Outside the U.S. government, President Obama’s order to kill American citizen Anwar al-Awlaki without due process has proved controversial, with experts in law and war reaching different conclusions. Inside the Obama Administration, however, disagreement was apparently absent, or so say anonymous sources quoted by the Washington Post. “The Justice Department wrote a secret memorandum authorizing the lethal targeting of Anwar al-Aulaqi, the American-born radical cleric who was killed by a U.S. drone strike Friday, according to administration officials,” the newspaper reported. “The document was produced following a review of the legal issues raised by striking a U.S. citizen and involved senior lawyers from across the administration. There was no dissent about the legality of killing Aulaqi, the officials said.”
Isn’t that interesting? Months ago, the Obama Administration revealed that it would target al-Awlaki. It even managed to wriggle out of a lawsuit filed by his father to prevent the assassination. But the actual legal reasoning the Department of Justice used to authorize the strike? It’s secret. Classified. Information that the public isn’t permitted to read, mull over, or challenge.
Why? What justification can there be for President Obama and his lawyers to keep secret what they’re asserting is a matter of sound law? This isn’t a military secret. It isn’t an instance of protecting CIA field assets, or shielding a domestic vulnerability to terrorism from public view. This is an analysis of the power that the Constitution and Congress’ post September 11 authorization of military force gives the executive branch. This is a president exploiting official secrecy so that he can claim legal justification for his actions without having to expose his specific reasoning to scrutiny. As the Post put it, “The administration officials refused to disclose the exact legal analysis used to authorize targeting Aulaqi, or how they considered any Fifth Amendment right to due process.”
Obama hasn’t just set a new precedent about killing Americans without due process. He has done so in a way that deliberately shields from public view the precise nature of the important precedent he has set.
I am sorry folks. In the other post, I asked that the procedure for determining the reasoning for an assassination to be explained; how was I supposed to know it is Top Secret. How callous and thoughtless of me to ask for an explanation and not accept the excuses. We can now rest assured that the procedure will never be abused, because now it is Top Secret. How good can it get. There are some real bad guys down in old Mexico, maybe we can have some Top Secret decision and start taking out the Drug Cartel Leaders with Top Secret Reasoning. The justification might be a little sketchy, but they are real bad guys.
I would have gladly pulled the trigger or launched the missile, but once we allow ourselves to be controlled by the whims of one man without oversight or Constitutional restraint, we slip ever closer to tyranny. Using the assassination of a universally hated enemy is a perfect opportunity to increase and abuse executive power.
If it is legal and the process is explained and under control, let’s kill all the bastards: if this is but a stepping stone for evil political processes and moves in the future, we may have unleashed a monster we can’t begin to yet comprehend. Who among you can explain the contents of those secret documents?
If you understand them, why are they secret?
Do you have such faith in the Obama assassination programs that you are going to give him the green light to more or less kill indiscriminately?
Please note, I have not supported Miranda, the use of our military as police, or preferring to put our military at risk unnecessarily. Please note I would have killed Osama and all those with him with the same type of rocket rather than expose our troops to danger, but that was a more clearly defined case. It was also a great gamble of American troops and technology. We might ask ourselves, if it was the most advantageous method for our president and was it worth the exposure of American troops to achieve that advantage.
Is the precedent set that allows a president to assassinate Americans and foreign political leaders if they are just bad asses that need killing and then lock away the legalities in Top Secret Files as if that sanitizes the whole operation.
We now have a plethora of reasons that include talking and planning among enemy combatants or terrorists; although, what may be seen as an evil doer, may in fact be the swimming pool contractor.
In WW II we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan killing many innocent civilians and sometimes for the terror effect rather than tactical reasons, but that was total war and the conditions aren’t the same. Tactical assassination is a very effective method of subduing an enemy and striking terror among your enemy, but it is the man selecting targets that is the loose cannon. I would be perfect for the job, but no one has asked me, now who else can we trust?
This wouldn’t be an issue if State had gone through the procees of revoking his citizenship based on treason charges. Treason being the one crime defined ine the Constitution, this would be a pretty clear cut case; he could have been tried in abstentia and had a snazzy pro bono defender too.
I gave some history on this authority… exercised by both Clinton and Bush… back on drj’s thread, Skookum. Secret memos and the authority to capture or kill terrorists actively waging war against the US isn’t anything new, and the lib/progs made a stink about it back in 2001 with the Bush directive. However Bush’s directive only expanded a similar directive that Clinton made in 1998 following the the 1998 World Islamic Front Statement, declaring war on the US and citizens everywhere.
None of the previous directives differentiate between an active terrorist waging war on the US, and their nationality. The statements authorize capture if feasible, and killing if not. That would be on foreign soil, or even US soil. Altho here the intel agencies and law enforcement would be likely to attempt a capture first. A bit more difficult when you’re landing US boots on the ground in another sovereign territory, and unnecessarily risking their lives.
I’m guessing that you, like drj, aren’t necessarily upset that UBL was killed. Or that other AQ leaders were killed via raids or drones. Just that both Awlaki and Khan.. the other US citizen also killed, but never mentioned… happened to be born in America. They fit the hit list directive because they met the criteria of terrorist activity conducted… and their nationality has nothing to do with it. And good on Obama for not abandoning the directives used, in varying degrees, by prior POTUS.
There are ample legal precedents and authorities to kill active enemies of the US, regardless of their nationality. As Nan G had pointed out on drj’s thread, our own Civil War is only one example of such authorization.