US tries to assassinate its own citizen

[Thanas]

Source

That Barack Obama has continued the essence of the Bush/Cheney Terrorism architecture was once a provocative proposition but is now so self-evident that few dispute it (watch here as arch-neoconservative David Frum -- Richard Perle's co-author for the supreme 2004 neocon treatise -- waxes admiringly about Obama's Terrorism and foreign policies in the Muslim world and specifically its "continuity" with Bush/Cheney). But one policy where Obama has gone further than Bush/Cheney in terms of unfettered executive authority and radical war powers is the attempt to target American citizens for assassination without a whiff of due process. As The New York Times put it last April:

It is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing, officials said. A former senior legal official in the administration of George W. Bush said he did not know of any American who was approved for targeted killing under the former president. . . .

That Obama was compiling a hit list of American citizens was first revealed in January of last year when The Washington Post's Dana Priest mentioned in passing at the end of a long article that at least four American citizens had been approved for assassinations; several months later, the Obama administration anonymously confirmed to both the NYT and the Post that American-born, U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki was one of the Americans on the hit list.

Yesterday, riding a wave of adulation and military-reverence, the Obama administration tried to end the life of this American citizen -- never charged with, let alone convicted of, any crime -- with a drone strike in Yemen, but missed and killed two other people instead:

A missile strike from an American military drone in a remote region of Yemen on Thursday was aimed at killing Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric believed to be hiding in the country, American officials said Friday.

The attack does not appear to have killed Mr. Awlaki, the officials said, but may have killed operatives of Al Qaeda's affiliate in Yemen.

The other people killed "may have" been Al Qaeda operatives. Or they "may not have" been. Who cares? They're mere collateral damage on the glorious road to ending the life of this American citizen without due process (and pointing out that the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution expressly guarantees that "no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law" -- and provides no exception for war -- is the sort of tedious legalism that shouldn't interfere with the excitement of drone strikes).

There are certain civil liberties debates where, even though I hold strong opinions, I can at least understand the reasoning and impulses of those who disagree; the killing of bin Laden was one such instance. But the notion that the President has the power to order American citizens assassinated without an iota of due process -- far from any battlefield, not during combat -- is an idea so utterly foreign to me, so far beyond the bounds of what is reasonable, that it's hard to convey in words or treat with civility.

How do you even engage someone in rational discussion who is willing to assume that their fellow citizen is guilty of being a Terrorist without seeing evidence for it, without having that evidence tested, without giving that citizen a chance to defend himself -- all because the President declares it to be so? "I know Awlaki, my fellow citizen, is a Terrorist and he deserves to die. Why? Because the President decreed that, and that's good enough for me. Trials are so pre-9/11." If someone is willing to dutifully click their heels and spout definitively authoritarian anthems like that, imagine how impervious to reason they are on these issues.

And if someone is willing to vest in the President the power to assassinate American citizens without a trial far from any battlefield -- if someone believes that the President has that power: the power of unilaterally imposing the death penalty and literally acting as judge, jury and executioner -- what possible limits would they ever impose on the President's power? There cannot be any. Or if someone is willing to declare a citizen to be a "traitor" and demand they be treated as such -- even though the Constitution expressly assigns the power to declare treason to the Judicial Branch and requires what we call "a trial" with stringent evidence requirements before someone is guilty of treason -- how can any appeals to law or the Constitution be made to a person who obviously believes in neither?

What's most striking about this is how it relates to the controversies during the Bush years. One of the most strident attacks from the Democrats on Bush was that he wanted to eavesdrop on Americans without warrants. One of the first signs of Bush/Cheney radicalism was what they did to Jose Padilla: assert the power to imprison this American citizen without charges. Yet here you have Barack Obama asserting the power not to eavesdrop on Americans or detain them without charges -- but to target them for killing without charges -- and that, to many of his followers, is perfectly acceptable. It's a "horrific shredding of the Constitution" and an act of grave lawlessness for Bush to eavesdrop on or detain Americans without any due process; but it's an act of great nobility when Barack Obama ends their lives without any due process.

