The Corner

Assassinations, Etc.

As always, I thank Andy and David for their responses. Let me total up the scorecard:

1. According to Andy, the president can initiate military action at any place and at any time — including Canada and New Jersey, in his examples — and, even if such an action is illegitimate (within his power but beyond his authority, as Andy puts it), the question is “not justiciable,” because “we are a body politic, not a body legal.” So, if, for instance, the president should flout the Constitution by delegating Congress’s war-making power “to an international tribunal that lacks political accountability to the American people,” the main options are: 1. impeach him. 2. wait for an election. We may call ourselves a nation of laws, but if such questions are “not justiciable,” then the president is not bound in any meaningful way by law.

2. Also according to Andy, the military has absolute power to determine who is an enemy combatant in one of these campaigns the president has unlimited power to initiate. The law simply does not apply. Writes Andy:

The question of who is an “enemy combatant” is not a legal issue. It is, in the first instance, a battlefield determination to be made by our armed forces, and thereafter a political issue to be decided by the officials our system makes responsible for the authorization of military force and the conduct of war. 

3. According to the standards set by the Obama administration, the things that can get one designated an enemy combatant — designated by the legally unimpeded military in the course of any campaign, legitimate or otherwise, the president has unjusticiable and legally unlimited power to initiate — include making speeches and publishing magazine articles. As VDH notes below, Awlaki was considered dangerous largely because of his linguistic ability and his social-media savvy.

4. Which adds up to: The president can order the death of Andrew C. McCarthy, David French, or Kevin D. Williamson for writing a magazine article, and if the American people don’t like that, they can wait until November 2012.

Awlaki was obviously in the camp (metaphorically and then literally) of our mortal enemies. If propagandizing on behalf of a mortal enemy were enough to justify the assassination of a U.S. citizen, then we would have shot half the faculty of Harvard and 93.8 percent of the Motion Picture Academy a few decades back. But this is wartime, the argument goes. So was Korea, Vietnam, and much of the second half of the 20th century, but we managed to get through it without ordering the assassination of I. F. Stone, and his beloved Soviets were a far greater threat to this nation than is al-Qaeda.

If the Authorization for Use of Military Force does indeed permit all this, then it is only a law legalizing lawlessness. Citizenship, as I have argued before, is my main concern here. If citizenship in a republic means anything, it means that raw political clout is not the only thing standing between the citizen and arbitrary violence on the part of the state. The extrajudicial killing of American citizens — not on a battlefield, mind you, and not in the course of combat — fundamentally changes the relationship between citizen and state. I have my doubts that any sensible person would have let himself freeze to death at Valley Forge to establish such a government. 

Most Popular


Angela Rye Knows You’re Racist

The political philosopher Michael Oakeshott said that the “rationalist” is hopelessly lost in ideology, captivated by the world of self-contained coherence he has woven from strands of human experience. He concocts a narrative about narratives, a story about stories, and adheres to the “large outline which ... Read More

What the Viral Border-Patrol Video Leaves Out

In an attempt to justify Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s absurd comparison of American detention facilities to Holocaust-era concentration camps, many figures within the media have shared a viral video clip of a legal hearing in which a Department of Justice attorney debates a panel of judges as to what constitutes ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Pro-Abortion Nonsense from John Irving

The novelist has put up a lot of easy targets in his New York Times op-ed. I am going to take aim at six of his points, starting with his strongest one. First: Irving asserts that abortion was legal in our country from Puritan times until the 1840s, at least before “quickening.” That’s an overstatement. ... Read More
Film & TV

Murder Mystery: An Old Comedy Genre Gets Polished Up

I  like Adam Sandler, and yet you may share the sense of trepidation I get when I see that another of his movies is out. He made some very funny manboy comedies (Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, The Waterboy) followed by some not-so-funny manboy comedies, and when he went dark, in Reign over Me and Funny People, ... Read More