« Wall Street Occupied by Tea Party of ‘Generation-Twitter’ (Die Welt, Germany)
The Hillary Effect: Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 Goes to Three Activist Women »
On the Death of an American and America
The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, in the way it was done, cannot be allowed to stand.
The president who ordered it has not acknowledged its terrifying implications, not made any attempt to redraw the judicial and moral line that he appears to have blurred or even erased, not admitted the problem raised by the obvious prima facie violation of the Constitution that his actions represent, and not thought the implications so huge that he needs to go to great pains to explain to this nation how a government that can take the life of an American without due process can, even theoretically, claim to protect life, liberty and law.
It is that fact that indicates that Obama does not see himself as suspending the Constitution to save us from a threat so huge that it warranted such a terrible action — but rather that the Bill of Rights doesn’t mean very much to him in the first place. In that he is just like Bush.
If the Constitution did matter at all, the evidence of al-Awlaki’s active participation in a specific crime would be presented to the people. Failing that, (if public presentation of the evidence would pose a national security threat, for example) then at the very least, an independent judicial process by which al-Awlaki could be stripped of his citizenship in absentia should have been established before any such attack was ordered. That may sound like a technicality and a lot of unnecessary work and time, but in enabling us to preserve our Constitution — the ultimate legal protection of the rights of all Americans — it would have been worth every dollar and day spent.
Even if the killing was by some standard “necessary,” by quietly assenting, we citizens make something that should be next to impossible both politically and legally all too easy.
The first time I was politically active was to protest against the Iraq war. Like most of the protesters of that war, I am not a pacifist. The problem wasn’t the idea of war per se. It was not even that we knew the casus belli was false. After all, we were not privy to the secret intelligence. Rather, it was because the word of a president alone could not alone suffice morally to justify the huge consequences that his war would obviously cause. The magnitude of Bush’s proposed action demanded evidential standards that the evidence failed to satisfy. You could say we had reasonable doubt — and then some. I am confident that the Founders would have commended our skepticism.
And it turns out that our instincts were right — morally and factually. The fact that the world may be better off without Saddam remains irrelevant to judging the right or wrong of starting a war that was initiated for an entirely different (and false) reason.
Even if we grant the good intentions of all American officials and officers, and allow that as a practical matter, difficult decisions will always have to be made in legal and moral gray areas when it comes to protecting the nation, we are still left with the huge problem that people screw up. The Constitution stands as much to protect American citizens, of which al-Awlaki was one, from the good intentions of good people as from any conscious abuse of power. I am more scared by the loss of those protections, and of a government that would ignore them, than I ever could have been by al-Awlaki.
The critical right that was violated in the killing of al-Awlaki was that of due process — as there can be no due process that does not allow a man to defend himself against specific charges. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin’s famous comment, buying security at the cost of our most basic liberties is to go down the path of destroying both. It is, in fact, to destroy from the inside the very thing we are trying to secure on the outside — America and its values.
We have come to a strange time in American political history when we can listen to Michael Savage lay out the proper liberal response to this sad event:
“Ron Paul floats impeachment for the drone killing of a US citizen. I agree with Ron Paul. Because if Obama can kill an American citizen based upon evidence but without a trial, he can kill you. He can kill anyone he doesn’t like.
Ron Paul said on Monday that President Obama’s targeting and killing of Anwar al-Awlaki may be an impeachable offense. He said impeachment would be possible but he wants to know more about how the administration flouted the law. Ron Paul called the killing a movement toward tyranny.
…. Ron Paul is 100% right. We have just totally disrespected the Constitution.
We all want [al-Awlaki] dead if he is what they say he is, and I believe he is. But what’s next? Who can Obama whack next? .. You? Me? A man who runs a big website? Or a man who runs a little website that is critical of the president who we can claim is a terrorist and have him killed?…
The instinct of many is to say this is all hyperbole because that wouldn’t happen here. But ten years ago, you’d have said the same thing about federal agents’ being allowed to arrest you with a self-written warrant without any judicial oversight; twenty years ago, you’d have said the same thing about the governments’ recording your private communications without reasonable suspicion of a crime. And earlier this very year, you’d have been surprised to find out that a man who was tried and convicted for the “crime” of making and circulating coins out of silver was labeled a “domestic terrorist” by a US Attorney. If that’s what our government means by “terrorist,” then I have all the more cause to doubt their choice of assassination targets.