Not even Antonin Scalia was willing to approve of George Bush's mere attempt to detain (let alone kill) an American citizen accused of Terrorism without a trial. In a dissenting opinion joined by the court's most liberal member, John Paul Stevens, Scalia explained that not even the War on Terror allows the due process clause to be ignored when the President acts against those he claims have joined the Enemy -- and this was for a citizen found on an actual active battlefield in a war zone (Afghanistan) (emphasis added):

The very core of liberty secured by our Anglo-Saxon system of separated powers has been freedom from indefinite imprisonment at the will of the Executive. Blackstone stated this principle clearly: "Of great importance to the public is the preservation of this personal liberty: for if once it were left in the power of any, the highest, magistrate to imprison arbitrarily whomever he or his officers thought proper … there would soon be an end of all other rights and immunities. … To bereave a man of life, or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole kingdom." . . . .

Subjects accused of levying war against the King were routinely prosecuted for treason. . . . The Founders inherited the understanding that a citizen's levying war against the Government was to be punished criminally. The Constitution provides: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort"; and establishes a heightened proof requirement (two witnesses) in order to "convic[t]" of that offense. Art. III, §3, cl. 1.

There simply is no more basic liberty than the right to be free from Presidential executions without being charged with -- and then convicted of -- a crime: whether it be treason, Terrorism, or anything else. How can someone who objected to Bush's attempt to eavesdrop on or detain citizens without judicial oversight cheer for Obama's attempt to kill them without judicial oversight? Can someone please reconcile those positions?

One cannot be certain that this attempted killing of Awlaki relates to the bin Laden killing, but it certainly seems likely, and in any event, highlights the dangers I wrote about this week. From the start, it was inconceivable to me that -- as some predicted -- the bin Laden killing would bring about a ratcheting down of America's war posture. The opposite seemed far more likely to me for the reason I wrote on Monday:

Whenever America uses violence in a way that makes its citizens cheer, beam with nationalistic pride, and rally around their leader, more violence is typically guaranteed. Futile decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan may temporarily dampen the nationalistic enthusiasm for war, but two shots to the head of Osama bin Laden -- and the We are Great and Good proclamations it engenders -- can easily rejuvenate that war love. . . . We're feeling good and strong about ourselves again -- and righteous -- and that's often the fertile ground for more, not less, aggression.

The killing of bin Laden got the testosterone pumping, the righteousness pulsating, and faith in the American military and its Commander-in-Chief skyrocketing to all-time highs. It made America feel good about itself in a way that no other event has since at least Obama's inauguration; we got to forget about rampant unemployment, home foreclosures by the millions, a decade's worth of militaristic futility and slaughter, and ever-growing Third-World levels of wealth inequality. This was a week for flag-waving, fist-pumping, and nationalistic chanting: even -- especially -- among liberals, who were able to take the lead and show the world (and themselves) that they are no wilting, delicate wimps; it's not merely swaggering right-wing Texans, but they, too, who can put bullets in people's heads and dump corpses into the ocean and then joke and cheer about it afterwards. It's inconceivable that this wave of collective pride, boosted self-esteem, vicarious strength, and renewed purpose won't produce a desire to replicate itself. Four days after bin Laden is killed, a missile rains down from the sky to try to execute Awlaki without due process, and that'll be far from the last such episode (indeed, also yesterday, the U.S. launched a drone attack in Pakistan, ending the lives of 15 more people: yawn).

Last night, in a post entitled "Reigniting the GWOT [Global War on Terrorism]" -- Digby wrote about why the reaction to the killing of bin Laden is almost certain to spur greater aggression in the "War on Terror," and specifically observed: "They're breathlessly going on about Al Qaeda in Yemen 'targeting the homeland' right now on CNN. Looks like we're back in business." The killing of bin Laden isn't going to result in a reduction of America's military adventurism because that's not how the country works: when we eradicate one Enemy, we just quickly and seamlessly find a new one to replace him with -- look over there: Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula is the True Threat!!!! -- and the blood-spilling continues unabated (without my endorsing it all, read this excellent Chris Floyd post for the non-euphemistic reality of what we've really been doing in the world over the last couple years under the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize Winner).

