Here are two facts: (1) Anwar al-Awlaki is an American citizen and an al-Qaeda propagandist. (2) Pres. Barack Obama proposes to assassinate him. Between the first fact and the second falls the shadow.
The Awlaki case has led many conservatives into dangerous error, as has the War on Terror more generally. That conservatives are for the most part either offering mute consent or cheering as the Obama administration draws up a list of U.S. citizens to be assassinated suggests not only that have we gone awry in our thinking about national security, limitations on state power, and the role of the president in our republic, but also that we still do not understand all of the implications of our country’s confrontation with Islamic radicalism. The trauma of 9/11 has deposited far too much emotional residue upon our thinking, and the Awlaki case provides occasion for a necessary scouring.
Advertisement
Contra present conservative dogma, the Constitution has relatively little to say about the role of the president in matters of what we now call national security, which is not synonymous with combat operations. What the Constitution says is this: “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” That is all. Upon this sandy foundation, conservative security and legal thinkers have constructed a fortress of a presidency that is nearly unlimited or actually unlimited in its power to define and pursue national-security objectives. But a commander-in-chief is not a freelance warlord, and his titular powers do not extend over everything that touches upon national security. The FBI’s counterterrorism work, for example, is critical to national security, but its management does not fall under the duties of a commander-in-chief; it is police work, like many of the needful things undertaken in the War on Terror. The law-enforcement approach to counterterrorism is much maligned in conservative circles where martial rhetoric is preferred, but the work of the DOJ, FBI, NYPD, etc., is critical. It is not, however, warfare.
A commander-in-chief does not have unilateral authority to invade foreign countries or to name belligerents, and it is clear that the Founders did not intend to give the president that kind of unchecked war-making power, much less to compound it with unchecked domestic police and surveillance powers, which is why the power to declare war resides with Congress rather than with the president. Our Constitution, as in all things, relies upon checks and balances when it comes to the conduct of war. It is significant that the final powers — to declare war, to ratify a peace treaty, to punish treason — do not rest with the president, but with Congress.
Congress deploys its checks and balances through passing laws, but many conservatives now argue that the president need not follow them. It is no exaggeration to write that a key plank in their platform is the belief that the law does not apply to the president or to his employees. Being a co-equal branch of government, conservatives argue, the executive is not bound by what my colleague Andrew C. McCarthy habitually refers to as mere “congressional statute” — i.e., the law — when pursuing its constitutional national-security duties. I do not wish to exaggerate Mr. McCarthy’s position, so I will let him speak for himself. For example, he acknowledges that “Bush’s ‘Terrorist Surveillance Program’ did not comply with the letter of a congressional statute, the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,” but maintains that the administration was not obliged to follow the law in this case, because of a superseding constitutional investiture. Mr. McCarthy dismisses the notion that “the president acts illegally whenever he transgresses a statute” and argues that Congress “violated constitutional separation-of-powers principles” merely by issuing subpoenas to White House staffers in the course of a criminal investigation. He argues that in national-security matters, the president’s conduct is “more a political matter than a legal one.” For a great many conservatives, President Nixon’s most cracked assertion — “When the president does it, that means it is not illegal” — is now an article of faith, but President Reagan’s Executive Order 12333 banning assassinations is a dead letter.
Running with the ball we passed him, Obama and his administration now insist on the president’s right not only to order the assassination of U.S. citizens, but to do so in secret, without oversight from Congress, the public, or anybody else. Barack Obama today claims powers that would have made Julius Caesar blush.
So when a US fighter plane was ordered to, and successfully shot down, Admiral Yamamoto in his unarmed plane in WWII, President Roosevelt was the "Assassin in Chief".
When is NRO going to dump this Williamson nut-job?
Stu, your analogy fails. Admiral Yamamoto was a uniformed sailor, the commander of the navy of a nation against which we had a formal declaration of war. He was not an American citizen.
