On Sept 30, 2011, the USA was able to take out two known terrorists. The story has been on all of the news, Anwar al-Awlaki, a powerful American-born Islamic cleric who was known to be an al-Qaeda operative, was killed Friday in Yemen, along with one of his associates. I believe that the controversy as to whether or not the killing of two former Americans was justified is a no brainer.

Organizations like the ACLU are up in arms over the fact that these two targeted individuals used to be American citizens. That they were executed (assasinated) without a public trial. That their "rights" were somehow infringed.

Anyone who has studied the dossiers of these two leaders of Al Queda would laugh at the ridiculousness of the complaint. Long ago, they renounced their loyalty to the USA, and joined forces with those whose goal is to kill as many civilians as possible. Toxic nerve agents were being advocated. I would not call these planned actions against us as examples of their right to free speech!

But, the ACLU does bring up one important point that I do agree with. There does need to be some sort of procedure in place before a president can sign a death order. In this instance, the guilt of these two terrorists was a no brainer. They wanted to inflict mayhem on civillians, and we were forturnate to have been able to remove an enemy.

The ACLU and other organizations suggested public trials before taking any actions. Sorry, fellas, but wake up. In the world of counter-terrorism, you strike fast and you strike hard. It is war. One mistake, one delay, and hundreds of innocent Americans will pay the price. I have reason to suspect that there have already been a number of operations conducted here and abroad by our special forces to neutralize (that's academic speak for kill) some deadly terrorist cells embarking on some nasty plots. It goes on a lot more often than you think; and a lot more often than gets reported in the media.

For an operation to go public, there would have to be complaints, missing persons, and police reports. Otherwise, no one is going to call the news about one of their secret, terrorist cell members having not shown up for a bomb making party.

Folks, please understand that there is a big difference between counter-terrorism and political assasination. There are actually quite a number of checks and balances to insure that a president does not suddenly start using sillencers to quiet the dissidents. He doesn't just sit down at his desk and compose a memo to kill anyone he does not agree with!

Decisions to conduct clandestine missions, here or abroad, go through a long series of evaluations and proposals. Most of these actions require months of planning and approvals. Even the immediate response actions require a major approval process, albeit a fast-tracked one. It is not, nor ever was a singular decision to initiate or to approve.

I cannot go into the details of the oversight process, and I do not even know the details. I do know that there is a complex process that does involve a number of individuals.Perhaps our government needs to explain the process in order to alleviate public fears. True, they cannot get too specific, for reasons of operational security -- but they could reveal a model of the workflow.

Maybe, after an operation, a few more details could be shed.

But one does have to be very careful. For example, if a congressman or senator was known to have been in on the approval process -- then a foreign intelligence agency might concentrate efforts on getting this politician (or staff member) to leak information about future operations. Politicians have never been known for their ability to keep secrets very well, when played to by a good reporter or agent! So it best not to go too public on the secret process, and who sits in on those decisions.

Counter-terrorism is a complex thing. In order to prevent tragedy, we do have to take pre-emptive actions.

But late at night, when I put my head down on my pillow and think of my wife beside me, and our son --- I am less afraid of secret police banging down my door than I am of terrorists blowing up another building, or exploding a car bomb on the streets, or succeeding with a WMD.

The threat is real. The solutions at hand are often not pretty, but better them than me.

If a man is accused of breaking into a home, robbing it, and the police are able to take him into custody -- then a trial is in order. But if an intruder breaks in to a house, directly threatens the family, and is shot dead by a member of the household --- then that is justice. The immediacy and severity of the threat took precedence over the bad guy's right to a fair trial. On the street, that individual is a suspect. But standing in the living room, brandishing a weapon and declaring that he is about to rape and kill for his pleasure -- that same individual has relinquished their rights to a trial for their rights to a funeral. There is no question of guilt or innocence, but rather the priority of saving the lives of the threatened family members.