A civil liberties lawyer observed by email to me last night that now that Obama has massive political capital and invulnerable Tough-on-Terror credentials firmly in place, there are no more political excuses for what he does (i.e., he didn't really want to do that, but he had to in order not to be vulnerable to GOP political attacks that he's Weak). In the wake of the bin Laden killing, he's able to do whatever he wants now -- ratchet down the aggression or accelerate it -- and his real face will be revealed by his choices (for those with doubts about what that real face is). Yesterday's attempt to exterminate an American citizen who has long been on his hit list -- far from any battlefield, not during combat, and without even a pretense of due process -- is likely to be but a first step in that direction.

[GeorgeOrr]

I guess this puts to rest the argument trotted out here by many that "capture or kill" was the correct order. Fuck Obama in the ass with a rusty pipe. It's disgusting that people still defend this asshole.

[KhorneFlakes]

Disgusting.

I live in Australia, but something alway smelt... suspicious about Obama to me.

Needless to say, I hope Obama's reproductive organ mutates and proceeds to choke him to death.

This is bullshit of the highest order.

[TheHammer]

I don't think you can apply a one size fits all morality to this situation. After all, its not as if Anwar al-Awlaki is denying his role as an enemy of the United States is he? He is pretty open about his affiliation and support of terrorist activities. True he hasn't had a "trial" but I really don't have a problem with killing someone like that. If he wished to surrender and stand trial, then he should of course be afforded all the rights due to him of course. In Lieu of that however, I wont shed any tears over his eventual death.

[Kamakazie Sith]

So, do we have some sources that contradict the claim that Anwar is a terrorist and engages in plots to murder people?


If we don't then I wonder? How is killing Anwar any different from killing Osama Bin Laden? Is it because he's American he deserves due process more than OBL? Does Anwar deserve lives be risked to bring about his capture?

[Slacker]

I kind of have to agree here...I mean, he's pretty open and up front about his avowed, death-penalty carrying crimes against the United States. If anything, that would probably make this MORE legit than carrying out extra-judicial assassinations against citizens of other countries, wouldn't it?

[Darksider]

That's not how it works. If you are an American citizen, you are entitled to a fair trial by a jury of your peers before the government can take any action against you. He can be killed in combat if he attacks U.S. forces directly, or killed during an attempted capture, but a direct assassination with no attempt to capture or even ask him to surrender (which the drone attacks are.) is out of the question.

It's written up in a little document called the U.S. constitution. Try reading it some time

[Terralthra]

The U.S. Constitution says "No person...", not "No citizen." If Anwar al-Awlaki deserves 4th Amendment protections, so does Osama bin Laden. If that suits your position, then fine, but don't try to split a legal hair about citizenship where the Constitution does not.

[Darksider]

They sent SEALs in after Bin Laden. in my mind that constitutes at least a token attempt to capture him as opposed to kill. I'm sure they wouldn't have killed him if they'd managed to catch him sleeping in bed. It's mentioned in the OBL death thread that Obama specifically vetoed a plan to bomb the complex from the air. If The government wants to treat this like a law-enforcement problem, then sending in light infantry in at least a token attempt to arrest the individuals is necessary. If they want to treat it like a war, then they have the right to assassinate enemy leaders, but have to afford captured enemy combatants POW status unless they're convicted of war crimes.

Honestly, I wouldn't be too concerned with either approach (there are questions as to weather we have the right to declare war on OBL and Al-quada, but they have issued formal declarations of war against the U.S. as an organization, so I could see it working out) if the government would just pick one. Either it's a war and we have to treat captured prisoners humanely until formal peace accords can be drawn up, or it's a law enforcement issue and we have to arrest them before we blow them up. The government seems to be trying to pick and choose whichever of the two possibilities best suits it's interests at the moment, and i'm not Ok with that.

EDIT: As for the hair-splitting issue, I will concede that you are correct. I just checked a copy of the Constitution in one of my college history texts, and it does in fact say "person" instead of "Citizen." My memory must have been a bit foggy.

