Extrajudicial Killing

[magekillr]

So this morning I woke up to discover that President Obama has killed Anwar al-Awlaki. Anwar al-Awlaki is a supposed member of al Qaeda (no real evidence), encouraging people to engage in violence against the United States (this is not a crime, it is protected free speech). He also happens to be an American citizen. Here is some background:

 

It was first reported in January of last year that the Obama administration had compiled a hit list of American citizens whom the President had ordered assassinated without any due process, and one of those Americans was Anwar al-Awlaki. No effort was made to indict him for any crimes (despite a report last October that the Obama administration was "considering" indicting him). Despite substantial doubt among Yemen experts about whether he even has any operational role in Al Qaeda, no evidence (as opposed to unverified government accusations) was presented of his guilt. When Awlaki's father sought a court order barring Obama from killing his son, the DOJ argued, among other things, that such decisions were "state secrets" and thus beyond the scrutiny of the courts. He was simply ordered killed by the President: his judge, jury and executioner. When Awlaki's inclusion on President Obama's hit list was confirmed, The New York Times noted that "it is extremely rare, if not unprecedented, for an American to be approved for targeted killing."

 

More here: The due-process-free assassination of U.S. citizens is now reality

 

What are your thoughts on this, and what do you believe the legal implications of such an action are?

[magekillr]

For an alternative view to Greenwald, see Andrew Sullivan:

 

Last fall, the Dish hosted an impassioned debate about the morality and ethics and prudence of targeting US civilians who have joined the Jihadist enemy in seeking to attack the US. My own position is that we are at war, and that avowed enemies and traitors in active warfare against the US cannot suddenly invoke legal protections from a society they have decided to help destroy.

 

And so my response to the death of Anwar al Awlaki is obviously not going to be Glenn Greenwald's, although I respect his consistency and integrity on this question, even though I think his position minimizes the stakes of the conflict, and misreads the nature of war.

 

My response is to note what the Obama administration seems leery of saying out loud - in line with its general response to al Qaeda which is to speak very softly while ruthlessly killing scores of mid-level and high-level operatives. This administration actually is what the Bush administration claimed to be: a relentless executor of the war in terror, armed with real intelligence and lethally accurate execution. Sure, Yemen's al Qaeda is not the core al Qaeda of Pakistan/Afghanistan - it's less global in scope and capacities. But to remove one important propaganda source of that movement has made all of us safer. And those Americans who have lived under one of Awlaki's murderous fatwas can breathe more easily today.

 

The same goes for al Qaeda more generally. Obama has done in two years what Bush failed to do in eight. He has skilfully done all he can to reset relations with the broader Muslim world (despite the machinations of the Israeli government) while ruthlessly wiping out swathes of Jihadist planners, operatives and foot-soldiers in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He has thereby strengthened us immeasurably both in terms of soft and hard power.

 

Compare the two presidents. One unleashed a war in Afghanistan he then left to languish, and sparked an unjustified war in Iraq, that became a catastrophe of mass death and chaos. He both maximally antagonized the Arab and Muslim world and didn't even score a major victory against the enemy. In many ways, Bush gave al Qaeda an opening in Iraq where it never had one before, and allowed its key leadership to escape at Tora Bora. The torture program, meanwhile, fouled up our intelligence while destroying our moral standing in the world.

 

Obama has ended torture and pursued a real war, not an ideological spectacle. He has destroyed almost all of al Qaeda of 9/11 (if Zawahiri is taken out, no one is left), obliterated its ranks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, found and killed bin Laden, in a daring raid pushed relentlessly by the president alone, capturing alongside a trove of intelligence, procured as a consequence of courage and tenacity rather than cowardice and torture.

 

I know the next election will be about the economy. But what it should also be about is the revelation of the Republicans as fundmentally weak on national security. Caught up in their own ideology, they proved for eight years they'd rather posture and preen than do the intelligent, relentless, ethical intelligence work that is only now leading to victory.

 

Obama, in other words, is winning the war Bush kept losing. And since Cairo, we have witnessed the real flowering of democratic forces in the Middle East - unseen during the Bush-Cheney years. For all the tireless efforts of the Israelis to cripple US foreign policy against Jihadism, Obama has done the job. If he fails to make this case in the next election, he will, in my judgment, be blowing an important opportunity to reinforce a structural advantage against the GOP on national security.

