I agree with the Obama administration’s decision to kill the American-born al-Qaeda recruiter Anwar al-Awlaki. What I can’t fathom is why the administration agrees with me.
Here’s Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta responding to complaints from the ACLU over the “assassination” of an American citizen without due process: “This individual was clearly a terrorist. And yes, he was a citizen, but if you’re a terrorist, you’re a terrorist. And that means that we have the ability to go after those who would threaten to attack the United States and kill Americans.”
Advertisement
I agree with that. The Constitution empowers the president to put down insurrection, and what was Awlaki if not an insurrectionist? From the Whiskey Rebellion to the Civil War to World War II, there have been times when presidents legally and constitutionally treated American citizens as enemy combatants. Awlaki hardly seems deserving of special treatment.
Moreover, the authorization for the use of force passed on Sept. 18, 2001, says the president “is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.”
It doesn’t say anything about exempting Americans. If news reports, statements from U.S. officials, and Awlaki himself are to be believed, Awlaki was a member of al-Qaeda. Moreover, he helped orchestrate and incite violence aimed at the U.S. He never denied the charges against him but hid outside of U.S. jurisdiction fomenting violence against America.
Case closed.
And yet, I sympathize with critics on the far left and libertarian right who find the whole thing unseemly. Surely when an American is in the crosshairs, there’s a higher political bar, even if there isn’t a higher legal or constitutional one.
ABC’s Jake Tapper asked White House spokesman Jay Carney, “Does the administration not see at all how a president asserting that he has the right to kill an American citizen without due process, and that he’s not going to even explain why he thinks he has that right, is troublesome to some people?”
Carney’s response: “I’m not going to . . . discuss the circumstances of his death.”
The mind reels to think how people would have responded if President Bush’s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, had said that.
But here’s where I am confused. According to Attorney General Eric Holder, the administration is committed to treating captured terrorists as criminals, entitled to all of the rights and privileges of a civilian criminal trial.
It seems the Defense Department disagrees, given that some lesser-known prisoners are allegedly kept on ships — call them floating Gitmos — without trials.
Meanwhile, President Obama keeps ordering that the more famous terrorists be killed on sight. That’s fine with me. But as far as I can tell, he’s never disagreed with Holder’s view about the need for civilian trials for terrorists we don’t kill, such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Hence my confusion. If you believe that even non-American terrorists should be treated like American criminals, with all of the Fifth Amendment rights we grant to our own accused, how can you sanction killing an American without so much as a hearing?
The Fifth Amendment says that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” A Predator drone strike seems to deprive a person of all three.
Which would you prefer: to be arrested, possibly waterboarded, and then tried by a U.S. military court in Cuba, or to be disintegrated by a Hellfire missile? What’s worse, to be executed after a less-than-perfect military trial, or to be executed with no trial at all?
And let’s not forget, these missiles aren’t that surgical. They kill the people around the target too. In this case Samir Khan, a U.S.-born editor of al-Qaeda’s magazine, Inspire, was killed — not to mention a number of others. Where was their day in court?
And that’s the point, really. If captured alive, terrorists pose political problems for Obama. Where do we put them? How do we interrogate them? And, most pressingly, how do we try them?
I don’t think those are tough questions. But Obama does. So he prefers to kill these people outright, avoiding the questions altogether.
— Jonah Goldberg is editor-at-large of National Review Online and a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. You can write to him by e-mail at JonahsColumn@aol.com, or via Twitter @JonahNRO.
I wasn't really behind Williamson's argument, but this has made me lean towards it a lot more. Though this is pretty well traveled material, it needs a lot more attention from the Left. The killing of people to avoid a trial is a scary idea, and shows the complete failure of the Leftist judges. In their attempt to protect criminals from prosecution they have caused people (mainly on the Left) to just skip the whole judicial process and go straight to punishment. It is not impossible to see this trend escalate.
Guy's concern is not trivial. Have we ever seen the Federal Government, once assuming a power--say, the power to levy a tax on incomes, or to regulate medical practice--fail to expand upon that power in myriad ways?
Mr. Goldberg's argument is compelling except for the 800 pound gorilla that he ignores...the Congress does not have the constitutional authority to grant the Executive the right to strip an American citizen of due process...
AUMF is unconstitutional when applied to American citizens...now re-read the article in that light...
There is no 800lb gorilla. Congress doesn't grant the president any right to deprive any American of their due process rights.
The president is commander-in-chief and can take military action against any one who is deemed an enemy combatant. Mr. Awlaki was clearly and enemy combatant and an illegal one at that. When Awlaki joined the enemy and planned terrorist operations against the United States, he forfeited his rights. Period.
INSURRECTION
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.
So, Awlaki's real aim was to start the Muslim States of America? He's a terrorist piece of trash that should DIE a horrible death and be bathed in melted pig fat just prior. But it should happen after he receives due process and is found guilty.