[Themightytom]

I guess this puts to rest the argument trotted out here by many that "capture or kill" was the correct order. Fuck Obama in the ass with a rusty pipe. It's disgusting that people still defend this asshole.

How exactly does it do that? What order would you propose was correct?

[Dalton]

I guess this puts to rest the argument trotted out here by many that "capture or kill" was the correct order. Fuck Obama in the ass with a rusty pipe. It's disgusting that people still defend this asshole.

How exactly does it do that? What order would you propose was correct?

Don't encourage him. He's just one of two examples of Internet tough-guy-ism in this thread (the other being KhorneFlakes).

I want to see more discussion and debate about this and less from the "gargling to death on his own balls" crowd.

[TheHammer]

They sent SEALs in after Bin Laden. in my mind that constitutes at least a token attempt to capture him as opposed to kill. I'm sure they wouldn't have killed him if they'd managed to catch him sleeping in bed. It's mentioned in the OBL death thread that Obama specifically vetoed a plan to bomb the complex from the air. If The government wants to treat this like a law-enforcement problem, then sending in light infantry in at least a token attempt to arrest the individuals is necessary. If they want to treat it like a war, then they have the right to assassinate enemy leaders, but have to afford captured enemy combatants POW status unless they're convicted of war crimes.

Why would those be the only two options? It would seem that terrorist group activities tend to straddle both of those categories (criminal and war). To that end, you have to fight it in both areas.

Honestly, I wouldn't be too concerned with either approach (there are questions as to weather we have the right to declare war on OBL and Al-quada, but they have issued formal declarations of war against the U.S. as an organization, so I could see it working out) if the government would just pick one. Either it's a war and we have to treat captured prisoners humanely until formal peace accords can be drawn up, or it's a law enforcement issue and we have to arrest them before we blow them up. The government seems to be trying to pick and choose whichever of the two possibilities best suits it's interests at the moment, and i'm not Ok with that.

EDIT: As for the hair-splitting issue, I will concede that you are correct. I just checked a copy of the Constitution in one of my college history texts, and it does in fact say "person" instead of "Citizen." My memory must have been a bit foggy.

Honestly, I doubt the "founding fathers" would have the same moral dilema that seems to plague the people today. After all, they did engage in warfare themselves. If they found someone to be a blatantly and openly an enemy of their government, such as al-Awlaki, I don't think they'd have any problem whatsoever ordering him killed.

And to me, the idea that we just let him continue to run around the desert because we are unable to capture him is ridiculous. He know's he's a wanted man, if he wants to stand trial he should turn himself in. If he doesn't, and he's killed, then so be it.

[Samuel]

Honestly, I doubt the "founding fathers" would have the same moral dilema that seems to plague the people today. After all, they did engage in warfare themselves. If they found someone to be a blatantly and openly an enemy of their government, such as al-Awlaki, I don't think they'd have any problem whatsoever ordering him killed.

Fortunately we don't run the United States like we are still in the 18th century.

And to me, the idea that we just let him continue to run around the desert because we are unable to capture him is ridiculous. He know's he's a wanted man, if he wants to stand trial he should turn himself in. If he doesn't, and he's killed, then so be it.

Except people who are enemies of the United States tend to disappear and be tortured in Eastern European prisons. Even if he is innocent, there is no reason why he would turn himself in- that would only make his situation worse.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Except people who are enemies of the United States tend to disappear and be tortured in Eastern European prisons. Even if he is innocent, there is no reason why he would turn himself in- that would only make his situation worse.

So, you are against him being captured as well?

[Kamakazie Sith]

That's not how it works. If you are an American citizen, you are entitled to a fair trial by a jury of your peers before the government can take any action against you. He can be killed in combat if he attacks U.S. forces directly, or killed during an attempted capture, but a direct assassination with no attempt to capture or even ask him to surrender (which the drone attacks are.) is out of the question.

It's written up in a little document called the U.S. constitution. Try reading it some time

Even if you're an american citizen you can be killed if probable cause exists that you pose a threat of death to others if allowed to escape...we already had a thread on this topic.

