Liberty VS Safety

American Strike on American Target Revives Contentious Constitutional Issue by Scott Shane is about Anwar al-Awlaki, and American citizen who was killed in an air-missile strike on Friday. The issue is that the American government labeled him a terrorist “making him a target for capture or death like any other Qaeda leader” despite the fact that he was a US citizen. Some believe that his actions, from supporting the killings of 13 people at Fort Hood, TX, to planning numerous other terrorist acts, justify his immediate murder without trial. Others, however, argue that as a US citizen, he was entitled to a trial before conviction.

Scott Shane is reaching out to American citizens to try and explain why Awlaki’s actions, as well as his influence as a well-adapted American, legitimize the US government’s actions. Shane explains that Awlaki was born in the United States but grew up in Yemen, an area with Al Qaeda influence. He came back to the US for college. Because he was so well versed in American culture and language, he was able to reach a wider audience than, for example, Bin Laden, who only spoke Arabic. He has connected to many American’s via the Internet, amassing an audience of tens of thousands, and has been linked to several terrorist plans, including “plots to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner in 2009 and to bomb two cargo planes last year.”

There’s no doubt that this is a difficult issue to take a side on. On one hand, Awlaki was clearly siding with terrorists and helping their efforts. On the other, he was an American citizen, and the decision to kill him without giving him a trial does violate the US Constitution. This is a tough case of constitutional liberty vs. national safety. However, I believe that upholding our Constitution is more important than safety. As Benjamin Franklin said, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” After all, if we don’t expect our government to respect other American’s rights, how can we expect them to respect ours?

9/11 Anniversary Breeds Fear And Suspicion

Upon reading the title of this article, Flight on 9/11 anniversary ends in handcuffs for housewife, I knew I would have conflicting emotions. An Arab-Jewish woman was taking a plane home on the 10^th anniversary of 9/11 and caused suspicion upon being seated next to two other Indian men. This with the fact that both Indian men spent "an extraordinarily long time" in the plane’s bathroom caused all three to be detained. Reportedly, the men on board who alerted the authorities didn’t hold the woman in suspicion and were surprised when she was arrested. Nevertheless, all three were put in holding cells, questioned one by one, and strip searched.

 

On one hand, I can understand the suspicion. Even non-racists can’t help looking at a group of people dressed a certain way and acting a certain way and imagining what sort of people they might be. Also, the whole country was waiting to see what disaster was going to befall the nation on the anniversary of one of the worst attacks on our homeland. Can you really blame the guy for making judgments on Middle-Eastern people? 

 

However it’s the procedures that followed this suspicion that I disagree with. Sure, I could see landing the plane, and even questioning the three people under suspicion. It is, again, the 10^th anniversary of 9/11. But treating them as if they had already committed a crime was wrong. In the United States we are innocent until proven guilty. There was simply so need to “yank” them out of their seats and handcuff them. Everything aside from questioning them was completely fueled by post 9/11 anxiety and fear.

 

As American’s protecting our rights, we have to take notice when these rights are stepped on. Those three people had their rights taken from them simply because of where they were from. In the fight to keep our country safe, we have to be very careful not to cross the line into taking away other citizen’s rights.