Radical cleric and al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki found himself on the business end of a drone-launched U.S. missile in Yemen.
This is very welcome news. Born in the United States to Yemeni parents, al-Awlaki went to college here and was an imam at a Falls Church, Va., mosque at the time of 9/11. He had contacts with the hijackers and left the country under a pall of suspicion, eventually ending up in Yemen. With his knowledge of American culture, al-Awlaki became a uniquely talented al-Qaeda recruiter who had the ability to inspire a lone wolf such as Maj. Nidal Hasan within the U.S. This made him one of the most dangerous figures in al-Qaeda. He was connected to numerous plots, including the attempted underwear bombing in 2009. His death makes us safer. But does it also soil the robe of justice?
Advertisement
That is the contention of critics who believe al-Awlaki shouldn’t have been targeted, because he’s a U.S. citizen. But as a member of a hostile force at war with the United States he deserved no more consideration than any other member of al-Qaeda. The 1942 case of the Nazi saboteurs, including one U.S. citizen, Herbert Hans Haupt, who snuck in to the United States is exactly on point. They were arrested by the FBI. But FDR detained all of them, including Haupt, as enemy combatants, tried them before a military commission, and executed them. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld the president’s right to treat Haupt like his comrades.
The conduct of warfare, including targeting decisions, is inherently an executive function. In this instance, moreover, executive war powers are bolstered by a sweeping congressional authorization of military force that contains no limitations based on citizenship or geography. We don’t ask the courts to evaluate every strike we make against Taliban or al-Qaeda leaders in Afghanistan or Iraq, nor do we inquire about their citizenship.
If al-Awlaki had been falsely accused, he could — for starters — have professed his innocence. He could have surrendered to U.S. authorities and tried to explain how it was all a misunderstanding. Instead, he taunted us for our inability to find him. As legal analyst Benjamin Wittes asks, what process is due a terrorist on the lam in an ungoverned portion of Yemen?
Given that he was beyond the reach of our courts and very difficult to capture, our options as a practical matter were to kill him or to let him go on his way. Many of the critics, who ten years later still consider the War on Terror a police action or an elaborate metaphor, would be happy with the latter — consequences be damned.
President Obama is to be credited for rejecting this line of thought and specifically authorizing the targeting of al-Awlaki. But it highlights the rank irresponsibility of his once-upon-a-time attacks on the Bush administration. If it’s permissible for the president to kill a U.S. citizen with no judicial proceedings whatsoever, why is it an offense against the Constitution and all we hold dear to capture foreign terrorists, interrogate them (in some cases, harshly), and detain them? All of these things constitute acts of war in a fight that is advanced by the death of Anwar al-Awlaki.
Your article says: "But FDR detained all of them, including Haupt, as enemy combatants, tried them before a military commission, and executed them."
Not all of them. Roosevelt had sentences commuted for two of them - one to life, the other to 30 years. They were captured because one of the saboteurs, Dasch, called the FBI to turn himself and the others in. He got 30 years.
As bad cases make for bad case law and tremendous mischief in our courts, this precedent has the potential to do the same. As a 25 year retired officer in our military, I understand the need to prosecute any war fully, perhaps to a farther extent than "W" did. However, as we have now let the executive branch (and later one some lower level bureaucrat) decide who is a terrorist and to declare war on him specifically (to put a hit on him). Further the executive is now allowed to execute that action with either the CIA or the military.
I have confidence that in declared areas of conflict and anyplace where we have military boots on the ground -- in other words a defined military theater of operations -- such power can be limited and is within the powers granted the executive as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. World-wide, undeclared assassination power, although currently being used in a way that has majority buy-in does not mean that it will not be abused anymore than that great majority supported civil rights act would never be used to push quotas --or" I'll eat my hat".
I would rather see some form of limitation to this assassination power such as defined theaters that are publicly announced that allow the force to be used in war not world-wide whatever we want.
What would stop a President Palin (or whatever boogeyman desired) from putting a CIA hit team on George Soros because of any links/gifts/contributions to terrorist with this power? I am sure that the inventive minds could come up with better scenarios, but the idea holds--what limits to the power to "declare war" on anyone, anywhere without any accountability?
Another good thing about whacking this enemy of civilization: The otherwise anti-war "Nation" and the New York Times have to "like" it too, 'cause their progressive Prez was in charge of it.
The notion that the traitor Aulaqi had some residual due-process rights is absurd. Along with the Nazi-saboteurs, hundreds of German-Americans returned to Nazi Germany to serve in the Wehrmacht. They were shown no special treatment on the battlefield.
I don't think anyone really has a problem with this guy's demise.
What is illuminating is the muted, perfunctory grumblings from the left and the media about "dangerous precedents" being set by this as opposed to the numerous, strident calls for impeachment were the occupant of the White House a Republican.
I agree that al Awlaki was an enemy combatant, and I am glad that the SOB is dead. I think our president did the right thing - in this case.
