[nmap]

I've reviewed the original article again.

If El Wacki is involved in plots, then it seems reasonable to delete him. I can see how that involvement transforms him into an enemy combatant.

Addressing his advocacy of such actions is more problematic; as the article points out, such speech has, historically, been regarded as protected under the constitution. Without doubt, he is guilty of advocating attacks on U.S. targets; however his actual involvement in plots appears to be in dispute.

If we want to eliminate someone for what they have said, that could lead down some dark paths - although, in some instances, perhaps it is worthwhile.

On the other hand, if involvement is the line in the sand, then we have a question of due process - because whoever makes the determination of involvement has an implied authority to invoke the death penalty. Whoever wields that power has the opportunity to go down other dark paths - especially since there is no review of their actions.

I cannot help wondering how many people could use such power and not be corrupted by it. Removing this particular malefactor will probably make the world a better place; but I wonder how the policy will evolve over time.

I am reminded of an exchange from a play, "A Man for All Seasons".

Quote:
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!

Sir Thomas More: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?

William Roper: Yes, I'd cut down every law in England to do that!

Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man's laws, not God's! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake!