Anwar Al-Awlaki’s Carnival Of Ironies
These are boom times if you are a collector of ironies, and none may larger than despite the fact that President Obama has been repeatedly accused of being weak on fighting terrorism by the Republican national security choir, he has been more successful in three short years than the bombastic and serially reckless Bush administration was in eight.
The aggressive Obama administration push back has included stepped up drone attacks and commando raids in Afghanistan and Pakistan and in the mountainous Wild West border region they share, the assassination by Navy SEAL team of Osama bin Laden in May within hailing distance of the Pakistani West Point, and most recently the assassination by drone of Anwar al-Awlaki in Yemen.
The death of Awlaki on September 30 was different.
The radical Muslim cleric was American born and despite his record as an Al Qaeda mastermind whose plot to blow up a trans-Atlantic jet on Christmas Day 2009 as it was preparing to land in Detroit was foiled at the last minute, there was an outcry from the usual quarters — civilian libertarians concerned that the rule of law had been trammeled in not affording Awlaki due process. But in Irony Number Two, there were cries of concern from some of the very Republicans who have criticized Obama and from Al Qaeda, as well.
My own view as a civil libertarian who was horrified at the excesses of the Bush-Cheney interregnum, including the use of Nazi-like torture techniques against American citizens, is in two words — tough spit.
Think of Awlaki as a sniper who methodically picks off people from high atop a tower. Do the authorities risk escalating the carnage by trying to scale the tower and rush the sniper so his constitutional rights to a presumption of innocence and a fair trial are protected? Or does a marksman with a high-powered rifle blow his brains out? If you believe in the former then you’ve been inhaling too many exhaust fumes from your Prius.
My one concern is that knocking off American citizens overseas could become habit forming, but in what certainly was an intentional White House leak, Charlie Savage of The New York Times reported this week that Awlaki was a one-off and that administration officials had agonized for months about whether to take him out before a carefully worded memorandum from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel green-lighted the drone strike.
That would be Irony Number 3 as it was that same office that during the Bush administration wrote notorious memoranda justifying the use of torture on extremely dubious legal grounds that in essence gave the president unlimited power. But the Obama administration is not quite off the hook because its Awlaki memo has not been made public and, according to sources, is based in part of circumstantial evidence.
Finally, the decision to off Awlaki was made entirely within the executive branch. Congress was not consulted, and it is beholden on the Obama administration to craft overall guidelines with Congress in the event there is future need to kill an American on foreign soil. Which there certainly could be as the War on Terror, despite recent successes, is far from over.
16 Responses to “Anwar Al-Awlaki’s Carnival Of Ironies”
Very balanced post, Shaun. Congrats.
One thing hat has been intriguing me is that during the Civil War the government (the Union) killed over half-a-million American citizens who took up arms against the United States and probably hundreds, if not thousands, of non-uniformed American citizens who collaborated with the “enemy”—NOT in the Yemen outback, but right here in the United States of America.
Should a treasonous American who takes up arms against America overseas be treated differently than rebellious Americans who take up arms against our country right here at home?
Perhaps a ridiculous comparison, but still curious as to some opinions.
Look at it this way.. If I was given a choice during a crisis for my life of which would be:
Do I choose to have in my boat either ‘Obama’ or The Republicans ‘Representitive’ to ride out rough waters, In saving my life by his personal guidance and within his executive powers that Be.
Rather than someone who has to consult with a book of ‘Rules’ that he has in his side pocket- First. (
Congress)
‘Time’ holds the Key and leaves out the ‘Devil’ in the Details.
Shuan-
You are a top notch writer, and thanks for that.
I can assure you that this is NOT the first or the last U.S. citizen to get whacked by our own people. We are in a time where secrets are difficult to keep. How much Congress knew or played a part, I don’t know, but I do know that leaks from Congress is an epidemic. Even the executive branch leaks intelligence information for cheap political reasons and we have Valerie Plame as a prime example.
So IMO your fears are justified.
Dorian:
The Civil War analogy is a good one and I will have to research — if such research is out there — the legal justification for killing American citizens if Confederate soldiers and civilians were indeed still technically citizens.
A related sidelight:
No action taken during the Age of Bush may have provoked more outrage than the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus in holding alleged terrorists indefinitely and prosecuting them before military tribunals. But there is an historic precedent dating back to Lincoln and the infringements of the Great Emancipator on civil liberties arguably were greater than during any period in American history — including the Bush years.
I wrote a post on this at my home blog:
http://kikoshouse.blogspot.com/2009/02/habeas-corpus.html
Look forward to the results of your research, Shaun.
I don’t know how old this statute ((Title 8, Chapter12, Subchapter III, Part III, § 1481) is, but even this statute, with the caveat “with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality” is ambiguous:
“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… entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state if… such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the United States.”
Also, would the Confederacy have been considered a “foreign state”?
and (added), have to research how old the UCMJ is , but I am sure it has all kinds of “rules’ on rebellion, mutiny, taking up arms against your own, treason, etc., etc
Dorian:
Further clouding the foreign state issue is that Lincoln himself never recognized the Confederacy per se so technically it was not a foreign state by his lights.
Interesting material on the “Lieber Code,” (The “UCMJ” during the Civil War–see below), such as, under “Sterner Measures”:
Both the Lieber Code and the Hague Regulations of 1907, which took much of the Lieber Code and wrote it into the international treaty law, did comprehend practices that would be considered illegal or extremely questionable in this day and age. In the event of the violation of the laws of war by an enemy, the Code permitted reprisal (by musketry) against the enemy’s recently captured POWs; it permitted the summary battlefield punishment (by musketry) of spies, saboteurs,francs-tireurs, and guerrilla forces, if caught in the act of carrying out their missions. (These allowable practices were later abolished by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949, following the Second World War, which saw these practices in the hands of totalitarian states used as the rule rather than the exception to such.)
However, the code envisioned a reciprocal relationship between the population and the Army. As long as the population did not resist military authority, it was to be treated well. Should the inhabitants violate this compact by taking up arms and supporting guerrilla movements, then they were open to sterner measures. Among these were the imposition of fines, the confiscation and/or destruction of property, the imprisonment and/or expulsion of civilians who aided guerrillas, the relocation of populations, the taking of hostages, and the possible execution of guerrillas who failed to abide by the laws of war.[2] It authorized the shooting on sight of all persons not in uniform acting as soldiers and those committing, or seeking to commit, sabotage.[3]
The Lieber Code:
“The Lieber Code of April 24, 1863, also known as Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Order ? 100,[1] or Lieber Instructions, was an instruction signed by President Abraham Lincolnto the Union Forces of the United States during the American Civil War that dictated how soldiers should conduct themselves in wartime. It was named after the German-American jurist and political philosopher Francis Lieber.”
All from Wikipedia
It’s a good thing we won our Revolutionary War, cause we were characterized as traitors and terrorists. Hiding behind trees in the forest and sniping/killing the officers of GB.
What a difference winning makes.
dduck says:
“It’s a good thing we won our Revolutionary War, cause we were characterized as traitors and terrorists. Hiding behind trees in the forest and sniping/killing the officers of GB.
What a difference winning makes.”
You’ll have to excuse my naïveté (perhaps ignorance) dduck, but I don’t understand what you are trying to convey.
I certainly don’t think you are comparing al-Qaeda and Awlaki to our revolutionary fighters?
I’m trying to make the point that”might makes right” and the winning side is generally excused for atrocities and given the benefit of the doubt. Labels are affixed according to the side you are on. Patriots for our guys since they won.
I am not comparing AQ to anything. To them they are at war against us, it’s as simple as us being at war with them. However, they are genuine terrorists since they kill innocents without compunction.
Thanks for getting it through my thick skull, dduck.
As far as, “I am not comparing AQ to anything. To them they are at war against us, it’s as simple as us being at war with them. However, they are genuine terrorists since they kill innocents without compunction,”
I agree, with the possible clarification that we are at war with them (AQ, the terrorists), too.
I agree with the analogy and the idea that the risk of loss of life prevented waiting for due process.
I will give a modest caution, however. While this case was, to me at least, clear enough, life is full of slippery slopes. The time may well come when the ability to capture, or otherwise wait for due process, is unclear and a government will be tempted to use such a precedent when their actual motivations are less pure.
For that reason, I think there needs to be some sort of check. Perhaps, like wiretapping, the executive should be required to demonstrate to a judge that a reasonable person would conclude that it will be impossible to follow normal due process without undue risk.
“For that reason, I think there needs to be some sort of check. Perhaps, like wiretapping, the executive should be required to demonstrate to a judge that a reasonable person would conclude that it will be impossible to follow normal due process without undue risk.”
While I don’t want to compare this to illegal wiretapping, I would be very surprised if the administration/Justice Department did not consult plenty of legal minds, including judges, beforehand. We’ll see…
it’s not the first feather that crushes you, it is the last.
They may well have. But the question is what will the next administration do? If you think about what you consider to the be worst person that can be elected, you can see how it might not be a bad idea if a President needs approval of the judiciary branch to decide that the need prevents normal due process channels.
“If you think about what you consider to the be worst person that can be elected, you can see how it might not be a bad idea if a President needs approval of the judiciary branch to decide that the need prevents normal due process channels.”
Actually, I don’t have to think very long to find several persons (pl.) that meet that label…
But, regardless, back to the point. As I have said before, I would not be surprised if the President consulted with plenty of legal minds, possibly including members of the judiciary branch before issuing his order.
Which brings up the issue of secrecy: If you are going to take someone out–legally or illegally—you don’t broadcast to the world a priori the deliberations surrounding such a decision.