If Al-Awlaki were a member of the navy of some nation with which we were at war, his assassination would be justified.
In a way, he was. He was a member of Al Qaeda, which is in many ways a paramilitary organization. They are not associated with a foreign government but they certainly have been supported by and tolerated by foreign governments in the past, including Yemen's.
This killing is absolutely justified and is no different than killing any other Yemeni member of Al Qaeda.
He forfeited his right to American citizenship long ago. That the government did not rescind it is just a lack of bureaucratic action.
Elwynor, For argument's sake, let me rephrase your comment to this article in a slightly "different" way.
You wrote:
"Doctor Robert,
In a way, he was. He was a member of THE TEA PARTY, which is in many ways a paramilitary organization. They are not associated with a foreign government but they certainly have been supported by and tolerated by OUR government in the past.
This killing is absolutely justified and is no different than killing any other member of THE TEA PARTY.
He forfeited his right to American citizenship long ago. That the government did not rescind it is just a lack of bureaucratic action.
Please stop defending terrorists."
These are not obviously your words, but do you see how those of the liberal persuasion (including our second in command)see some US citizens as "domestic terrorists"?... Very much in the same way that you defend the killing of this US citizen.
Where is the line really drawn at now? Is it just the Citizens that the majority of the US population despises, or is it whomever our POTUS and congress sees as a "threat to America"?
Recinding his American citizenship, as you call it, WAS a lack of beuracratic action and should have been done many years ago. Indead, it was a very GRAVE mistake... one that leaves a stain on our very rights that ensure the liberties of every US Citizen... that sets a very tantalizing presidence for those who would like nothing else than to rid our once great nation of a dissonant voice to their socialist adgenda.
It's a slippery slope that doesn't seem so slippery now.
Well and importantly stated. Our government has just murdered a fellow citizen--- Our president has just executed a fellow American without trial. Stunning, shocking and against all we supposedly stand for.
Wrong. He was a Yemeni citizen living in Yemen. His American dual citizenship is irrelevant. His crimes and risk do not warrant our going out of the way to respect a citizenship he left behind long ago with his direct actions.
You're next. Oh you say you're not a terrorist? Prove it. The President says you are so you must be. I for one certainly don't need to see any evidence. The fact that there is no proof that you are a terrorist just shows how wily you are. Any "law" that slows the President down in delivering justice is inefficient. What could possibly go wrong?
The premise of this article fails. The question is not are they American citizens? The question is are they enemy combatants who are making war on the United States? If the answer to the second question is yes, then they are legitimate targets and it is not an assassination. The first duty of the President and Commander in Chief is to protect the American people.
If he does not fit the definition of enemy combatant, spy or saboteur, we must rewrite our rules to deal with anyone who is actively trying to kill us like this man. We need new definitions and rules to deal with terrorism that will not allow them to escape and kill us just because we haven't updated our legal definitions.
If he does not fit the definition of enemy combatant, spy or saboteur, we must rewrite our rules to deal with anyone who is actively trying to kill us like this man. We need new definitions and rules to deal with terrorism that will not allow them to escape and kill us just because we haven't updated our legal definitions.
Exactly so. Mr. Williamson makes an honest and sincere mistake, but a mistake nonetheless, by confusing the war on Islamic Terrorism with ordinary criminal proceedings. If an American citizen joined the German army during World War II (and there must have been a few who did), would President Roosevelt have been acting illegally by ordering an attack on the soldier's unit? And if he were killed, is that an assassination?
The essential point to understand is that Awlaki was an enemy combatant, actively directing combat operations against the United States and its armed forces, and from a location (Yemen) not subject to the jurisdiction of our Federal courts. As such, there was no practical way to cause his arrest and trial on charges of treason, as much as many of us would have liked to see that.
