material featured an image the New York skyline in flames. Following media interest brought about by HJS staff highlighting Awlaki's scheduled attendance, ELM issued a statement: "Mr Awlaki has not been proven guilty in a court of law. Everyone is entitled to their point of view..."

-- In April 2009, Awlaki was invited to address City University ISOC's annual dinner, again by video-link. The event was cancelled due, once again, to pressure from HJS staff.

-- Also in April 2009, Awlaki was the principal lecturer via video link in a weekend course organised by the al-Wasatiyah Foundation. The course was held at the Brady Arts Centre, a community centre funded and run by Tower Hamlets council.

-- In August 2009, Awlaki was due to give another video lecture at Kensington and Chelsea Town Hall, organised by Moazzam Begg's Cageprisoners group. While further pressure from HJS staff and other organisations led to the event's cancellation, City ISOC posted Awlaki's pre-recorded audio message to its website.

The war on terror is fought on many fronts. The killing of people like Awlaki with Hellfire missiles is one of them; so are the years of meticulous intelligence gathering and research that led to his assassination. The fact is that we also need to win the battle of ideas. That means the public need to understand the differences between the laws of war from criminal and civil law; why the laws of war apply here. It takes an understanding and acknowledgement of the real threats we are up against and the freedoms we are fighting for. That the ideology promulgated by the likes of Awlaki is illiberal, fascist and a threat to the cause of freedom. There are no moral relativisms here. Our failure to understand the threat against us will lead to our losing not just the battle of ideas but the battle itself.


NOTICE: I will post a quote from a Christian in favor of capital punishment every fortnight. For this week, it will be an article from a Roman Catholic Theologian.

ARTICLE TITLE: Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 146
AUTHOR: Saint Thomas Aquinas
AUTHOR INFORMATION: Saint Thomas Aquinas O.P. (also Thomas of Aquin or Aquino; ca. 1225 – 7 March 1274) was an Italian priest of the Catholic Church in the Dominican Order, and an immensely influential philosopher and theologian in the tradition of scholasticism, known as Doctor Angelicus and Doctor Communis. He is frequently referred to as Thomas because "Aquinas" refers to his residence rather than his surname. He was the foremost classical proponent of natural theology, and the father of the Thomistic school of philosophy and theology. His influence on Western thought is considerable, and much of modern philosophy was conceived as a reaction against, or as an agreement with, his ideas, particularly in the areas of ethics, natural law and political theory.

Saint Thomas Aquinas

The following is a summary of Summa Contra Gentiles, Book 3, Chapter 146, which was written by Aquinas prior to writing the Summa Theologica. St. Thomas was a vocal supporter of the death penalty. This was based on the theory (found in natural moral law), that the state has not only the right, but the duty to protect its citizens from enemies, both from within, and without.

For those who have been appropriately appointed, there is no sin in administering punishment. For those who refuse to obey God's laws, it is correct for society to rebuke them with civil and criminal sanctions. No one sins working for justice, within the law. Actions that are necessary to preserve the good of society are not inherently evil. The common good of the whole society is greater and better than the good of any particular person. "The life of certain pestiferous men is an impediment to the common good which is the concord of human society. Therefore, certain men must be removed by death from the society of men." This is likened to the physician who must amputate a diseased limb, or a cancer, for the good of the whole person. He based this on I Corinthians 5, 6: "You know that a little leaven corrupts the whole lump of dough?" and I Corinthians 5, 13: "Put away the evil one from among yourselves"; Romans 13,4: "[it is said of earthly power that] he bears not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that does evil"; I Peter 2, 13-14: "Be subjected therefore to every human creature for God's sake: whether to be on the king as excelling, or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of good." He believed these passages superseded the text of Exodus 20,13: "Thou shall not kill." This is mentioned again in Matthew 5,21. Also, it is argued that Matthew 13, 30: "Suffer both the weeds and the wheat to grow until the harvest." The harvest was interpreted as meaning the end of the world. This is explained by Matthew 13,38-40.

Aquinas acknowledged these passages could also be interpreted as meaning there should be no use of the death penalty if there was a chance of injuring the innocent. The prohibition "Thou shall not kill", was superseded by Exodus 22,18: "Wrongdoers you shall not suffer to live." The argument that evildoers should be allowed to live in the hope that they might be redeemed was rejected by Aquinas as frivolous. If they would not repent in the face of death, it was unreasonable to assume they would ever repent. "How many people are we to allow to be murdered while waiting for the repentance of the wrongdoer?", he asked, rhetorically. Using the death penalty for revenge, or retribution is a violation of natural moral law.

Many believe the correct interpretation of the commandment to be "Thou shalt not murder." This interpretation allows for Aquinas' belief that the death penalty is an acceptable practice as delivered by those in authority over such things, such as government, which is divinely appointed as to God's will.

Under Pope John Paul II, the Catholic Church came, according to one of two interpretations of Evangelium Vitae[1], to advocate incarceration in lieu of the death penalty.