However I find the ability of our president to act as judge, jury, and executioner of a citizen just by declaring him an enemy of the state is a little scary. Future decisions by this or a future president may not be so clear cut. Also, the question must be answered, if al Awlaki had had his base of operations on American soil, would it still have been OK to shoot him on site?
I would like to see some sort of public procedure where the president must first present his case that the person of interest is indeed an enemy combatant, and allow for someone to appear in his defense. If it is determined that he is an enemy combatant, then the normal rules of war apply. This would provide at least a check on this awsome power. This procedure would be required only if the person is a US citizen, and is not on a battle field fighting alongside the enemy.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Well, there it is. I don't see how any reasonable person could interpret that to justify summary execution without trial, since the Article defines Judicial powers, and specifically mentions testimony or confession in OPEN court.
However, combatants actively pursuing war against the United States are fair game, and do not require a charge of treason even though they are US citizens. Haupt was captured fighting for a country against which war had been declared. He was not in uniform. Had he been in uniform, the matter would have been quite different. But, I do not recall a declaration of war against Yemen. If we accept that the whole world is an active battlefield, we are on a slippery slope indeed. What's to prevent us from using drones against enemy operatives in France, for example, if they likewise will not extradite, whomever there designates themselves, or are designated by us as enemy combatants?
If the Chinese were to lay off our coast and launch drone attacks against dissidents it considers to be at war with them, are we just to fold our hands and say that it is common legal practice and necessary for the security of all?
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
Well, there it is. I don't see how any reasonable person could interpret that to justify summary execution without trial, since the Article defines Judicial powers, and specifically mentions testimony or confession in OPEN court.
However, combatants actively pursuing war against the United States are fair game, and do not require a charge of treason even though they are US citizens. Haupt was captured fighting for a country against which war had been declared. He was not in uniform. Had he been in uniform, the matter would have been quite different. But, I do not recall a declaration of war against Yemen. If we accept that the whole world is an active battlefield, we are on a slippery slope indeed. What's to prevent us from using drones against enemy operatives in France, for example, if they likewise will not extradite, whomever there designates themselves, or are designated by us as enemy combatants?
If the Chinese were to lay off our coast and launch drone attacks against dissidents it considers to be at war with them, are we just to fold our hands and say that it is common legal practice and necessary for the security of all?
"What's to prevent us from using drones against enemy operatives in France, for example, if they likewise will not extradite, whomever [sic] there designates themselves [sic], or are [sic] designated by us as enemy combatants [sic]?"
Nothing in our law. Nor should it. One or more treaties might, in the case of France, but treaties don't bind the sovereign itself if it decides to abrogate the treaty.
"If the Chinese were to lay [sic] off our coast and launch drone attacks against dissidents it considers to be at war with them, are we just to fold our hands and say that it is common legal practice and necessary for the security of all?"
No, we're to declare it an act of war and respond accordingly. But Yemen isn't complaining about our killing of Awlaki--quite the opposite. Moreover, the United States is not Yemen, Red China is not the United States, and Chinese dissidents are not Al Qaeda. The differences are relevant to the morality of the action and the response.
There has been a presidential declaration of war against Al Qaeda. I've argued the justification for this killing for two days and frankly am tired of hearing about al Awlaki's rights. He didn't give three cents for yours, Good riddance!
So, by your reasoning, while Benedict Arnold (American Citizen) was encamped after raiding towns in Connecticut, we would need a search warrant to arrest him (were the Constitution then in effect).
I really was losing a lot of hope for the NRO when Kevin D Williamson published a hyper-partisan attack on President Obama's actions with Al-Awlaki, by channeling his inner liberal, ACLU side.
It's nice to know the Editors understand precedence and the fact that the United States is at war and enemy combatants should not be given such luxuries.
I disagree with our President 99% of the time, but the other 1%: Ordering the execution of Osama Bin Laden, Tax credits for hiring veterans, and now the killing of Al-Awlaki; I applaud him for and I'm happy to see the Editors agree with me on this.
Thank you, Editors for giving President Obama due credit for doing his Constitutional duty, i.e. protecting us from foreign enemies.
If Ron "Reverend Jeremiah" Paul wins the GOP nod, this Reaganite is voting for Obama in 2012. Paul is delusional in thinking this is the 1780's. Muskets just won't cut it against demonic muderers who want to exterminate anyone who will not worship the devil they worship. They love cold-blooded murder of innocents, because the one they worship is, as Jesus describes him, the "father of lies and a murderer from the beginning".
Paul should pull out for being unwilling to protect Americans from those bent on their mass murder.
The inability of disrealigears to understand the vast difference between what he/she hypothesizes and the subject of this article should be held as illustrative of the continuing problem of reaching the Left in this or any country. They simply do not want to learn or understand hard facts in the larger context of society. They are driven by a child-like belief in their mythologically-driven ideology. And while I am grateful that Obama authorized this richly-deserved killing, his actions since being in politics strongly suggest his motives were only and purely political.