 

Back in 2001, I wondered if Bush would be the president to win this war, while hoping he would. I wondered if his errors might lead to a successor who learned from them. That hope has now been fulfilled - more swiftly and decisively than I once dared to dream about.

 

The Un-Bush

[obfuscator]

Well, I think it's an unfortunate necessity in this case.

[Sir_Squab]

I don't feel I have enough information on this.

[Napalm]

Well, I think it's an unfortunate necessity in this case.

 

I have to disagree, I don't find it to be a necessity. He didn''t break any laws, and even if he had done so, he deserved a trial, where he would be judged based on evidence. You can't just skip all the process and have someone killed because he says something you don't like (which aslo happens to be protected by your own laws). What's more is that trying to justify this is supporting the idea that a single person (or a very small group of priviledged people) can determine wether it is a necessity or not to kill someone without having questions asked.

 

I don't feel I have enough information on this.

 

10/10 post, would read again.

[obfuscator]

Well, I think it's an unfortunate necessity in this case.

 

I have to disagree, I don't find it to be a necessity. He didn''t break any laws, and even if he had done so, he deserved a trial, where he would be judged based on evidence. You can't just skip all the process and have someone killed because he says something you don't like (which aslo happens to be protected by your own laws). What's more is that trying to justify this is supporting the idea that a single person (or a very small group of priviledged people) can determine wether it is a necessity or not to kill someone without having questions asked.

 

The whole point of the second article was to say how that approach isn't practical. It basically boils down to giving one person a fair trial, or letting further terrorist attacks occur.

[Napalm]

Well, I think it's an unfortunate necessity in this case.

 

I have to disagree, I don't find it to be a necessity. He didn''t break any laws, and even if he had done so, he deserved a trial, where he would be judged based on evidence. You can't just skip all the process and have someone killed because he says something you don't like (which aslo happens to be protected by your own laws). What's more is that trying to justify this is supporting the idea that a single person (or a very small group of priviledged people) can determine wether it is a necessity or not to kill someone without having questions asked.

 

The whole point of the second article was to say how that approach isn't practical. It basically boils down to giving one person a fair trial, or letting further terrorist attacks occur.

 

I don't think one is going to stop the other. If anything, I suspect his killing, at least in the manner that it was carried out, would cause more revolt than letting him free. And even if you felt the other way, there is always the option of imprisoning him, which would also stop him from trying to spread his ideals. It seems to me that the whole point was making an example out of his death, rather than preventing the threats.

[Noxx]

Well, I think it's an unfortunate necessity in this case.

 

I have to disagree, I don't find it to be a necessity. He didn''t break any laws, and even if he had done so, he deserved a trial, where he would be judged based on evidence. You can't just skip all the process and have someone killed because he says something you don't like (which aslo happens to be protected by your own laws). What's more is that trying to justify this is supporting the idea that a single person (or a very small group of priviledged people) can determine wether it is a necessity or not to kill someone without having questions asked.

 

The whole point of the second article was to say how that approach isn't practical. It basically boils down to giving one person a fair trial, or letting further terrorist attacks occur.

 

I don't think one is going to stop the other. If anything, I suspect his killing, at least in the manner that it was carried out, would cause more revolt than letting him free. And even if you felt the other way, there is always the option of imprisoning him, which would also stop him from trying to spread his ideals. It seems to me that the whole point was making an example out of his death, rather than preventing the threats.

Basically my thoughts. Killing a terrorist isn't going to scare off his terrorist buddies. They're groomed to die. Doing something like this might just give them that nudge over the edge.

But i doubt much will come of this.

[obfuscator]

You do realize he was killed in a missile strike? It would be one thing if he was killed in a raid, where they could have just taken him prisoner. But these missile strikes are much easier and more cost-effective to pull off.

[Alg]

I don't feel I have enough information on this.

This.

The big issue seems to be that he's an American citizen. I don't know enough to say more. It might be helpful to post background instead of opinion pieces, since I'm assuming that the few of us that don't follow this issue won't know enough to comment.

[obfuscator]

See, that piece of information makes absolutely no difference to me. Who cares if he's an american citizen? It doesn't exactly make his life worth more or less...

[H2PM]

So Obama went to Ymen and personally killed this guy?

Interesting.