Williamson's argument would have been telling had Awlaki been walking down a public street in New York City when the predator drone had struck, or if a team of assassins had rolled up in a van and started shooting. But enemy combatants, whether alien or citizen, whether lawful or unlawful, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S. are subject to attack under the laws of war. Not to do so would be suicidal, since if we don't kill them over there they will kill us over here. Does Williamson find that alternative preferable?
Also, he exaggerates the supposed lack of presidential accountability. It's not as if these drone strikes were being carried out in secret - everybody knows about them! Congress could impeach the president if it thought these actions constituted high crimes and misdemeanors, and the public could throw him out of office. Of course, the public may throw Obama out, but this won't be the reason. Nor will Congress impeach, and for a very good reason: this is a good policy and the people know it and approve of it.
Exactly right and he does not seem to understand not only can Congress declare war on others, others can and in this case have formally declared war on the United States.
Once you declare war on the US, you have made yourself an enemy combatant. Sure, the US ignored this declaration as the rantings of fanatics for a while, but at great cost. So now the US seeks to destroy the command and control of this enemy that has declared war on it. That seems reasonable to me.
In war you attack the soldiers on the other side, FOR BEING ON THE OTHE SIDE, not for any particular actions they have taken. In war prisoners are not locked up to punish them but for the duration if you choose to hold them that long.
To me the interesting point in this article is the involvement of civilian law enforcement agencies like the FBI. I wonder what the FBI did in WWII and how it compares to what they are doing now. Certainly the OSS gathered information for us by the military then as the CIA does now.
"Enemy combatant" does mean any thing you want it to mean. It has a definite legal meaning under the law of war. It means a member of the military arm of a sovereign nation. A person does not legally subject himself to assassination by exercising his freedom of speech. POTUS is guilty of allowing the murder of an American. This is the kind of America Al Queda believes it is duty bound to eliminate.
Actually, you had one fact. Al Alwaki was a US citizen.
The other fact is that his death was ordered.
It's that whole "assassination" thing that throws you so far out of touch with reality, law and society that you probably ought to just keep on walking to the Daily Kos.
Williamson is hyper-partisan and does no intelligent reader any service. If this were a GOP president he would be extolling the virtues of the president and of course the efficient military responsible for taking out three of the top five leaders of Al Qaeda.
The point of his being a citizen is irrelevant. He was an American and Yemeni dual citizen. When an American takes foreign citizenship, it is within the purview of the US Government to review his/her American citizenship and can act to rescind the US citizenship, except for nations where there's a specific treaty in place regarding dual citizenship. Yemen, of course, is not one of those nations.
Let's stop pretending this was some kid playing baseball in Iowa two weeks ago and just got caught up in a bad crowd.
This is a person who has recruited terrorists, who has participated directly in attacks against the United States and its citizens, and who has willfully obtained foreign citizenship in a country hostile to the United States.
This is a poorly written piece and what is depressing is many will read it and just say "YEAH!" without thinking for themselves.
They did not, but that is irrelevant. The point was that the portrayal of him as an "American" is baloney. He was a Yemeni citizen, lived in Yemen, and plotted against the United States.
I suppose you're in favor of additional government bureaucratic action prior to acting on terrorists then? What a waste of time and money that would be.
It may be irrelevant to you, but an unbounded executive right to assasinate U.S. citizens is just a little bit scary don't you think. But hey, lets save time and money! The IRS spends quite a sum chasing after individuals who they think are underpaying their taxes. Lets just asume the IRS has it right. No need for beureaucratic action, just let them take the money. Save lots of time and money that way for sure.
OK so if a policeman kills a criminal who is shooting at him, is this an assassination?
If a National Guardsman shoots and kills a looter during a state of emergency, is that an assassination?
If Major Hassan was killed by the guard woman who shot him, would that have been an assassination.
No, no and no!
al-Awaki whether a citizen or not was declared war against the United States has plotted to kill and successfully organized missions to kill Americans. He was still engaged in his war against America, so our Armed Forces did their duty and defended us from this traitor, brought war upon him and killed him.