The idiom goes that things are darkest just before the dawn, but Mao said that they were darkest just before they went completely black.
Americans must choose which it is going to be.
A political phase shift is happening and the political paradigm is changing. Michael Savage, Ron Paul, the ACLU and Kucinich, for example, now agree on the most fundamental and urgent issue of our time. That they recognize it as such is even more important than their agreement.
I realize that I have been wrong in arguing that we need to vote for Ron Paul to save America: the United States died with the killing of an American without due process. We are now voting for Ron Paul on the off-chance that we can bring America back from the dead.
I was also wrong in suggesting that true Liberals should prefer Paul over Obama: after this presidentially ordered killing, the truth is that anyone who votes for Obama — for any “establishment candidate” at all — will in that act alone prove themselves not to be liberal by any reasonable definition.
No person who accepts the killing of an American citizen without due process, based on the assessment of the executive branch alone, can call themselves a Liberal. A vote for Obama would be a vote knowingly against the Bill of Rights, and therefore against the very existence of basic human rights in America. It would be the act of a person complicit in putting power in the hands of a man who believes not simply in the value of government intervention, but in the altogether illiberal notion, expressed by Nixon in his famous interview with David Frost, that “if the president does it, it is not illegal.”
America was sickened by the arrogance and danger of that sentiment 34 years ago. We should be more sickened now, when there is nothing left that a “terrorist” could take from Americans that our own government has not already taken.
24 Responses to “On the Death of an American and America”
I have yet to talk to a single liberal that won’t vote for Obama, so I guess they are DINOs by your reckoning. However, if they do so I guess they disagree with your position.
Me, I feel sorrier for all the innocent people the government has murdered including American Indians, Bombing of Dresden and Japan, and careless collateral damage in Iraq and Afghanistan, than this guy who denounced and quit the U.S. and became a traitor.
Obama kills people with drones. Bush had them picked up in the middle of the night then flown off to secret prisons and tortured. Perhaps Americans are happy as it costs less money using a drone than the costs associated with a tortured prisoner.
As for Ron Paul. Well, he is concerned about a terrorist. But someone back here in the good old USA, Ron Paul would let him die if he was sick and couldn’t afford to see a doctor.
Ron:
As you know, I respect you very much and I value your opinions.
Both of us have come to love the United States as our adopted country.
Additionally, I have taken an oath and served my country for 20 years to protect it against all enemies and solemnly swore to “renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty… “
While I agree with many of the things you say, I have to respectfully disagree with your claims that the United States acted unconstitutionally or criminally by killing Anwar al-Awlaki in a military action against terrorists—who in fact are a clear and present danger to our country and to our people.
It might have been more palatable to some to try to capture him and bring him to trial, but in this war against terrorists we sometimes don’t have such a luxury
A comment does not suffice to fully and adequately explain my position, thus I will write a piece later to explain such more fully.
But I do want to say a couple of things—and flesh them out later:
TITLE 8 > CHAPTER 12 > SUBCHAPTER III > Part III > § 1481, . LOSS OF NATIONALITY BY NATIVE-BORN OR NATURALIZED CITIZEN states:
A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality—
:
:
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if
(A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States
We can argue about whether al-Qaeda are in fact the armed forces of a foreign state, or whether they are actually engaged in hostilities, or whether this terrorist/traitor intended to “relinquish his citizenship” and perhaps we will.
Also, I believe—and this is a very personal opinion—that your argument is somewhat diminished when you quote Michael Savage, a man who would use anything and everything to discredit Obama.
Again, I respect your opinions very much, but I sincerely disagree with some of them.
By the way, congratulations with your great success on The Huffington Post.
Robin,
My apologies for mangling your first name..saw it too late for editing
He was actively engaged in recruiting for our enemies. He was beyond the reach of due process, altho had he wished it would have been made available to him. Apparently some formal exception needs to be made in cases like this. Otherwise, if I am a terrorist mastermind and i want a cadre of agents that can not be targeted by the US gov’t, I recruit US citizens and have them come fight overseas where arrest is unlikely. Ideally, all my top agents would be americans. I keep them hidden well enough that the only practical method to eliminate them is drone strike, and I no longer have to worry about my senior mgmt getting blown up randomly. You can see the problems.
Slamfu:
I agree with a lot of what you say, and even though you are stealing a lot of my thunder
I am glad you are 
You have to surrender to recieve due process.
Having said that, the President has access to classified information and therefore knows that this is not the first time.