[Alg]

See, that piece of information makes absolutely no difference to me. Who cares if he's an american citizen? It doesn't exactly make his life worth more or less...

But it does entitle him to whatever rights that American citizens have in this case, such as the right to a trial.

[obfuscator]

See, that piece of information makes absolutely no difference to me. Who cares if he's an american citizen? It doesn't exactly make his life worth more or less...

But it does entitle him to whatever rights that American citizens have in this case, such as the right to a trial.

A right every person should have, not just citizens of a specific country :P

[Alg]

See, that piece of information makes absolutely no difference to me. Who cares if he's an american citizen? It doesn't exactly make his life worth more or less...

But it does entitle him to whatever rights that American citizens have in this case, such as the right to a trial.

A right every person should have, not just citizens of a specific country :P

Well, wars happen :razz:

It seems to be the fact that he was an American citizen killed by the American military that makes it an issue. But again, wars tend to break rules like that. [insert cliche stating "war is bad" in a particularly eloquent way]

[Napalm]

You do realize he was killed in a missile strike? It would be one thing if he was killed in a raid, where they could have just taken him prisoner. But these missile strikes are much easier and more cost-effective to pull off.

 

I wasn't aware. I still disagree with the way the situation was handled, though, and I don't believe "It was cheaper to do so" is a valid excuse for killing him without trial.

[magekillr]

The Greenwald piece was meant to give a background on the issue (he provides a lot more links if you click his piece).

 

Here's one that might help: U.S. tries to assassinate U.S. citizen Anwar al-Awlaki

 

The issue isn't so much that he's an American citizen -- although that is a BIG part of this. The issue is "did al Qaeda commit an act of war, or commit a crime? And if they committed an act of war, what constitutes the battle field?"

 

Bush argued that the entire world is the battle field, which Obama seems to be re-affirming. That raises a lot more legal questions because then you have to ask, "When does the war end? If it's an act of war, then why aren't the president and other United States buildings legitimate targets?"

 

Etc. That's what is at stake.

 

Other opinions here:

 

http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2011/09/al-awlaki-and-the-law-1-1.html

[obfuscator]

Agreed completely with the above.

[magekillr]

Here's another person making the point of the issue:

 

On the one hand, I can't help but feel a sense of relief. He has been linked to several attacks and plots against the West, including in Canada. He was an inspiration for many more plots and attacks he was not directly involved in. He actively called for Muslims to attack American citizens, which does raise serious questions about whether we should honor his citizenship.

 

On the other hand, this is very problematic. An American citizen has been killed by the U.S. government without any judicial process. The evidence against him has not been tested in any court. Some of the evidence is available to the public, such as recordings of his sermons and videos he posted on the Internet. There's no doubt that he incited violence against U.S. interests and innocent civilians. But the more damning evidence, such as his role in the Christmas bombing plot, is circumstantial and based on the say-so of our intelligence agencies.

 

Here's my problem. Based on what the government says it knew, I can understand that they did not want to leave this man free to continue his activities. It's our government's responsibility to keep us safe, and this man was quite dangerous. I also understand that capturing him was impractical. It's a highly unusual situation that our laws are not presently designed to address. I don't know if a similar situation will ever present itself again, but we need to craft our laws in a way that can account for this type of situation so that there is some legal review of some sort before a U.S. citizen can be assassinated by his own government.

 

Because, let's face it, without any legal process, the government could manufacture evidence against a U.S. citizen who is a harsh critic and who gives sermons that incite people against U.S. policies. We don't know what the line is where the government can disregard a citizen's rights, declare him an enemy of the state, and kill him. Even if we agree that al-Awlaki crossed it, we don't know at what point he crossed it. And it's not a simple question to answer.

 

Is the only reason it was permissible to kill him because it was not practicable to capture him? Can we codify that in law? Or, was it permissible to kill him because of things he said? If I lose my temper and call for the killing of some U.S. citizens, can my citizenship be stripped? Can the government drop a bomb on my house? Do I have less right to the courts if I'm living in Amsterdam instead of Pennsylvania? Shouldn't there be a legal review for stripping people of their citizenship before they can be treated extrajudicially?

 

Remember that we are relying heavily on the government's story here. It may be convincing in this case, but nothing prevents the government from lying or exaggerating or telling us things that would never stand up in court.