[TheHammer]

Honestly, I doubt the "founding fathers" would have the same moral dilema that seems to plague the people today. After all, they did engage in warfare themselves. If they found someone to be a blatantly and openly an enemy of their government, such as al-Awlaki, I don't think they'd have any problem whatsoever ordering him killed.

Fortunately we don't run the United States like we are still in the 18th century.

Actually, when it comes to much of the constitution we run it exactly that way - particularly when you cite any of the Bill of Rights. You can't have it both ways. Trying to nitpick that the constitution doesn't "explicitly say its ok to kill terrorists, or in war time" doesn't jive. To them, such an exercise would be simple common sense. If someone was attacking their own country, then they'd have considered it renouncing their citizenship, much the same way as they renounced British citizenship by taking up arms against their king.

And to me, the idea that we just let him continue to run around the desert because we are unable to capture him is ridiculous. He know's he's a wanted man, if he wants to stand trial he should turn himself in. If he doesn't, and he's killed, then so be it.

Except people who are enemies of the United States tend to disappear and be tortured in Eastern European prisons. Even if he is innocent, there is no reason why he would turn himself in- that would only make his situation worse.

The key difference here, should he turn himself in, is that he IS a U.S. citizen, and thus has rights that other "enemy combantants" have not been afforded (right or wrong). His failure to do so, and his repeated calls and support for terrorist attacks on the U.S. make him a legitimate target. Hand wringing over "evil Obama" calling for assassination of an "American Citizen" is ridiculous. The "even if he's innocent" comment is laughable in this case. He's clearly not interested in being innocent.

[Bakustra]

So, do we have some sources that contradict the claim that Anwar is a terrorist and engages in plots to murder people?


If we don't then I wonder? How is killing Anwar any different from killing Osama Bin Laden? Is it because he's American he deserves due process more than OBL? Does Anwar deserve lives be risked to bring about his capture?

Wait, why exactly should the default be that he is a terrorist? Surely it is on the US government to prove that he is one, not for people to prove that he is not. After all, is not the presumption of innocence at the center of the American judicial system?

[Thanas]

As far as legality is concerned, just attacking people is not covered by anything. If he tries to resist capture or arrest, then you can probably shoot him. If not, then you do not just get to bomb him from the air.

Of course, when has "it is illegal" ever stopped an American administration? Definitely not since 9/11.

Actually, when it comes to much of the constitution we run it exactly that way - particularly when you cite any of the Bill of Rights. You can't have it both ways. Trying to nitpick that the constitution doesn't "explicitly say its ok to kill terrorists, or in war time" doesn't jive. To them, such an exercise would be simple common sense. If someone was attacking their own country, then they'd have considered it renouncing their citizenship, much the same way as they renounced British citizenship by taking up arms against their king.

Care to explain why the Supreme court then ruled explicitly that this is not the case and that a US citizen, even if he is a terrorist, is still entitled to the protections of the constitution? In fact, isn't this exact same thing covered by the article already?

And I will require some historical facts to back up your unsubstantiated claim that this is exactly what the founding fathers thought. After all, the specifically modelled their country to not be England and the threat of their own execution they were facing if captured...what makes you think they were the firebreathers you make them out to be? Kindly provide sources now.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Wait, why exactly should the default be that he is a terrorist? Surely it is on the US government to prove that he is one, not for people to prove that he is not. After all, is not the presumption of innocence at the center of the American judicial system?

That's exactly why I asked how is Anwar any different than OBL.

[GeorgeOrr]

I guess this puts to rest the argument trotted out here by many that "capture or kill" was the correct order. Fuck Obama in the ass with a rusty pipe. It's disgusting that people still defend this asshole.

How exactly does it do that? What order would you propose was correct?

My post was poorly composed. Whenever Thanas brought this issue up in the past, the likes of Kamikaze Sith would exclaim "It's not a kill order!" Well, it most certainly is and there's no doubt in my mind that it was never about capture, but about killing a brown guy to score political points with the conservatives, which is what Obama is all about.

