I have not delved too deeply into discussions of civil liberties on this blog, but I did not want to ignore this particular issue. I've been following Glenn Greenwald's (http://www.salon.com/) reporting on an American, Anwar al-Awlaki, who apparently has deep ties with al Qaeda, and is now somewhere in Yemen. Through a number of posts, Greenwald has expressed outrage toward the Obama administration for essentially putting a hit on al-Awlaki, without due process. The ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights has filed a lawsuit on behalf of al-Awlaki's father, in order to challenge the government in issuing this hit without a charge or an indictment, as well as the overall legality of a law allowing such actions to take place. The Obama Justice Department has now invoked a "state secrets" defense in order to have the lawsuit dismissed outright.
Let me begin by saying clearly that I am confident that Anwar al-Awlaki is indeed a bad man, a dangerous man more like. He and his rantings have been tied both to the Fort Hood shooter and the underwear attempted bomber, and as I mentioned, he is known to be working with al Qaeda. With that said, and until someone can provide me with a better explanation, I firmly believe that as an American citizen, al-Awlaki continues to enjoy his rights, in spite of his repugnant associations and alleged actions. I agree with Greenwald that the actions of the Obama administration seem to be a bridge too far.
This action seems like it would not get past the protections provided to American citizens through the 5th Amendment and 14th Amendment. Input from any attorneys, legal historians or political scientists would be much appreciated. And if I am right about this, then I think that there should be a trial at least to examine the legality of the actions of the Obama Administration.
What I find interesting right now is that there seems not to be a hue and cry about this case. It is particularly interesting that the so called Constitution loving Tea Party people have been extremely quiet about this seemingly unconstitutional power grab by the Obama administration, following of course on the heels of a seemingly unconstitutional power grab by the Bush administration. And I suspect that this silence is because of what al-Awlaki has been accused of doing. It seems like another case of "if you haven't done anything wrong, then there is no reason to worry" perspective that many on both the left and right (but much, much more on the right) took regarding warrant less wiretapping. But, they can spend time waxing poetic about the Obama administration's "attack" on the 10th Amendment over health insurance reform.
Even the worst among us within the citizenry are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and they still require the government to follow the Constitution and criminal procedure. From what I've read, it looks like the Obama administration is seeking to do something that is outside of those parameters, and few seem to care.
UPDATE (09.29.10): Here is an interesting link with a podcast dealing with this issue.
8 comments:
What about an American who fought against the allies wearing a German uniform? Could we kill him on the battlefield? Or an American civilian working for the Japanese during WWII. Could we drop a bomb on his office? You have echoed the liberal blogosphere's TPs, but have you asked yourself any hard questions? Where are you drawing the lines?
Your examples don't fit. I can't recall a single instance where anyone fitting your description was specifically singled out for assassination. I have no problem if during a random drone attack to kill bin Laden, for example, some American working/fighting against was killed by happenstance. They shouldn't have been working/fighting against us. And I didn't realize that standing up for the Constitution in this sense, as opposed to seeking to alter the 14th amendment, or having a fetish for the 2nd or 10th amendments, or wishing to abolish the 17th, all while preaching that the U.S. Constitution is a sacrosanct document, was merely echoing liberal talking points and not dealing with hard questions. By the way, you might have noticed that this is a position I hold against the Obama administration.
What if we targeted the specific building that the American civilian (working for the Japanese during WWII) was working in knowing that he was one of 10 people likely to be working in the building. What if the target was material in the building and killing the people was just icing on the cake? Or what if the target was the people? Does it make a difference? If the American was alone or one of 100, does that make a difference? What is your definition of assassination? What if Congress declared war, would that make a difference? Is it the location that bothers you? What if the American was in Iraq, or Afghanistan? I’m not claiming a historical precedent, I’m posing a hypothetical to try to understand where you draw the lines.
Follow-up. Are there any circumstances that the assassination of an American would be OK? What if they were holding a gun to the head of another American in a 3rd country? What if they were holding a gun to the head of a foreign child? If one is going to come up with a policy you have to grapple with these scenarios.
I'd already said that the scenario you mentioned in your first statement is fine. What you described there actually fit my point.
Actually, I would draw the line at announcing that our intention, as a government, is to assassinate an American without giving him/her an opportunity to be prosecuted. It flies in the face publicly of what we say we stand for. What is wrong with catching the guy and brining him to justice?
Again, even the worst alleged criminal is due a day in court, why should this guy be treated differently. catch him in the commission of a crime, and he attempts to kill law enforcement, then let the chips fall.
The follow-up doesn't work for the issue. The scenarios you've described are things that we've seen. And in those scenarios you've described there is likely an attempt to stop the crime and bring the criminal in. If the criminal refuses, then law enforcement has the legal authority to bring the situation to a close, even if that includes killing the criminal.
That is not the case with this crazy cleric dude. It would be more like if he were walking down the street, and law enforcement saw him, then he would have to be killed, because the government says he is to be killed. That is the problem at the heart of this case.
Interesting. You seem to see it purely as a law enforcement issue, while I see it as military/international policy issue. Generally, speaking the US doesn’t have criminal jurisdiction overseas.
And while you are against the administration on this issue you are totally in line with most liberals, blogs, Daily Show, etc.
And I don't run away from that liberal designation, like people who talk about being "progressive." lol
Post a Comment