 

Congress should not just applaud this successful elimination of a deadly enemy. They should get to work figuring out a legal process that can account for a situation where a U.S. citizen is making war against us and cannot be captured and brought home for trial. I would advise some criterion be created for first stripping someone of their citizenship, and it should be a very high bar that must be met to the satisfaction of a panel of judges. Because, if we don't create something like that, this action this morning will create a terrible precedent that can be abused by future administrations.

 

On the Death of Anwar al-Awlaki

[Guy]

I see no difference between this killing and the killing of many many other Al-Qaeda operatives in the same region apart from this guy is an American citizen. However this guy appears to have been spouting anti-American rhetoric, which isn't a particularly American thing to do, implying he doesn't think himself American. It isn't a definitive science, but there is a difference between being born in America and being an American, same with any other country. I was born outside of the UK, but I still consider myself English. He was just another terrorist, and if we don't kill them/stop them what do we do? Let them continue? Unfortunately there really is only one option, other than imprisoning them, which is both incredibly difficult, involves loss-of-life, takes time and requires you to extradite them to a secure position, all with the distinct possibility that they will be killed anyway. I don't feel this is a particularly special case.

 

TL;DR technically an American citizen, but didn't act like one (to the contrary, actively hated America), thus who cares? Just another one of many who have had the same thing done.

[magekillr]

Here's the problem with that thinking, though: what is the definition of that? There needs to be a clearer legal authority. For example, during the Civil Rights Protests, here is what the FBI's memos said of King, as he was considered a "terrorist threat":

 

He [King] could be a real contender for this position [ of 'black messiah'] should he abandon his supposed obedience to white liberal doctrines (non-violence) and embrace black nationalism.

 

 

Through counter-intelligence it should be possible to pinpoint potential trouble-makers and neutralize them

 

Full documents are included and highlighted here.

 

Without clearer legal reasoning, the government can essentially drop a bomb on my house for inciting violence against the government, even though I haven't committed any crimes. This is a full embrace of the security state, and without more recourse or legal rationale, it could set a terrible precedent.

 

Benjamin Wittes counters Glenn Greenwald:

 

It is not enough to say the words due process by way of denouncing the Al Aulaqi strike, as though those words represent a discussion-ending argument. One has to specify what process is due to someone being targeted in a particular circumstance before one concludes that the targeting violates due process. If targeting Al Aulaqi were really an assertion of the power to kill any U.S. citizen anywhere based on his speech, I would find it alarming indeed. But I am, in fact, quite certain that Bobby is correct that it is no such thing.

What Is Process Due?

[Guy]

I think it's a case-by-case thing. Americans aren't going to complain (as much? I'm not sure how annoyed people are at this 'citizen' being killed) if someone like this guy was killed, but back then there'd be widespread rebellion of they killed MLK.

[Nomrombom]

Most US citizens will not give a single [bleep] even if they know about it. In fact, I'm willing to bet many will be glad. I don't even know how I feel about this.

[Zierro]

TL;DR technically an American citizen, but didn't act like one (to the contrary, actively hated America), thus who cares? Just another one of many who have had the same thing done.

 

Agreed. He was clearly an anti-American if he really asserted that it was his duty to kill Americans, and thus it doesn't make much sense to let him benefit from the system he is so set on destroying.

 

Without clearer legal reasoning, the government can essentially drop a bomb on my house for inciting violence against the government, even though I haven't committed any crimes. This is a full embrace of the security state, and without more recourse or legal rationale, it could set a terrible precedent.

 

Free speech isn't as free as you'd like it to be. Try calling an official a [bleep]. I think rallying up for the next terrorist strike is a bit of a problem, as this isn't just speech with the incentive of causing controversy or feelings to be hurt - it's speech organizing the mass killing of innocents. Something I'd like to see avoided.

 

Obama might have made a legal [bleep] up, which puts him in a bad position as a president. But let's not all forget why we have attained law and order in our society in the first place, and let's not let a few muddling technicalities get in the way of fixing real world problems. Extrajudicial killing =/= irrational, unjustified killing. Judicial punishment =/= rational, justified punishment.

[magekillr]

Here is Jake Tapper grilling that miserable weasel Jay Carney on the issues of this assassination:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6bgwZGZiIo

 

Remember, there wasn't even an INDICTMENT. It's just "the government says, so that's good enough."