Politics

Chewing over al-Awlaki’s assassination

Looks like American-born radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki has been assassinated via drone attack — and if that’s the case, I’m certain he deserved it. So I realize this won’t be a very popular opinion, but like Kevin Williamson at the National Review, I’m uneasy, and always have been, about allowing the United States executive branch to simply order the assassination of an American citizen with so little oversight or demand for evidence.

The Obama administration authorized the assassination against an American last year because intelligence agencies claimed to have evidence that the cleric posed a threat to American interests, that he was an al-Qaeda recruiter and was involved in a number of attacks.

I don’t really doubt any of that, but I will reprint what I wrote last year when the decision came down:

In other words, the administration has a straightforward case to make. Yet, when Awlaki’s father asked a court to enjoin the president from killing his despicable son, the administration asked the court to dismiss the lawsuit without hearing the merits of the case by invoking “state secrets.”

With that, the Obama administration argued that the president should be empowered to order the execution of a U.S. citizen — outside a war zone and without exhibiting an imminent threat to other citizens — without any oversight from the judicial or legislative branches of government. And by using the protection of state secrets argument, the administration is also asserting that the public has no right to know why.

No, the U.S. government should not be prohibited from targeting enemies of the nation, nor should it be forced to widely disseminate sensitive state secrets. And, no, the Obama Administration doesn’t have some nefarious interest in killing innocent citizens — or anything of that nature. But I do wish there were a more transparent process or guidelines and some functional way to insure that the decision makes sense.

We’ve just set a precedent that allows a president to order the atomizing of a citizen in some far off corner of the world without a trial. Seems like a power that could be abused rather easily to me in different circumstances.
______________
Follow @davidharsanyi.

In CONTROL, Glenn Beck presents a passionate, fact-based case for guns that reveals why gun control isn’t really about controlling guns at all; it’s about controlling us. Find out more HERE.

Comments (2)

  • JR annapolis
    Posted on September 30, 2011 at 10:48pm

    Boats48 is on track, David.

    The Supreme Court supports the position that an American citizen who fights for a foreign ENEMY in wartime can be treated like any foreign ENEMY COMBATANT. That is about as far as the “lawfare” needs to go, as this ceases to be a U.S. Courts issue and squarely becomes a warfare issue.

    This isn’t about assassinations or free speech or U.S. citizenship. This is about engaging an ENEMY COMBATANT who is actively participating in the battlespace…an ENEMY COMBATANT who has long since forfeited any rights or privileges afforded him by the Constitution. That is the optic through which this op / mission is to be viewed.

    If you want a more transparent process, I suggest joining the military. You may eventually have the skillsets, clearances, experience, and leadership position to be privy to or actually be a part of the decision-making process with respect to the Battlespace Commander’s Guidance, Intent, and Objectives. That process isn’t a reality show for prime time voting. It IS a 3-D chess game where all available factors are considered before initiating the op: leave the target in place (for now), capture the target, or eliminate the target.

    Report this comment

    JR annapolis  
  • boats48
    Posted on September 30, 2011 at 11:19am

    Al-Awlaki did not attempt to hide his disdain or belligerence for his country. I suppose the thousands of southerners that perished during the Civil War had rights also, but no one gave a second thought to killing them. Awlaki was an armed combatant, a sworn enemy of this nation and it’s population, he gave up any rights he may have been entitled to when he took up arms against us. If he had chosen, I’m sure arrangements could have been made for him to clear his name in a court of law! He did not choose to do that. If the current administration decides to use the same tactics against its’ political opposition, you will have just cause for concern, but not for this piece of camel dung!

    Report this comment

    boats48  

Comments are closed.