It could have been worse. Instead of being Hellfired Anwar al-Awlaki might have been water-boarded. Forced dunking to get cleaned for the first time in your life is far more inhumane than having the dirt blasted off your skin. One take off, one landing.
I support the targeted assassination of our enemies; we are at war. I agree Awlaki was certainly an insurrectionist. Barack Obama, however, uses Predator drones more for expedience than anything else
Great, if Awlaki was an insurrectionist, then the claim from the neocons should rely on that part of the constitution. But they claim he has the authority from the AUMF. Which is it?
attempting to capture al-awlaki to give him the privilege of a due trial while he was hiding in a place like yemen could have resulted in the potential death of american soldiers. so the only relevant question would be is the life of a terrorist like al-awlaki more important than the lives of american soldiers
Hardly, when the neo cons start agreeing with Obama that the executive branch of the government need not present any evidence that could be challenged by the accused in some forum, look out. You claim the AUMF gives the president the authority to target this particular american citizen with a bomb, however you never get around to explaining what this guy had to do with 9-11. You claim he is with al Qaeda but the AUMF has to do with 9-11, not someone who joins al Qaeda ten years later. I don't know when he became part of al Qaeda, that would be good information to present. Heck maybe he purchased the box cutters used on 9-11 for all we know. But nobody seems to know or have hard evidence of his involvement with 9-11, we get speculation, charges and counter charges. And as far as his involvement in Ft Hood, explain what the heck that has to do with the AUMF. What may truly need to happen is for congress to pass an updated AUMF to address the current issues. Most if not all of the 9-11 characters are dead or in custody. Will the president in 2020 still be relying on the AUMF to use drones to kill people involve in some terror attack in 2016?
Great point Jonah! Using Obama & Holder's logic, I wouldn't be surprised if they released all of the Gitmo combatants. They can fly them to a remote area in the Yemen countryside and set them free. Within 2 minutes a US hellfire missle will wipe out all of them. Our problems are solved! Everyone is happy. No worries about waterboarding or messy civilian trials!
Mr. Goldberg's is compelling... except for the 800 pound gorilla that he ignores. The Congress has no authority to grant the Executive the power to kill American citizens without due process.
The AUMF is unconstitutional when applied to American citizens...now re-read the article...
uh puleeeeze johnny goldberg ... can't you find something serious to write about? Mr. Obama is keeping our country safe, a heck of a lot safer than it's ever been and your crying about the rights of a 'US citizen' and the abuse of Presidential power? Pathetic. Mr. Bush & company get credit for massivly expanding the power of the executive office, well that just doesn't go away with the next administration. When the GOP dreamed of an eternal run on power they might have considered that some day the other party might just get into office. How can you be a patriot of this country and write this nonsense?
"Mr. Obama is keeping our country safe, a heck of a lot safer than it's ever been and your crying about the rights of a 'US citizen' and the abuse of Presidential power?"
One, Jonah agrees with Obama's decision. And two, wasn't John Lennon a pacifist? I don't think he'd support Hellfire coming down anyone.
I have no problem whatsoever with taking this guy out, but it's funny how "keeping America safer" wasn't the least bit of a concern to the Left when Bush began putting foreign terrorists in Guanatamo Bay.
And the Left was also doggedly insistent that it was so horrible and un-Constitutional these terrorists could be tried by "military tribunals" instead of in a US court of law under criminal rules of procedure.
"...well that just doesn't go away with the next administration..."
I doubt that Mr. Lennon wants a serious discussion, but he makes an interesting polemical point. I've heard it before from leftists and libertarians: "Republicans should not establish the legal framework for pursuing terrorists because subsequent Democrats will abuse the process."
That is interesting on a couple of levels:
a) it concedes that Democrats are merely looking for excuses to inflict pain,
b) it concedes that Democrats have no moral tools to evaluate whether or not an action is correct on its own merits,
c) it implies that conservatives are somehow responsible for subsequent leftist indulgences.
I am still deciding if that makes the helpless leftists, who are obviously forced to abuse whatever laws that conservatives pass, look more like wild animals or undisciplined teenagers.
Violence is always the easiest answer. It doesn't take much thought. Isn't it interesting that the Left always accuses us of being trigger-happy but, when they are in charge, they are the ones who escalate the violence.
It's easy to drop a bomb on a suspected bad guy when he is at dinner with his family. Apparently, it is even easier to ignore his family if you are a Democrat. I'm just thankful that I retired before this Administration and I am not a direct party to this nonsense.
Do I believe Awlaki "deserved his virgins"? Yes I do. I also believe we would have been better served to try him in a Military Tribunal (in absentia, we should have invited him to defend himself) and then dropped a bomb on his head. But, if there was anyone in the car that might not have been al-Qaeda, we should have refrained. al-Qaeda kills innocents, we don't.
12-Abstract Capta's to get it right! Could you at least make them real words so there is a chance? Maybe they really don't want comments.
Follow