[Bakustra]

Wait, why exactly should the default be that he is a terrorist? Surely it is on the US government to prove that he is one, not for people to prove that he is not. After all, is not the presumption of innocence at the center of the American judicial system?

That's exactly why I asked how is Anwar any different than OBL.

He isn't, really, unless we take it as possible for individuals to declare war on nations and thus bin Laden is not a criminal but an enemy commander. But that raises its own questions, doesn't it?

[Kamakazie Sith]

My post was poorly composed. Whenever Thanas brought this issue up in the past, the likes of Kamikaze Sith would exclaim "It's not a kill order!" Well, it most certainly is and there's no doubt in my mind that it was never about capture, but about killing a brown guy to score political points with the conservatives, which is what Obama is all about.

It may appear that way because killing is much easier than capturing. For example, when they launched the strike on Anwar while he was in a vehicle in transit, but missed. Is it because they didn't have a team that was available to go into hostile territory and capture Anwar? Is it because maybe they did have a team but the possibility of success was next to nil so they went with a lethal strike? Who knows?

You pretend you know. However, you don't actually know. Anwar is likely a massive intel resource so it isn't like they don't have a good reason to capture him.

Also, I never exclaimed anything of the sort. You liar.

[Kamakazie Sith]

He isn't, really, unless we take it as possible for individuals to declare war on nations and thus bin Laden is not a criminal but an enemy commander. But that raises its own questions, doesn't it?

Yeah, he's an individual. The difference is he isn't sovereign citizen guy or crazy religious guy with a couple hundred people hiding out in his church of universal light and stuff with heavy infantry weapons. He's an individual with the support of thousands, perhaps millions, and with access to heavy military weapons capable of taking out tanks or shooting down helicopters.

[TheHammer]

As far as legality is concerned, just attacking people is not covered by anything. If he tries to resist capture or arrest, then you can probably shoot him. If not, then you do not just get to bomb him from the air.

Of course, when has "it is illegal" ever stopped an American administration? Definitely not since 9/11.

Likely not before 9/11 either. But we all know that.

Actually, when it comes to much of the constitution we run it exactly that way - particularly when you cite any of the Bill of Rights. You can't have it both ways. Trying to nitpick that the constitution doesn't "explicitly say its ok to kill terrorists, or in war time" doesn't jive. To them, such an exercise would be simple common sense. If someone was attacking their own country, then they'd have considered it renouncing their citizenship, much the same way as they renounced British citizenship by taking up arms against their king.

Care to explain why the Supreme court then ruled explicitly that this is not the case and that a US citizen, even if he is a terrorist, is still entitled to the protections of the constitution? In fact, isn't this exact same thing covered by the article already?

I'm not speaking from the perspective of the Supreme court and its decisions in the modern era. I'm speculating on how the "founding fathers" might see it. I don't know exactly how they would view a citizen striking at his home country from abroad, but I highly doubt they would have a problem ordering soldiers to kill that person should they encounter him, barring an immediate surrender of course.

And I will require some historical facts to back up your unsubstantiated claim that this is exactly what the founding fathers thought. After all, the specifically modelled their country to not be England and the threat of their own execution they were facing if captured...what makes you think they were the firebreathers you make them out to be? Kindly provide sources now.

The Whiskey Rebellion showed that the founders were willing to use force to suppress insurrection. Later the Nullification Crisis of 1832 also held the threat of militay action against U.S. citizens. Granted, both before any major fighting broke out, however the Civil war later showed that citizens who took up arms against the U.S. government were subject to being killed by the army.

Again, I'm not saying the guy should be summarily executed if he is captured. However as long as he is free and fighting against the United States, he is a legitimate target for the military. Should he surrender, then he should be tried with all the rights and privelleges afforded to him under the constitution.

[Sarevok]

Does anyone know where is this supposed "hateful" message Anwar al-Awlaki spreads ? He seems to have resentment and persecution complex about how muslims are being treated. But most of his writtings and speeches seem dull scholarly stuff like early arab history, personal musings like interpretation of dreams or motivational stuff on dealing with family troubles.