A DIA employee once told me that if you are outside the United States and you are a traitor, the odds of you getting whacked by our national intelligence community, or, a contractor is pretty good.
So believe me, nothing is ever going to become of this. Now you be good little boys and girls, ya’ here!?
I, Allen, do solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign, and DOMESTIC; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States; and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the uniform code of military justice. SO HELP ME GOD.
Save for the UCMJ, the rest of that oath has no expiration date IMO.
I have nothing but respect and admiration for people in the Armed Forces everywhere. It is the hard work, training and sacrifice of these people that keep America free. In return for their hard work and selfless devotion, I hereby promise that I will not only vote for Ron Paul but that I will also do everything in my power to ensure that you are not needlessly placed in jeopardy as a mark of respect for your willingness to place yourself in harm’s way for this great country’s defense.
I so swear before my maker,
Louis Nardozi
Vote Vertebrate – Ron Paul 2012!
Dorian said it best, I think.
That being said, Due Process does not apply when the person is actively engaged in combat with the United States. It is akin to the police killing the drug kingpin who is sending out dealers, and who makes a threatening move when the police raid his/her compound. The shoot to kill order is perfectly constitutionally valid, and, in the case of an armed enemy of the country, so much the greater.
I would respect the article a lot more if it didn’t end in a political plug for another candidate. It tarnishes the whole, valid point, turns it into an advertisement.
I do think the point is valid. There should have been an effort to strip Awlaki of his citizenship. It should be done for all who side with al Qaeda. Otherwise, yes, there is a disturbing precedent.
I have no regret that Awlaki is dead, but we have to be a nation of laws or we are not a nation at all.
At least, not a good one.
“I do think the point is valid. There should have been an effort to strip Awlaki of his citizenship. It should be done for all who side with al Qaeda. Otherwise, yes, there is a disturbing precedent.”
Agreed.
The point is not valid. There are no laws that protect those whom violently attempt to destroy the United States whether they are citizens or not. Furthermore the likely hood of Ron Paul being nominated is slim to none.
I could not disagree more with this post. The fact is this guy gave up the protection of the constitution the day he allied himself with the people who seek the destruction of our nation. This action doesn’t make Obama a murderer, it makes him a president who was doing his job, protecting us from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. I would have done exactly the same thing.
A terrorist is killed and that’s supposed to signify the “Death of America”??? We have critically serious problems in this country that are going unaddressed because of dysfunctional govt. (sorry Ron Paul isn’t even close to being anyones savior) and you expect people to get their panties in a wad because some terrorist scum is killed??? Good grief. Go complain to Darth Cheney.
Btw, if America is “dead”, the process happened slowly, quietly, and over the past few decades. It involved the shedding of our traditional high standards and the selling out of govt to the highest bidders. It involved a culture that became enamored of the trite and stupid and lost it’s ability grasp even the unsubtle differences between what matters and what doesn’t. There’s your death of America pardner.
It’s more than a few decades. Our treatment of the American Indians (the true Americans, BTW) was shameful (and still is).
American Indians duck? The Indians were not true Americans, nor were they American citizens. They were “native” Americans, and, most were busy killing each other long before we got here.
Native Americans? What on earth does Native Americans have to do with killing terorists?
I don’t think anyone’s asking for protection for terrorists here.
There is some concern about the process of deciding who is a terrorist.
I watched videos of a police officer beating American citizens with a club at a protest this past week. They had not taken up arms against the United States nor called their country the enemy? Where was their due process? Where is the outrage?
A few weeks ago we went through the horror of the execution of an American citizen whose guilt was greatly questioned. Yet he was put to death anyway. Where is the outrage?
In my opinion Anwar al-Awlaki gave up his rights of US citizenship when he decided that the US was his enemy and he joined a group to fight against the US. Did Anwar al-Awlaki feel he deserved immunity from a bin Laden fate because he could cry American citizenship? Was he hiding behind this citizenship thinking that he could do as he pleased because he has “rights”? The only thing I’m sorry about is that he probably never knew what hit him.
Our outrages are without priorities and terribly perplexing.
Allen, you continue to astound us………
“Our treatment of the American Indians (the true Americans, BTW) was shameful (and still is).”
Damn straight duck. It is a black mark on our history to be sure.
It’s uninformed crap like this that makes me very, very afraid for the future of the country.
Really Barky….why don’t you just bring one of those laws here for us to read?