Is this the world we want? Where the president of the United States can
place an American citizen, or anyone else for that matter, living outside a
war zone on a targeted assassination list, and then have him murdered by
drone strike.
This was the very result we at the Center for Constitutional Rights and the
ACLU feared when we brought a case in US federal court on behalf of Anwar
al-Awlaki's father, hoping to prevent this targeted killing. We lost the
case on procedural grounds, but the judge considered the implications of the
practice as raising "serious questions", asking:
"Can the executive order the assassination of a US citizen without first
affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere
assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organisation?"
Yes, Anwar al-Awlaki was a radical Muslim cleric. Yes, his language and
speeches were incendiary. He may even have engaged in plots against the
United States - but we do not know that because he was never indicted for a
crime.
This profile should not have made him a target for a killing without due
process and without any effort to capture, arrest and try him. The US
government knew his location for purposes of a drone strike, so why was no
effort made to arrest him in Yemen, a country that apparently was allied in
the US efforts to track him down?
There are - or were - laws about the circumstances in which deadly force can
be used, including against those who are bent on causing harm to the United
States. Outside of a war zone, as Awlaki was, lethal force can only be
employed in the narrowest and most extraordinary circumstances: when there
is a concrete, specific and imminent threat of an attack; and even then,
deadly force must be a last resort.
The claim, after the fact, by President Obama that Awlaki "operationally
directed efforts" to attack the United States was never presented to a court
before he was placed on the "kill" list and is untested. Even if President
Obama's claim has some validity, unless Awlaki's alleged terrorists actions
were imminent and unless deadly force employed as a last resort, this
killing constitutes murder.
We know the government makes mistakes, lots of them, in giving people a
"terrorist" label. Hundreds of men were wrongfully detained at Guantanamo.
Should this same government, or any government, be allowed to order people's
killing without due process?
The dire implications of this killing should not be lost on any of us. There
appears to be no limit to the president's power to kill anywhere in the
world, even if it involves killing a citizen of his own country. Today, it's
in Yemen; tomorrow, it could be in the UK or even in the United States.
[Last week, Americans saw a curious sight for a free nation: Their president
ordered the killing of two U.S. citizens without a trial or even a formal
charge . . . and the public applauded. . . .
Before the killing, Obama successfully fought efforts by al-Awlaki's family
members to have a court review the legality for the planned assassination of
their kin. Due to reported prior associations of the U.S. government with
al-Awlaki, it was a hearing that the intelligence agencies likely did not
want to occur. At the time, the Justice Department argued that if al-Awlaki
wanted judicial review, he should file with the clerk's office himself -
despite an order for him to be shot on sight. The Obama administration
succeeded in arguing that the planned killing of a citizen on this hit list
was a "political question," not a legal question.--Jonathan Turley, "Column: Why we should wince over
al-Awlaki's death," usatoday.com, October 4, 2011]
[There is no public record of the operations or decisions of the panel,
which is a subset of the White House's National Security Council, several
current and former officials said. Neither is there any law establishing its
existence or setting out the rules by which it is supposed to operate.--Mark
Hosenball"Secret panel can put Americans on 'kill
list'," reuters.com, October 5, 2011]
[Khan's family asserted that Samir Khan "never broke any law and was never
implicated in any crime." Echoing some civil libertarians, who have
questioned the decision to kill Khan and al-Awlaki - both U.S. citizens -
the Khan family also raised these issues: "Was this style of execution the
only solution? Why couldn't there have been a capture and trial? Where is
the justice? As we mourn our son, we must ask these questions."--Tim Funk,
"Family of al Qaida blogger Samir Khan 'appalled' by
U.S. actions," mcclatchydc.com, October 6, 2011]
[Meanwhile, the same White House that insists in court that it cannot
confirm the existence of the CIA's drone program spent this week anonymously
boasting to US news outlets of the president's latest drone kill in
Pakistan. And government emails ordered disclosed by a federal court last
month revealed that at the same time as they were refusing to disclose
information about the Bin Laden raid on the grounds that it is classified,
the Obama administration was secretly meeting with, and shuffling sensitive
information to, Hollywood filmmakers, who are producing what is certain to
be a stirring and reverent film about that raid, originally scheduled to be
released just weeks before the November presidential election.--Glenn
Greenwald, "How the Obama
administration is making the US media its mouthpiece," salon.com,
June 8, 2012]
[Thus, if New Mexico-born Anwar al-Awlaki had been shooting at American
troops at the time the government took aim at him, naturally, the troops can
shoot back. But when he merely encourages others to shoot, his behavior is
protected by the natural law, the First Amendment and numerous federal
statutes. As well, he was 10,000 miles from the U.S., never known to have
engaged in violent acts, and having a private conversation at a roadside
cafe in a desert when he was killed. No law or legal principle justifies the
U.S. government killing him then and there; in fact, numerous laws prohibit
it.--Andrew P. Napolitano, "Obama's Secret Court for Killing,"
antiwar.com, February 14, 2013]
[In other words, the US government was trying to murder one of its own citizens
as punishment for his political and religious views that were critical of the government's
policies, and not because of any actual crimes or warfare.--Glenn Greenwald, "The
NYT and Obama officials collaborate to prosecute Awlaki after he's executed,"
guardian.co.uk, March 11, 2013]
[Anwar Al-Awlaki may have been recruited as a government informant a decade ago.--Josh
Gerstein, "Feds cagey on early Anwar Al-Awlaki ties,"
politico.com, October 4, 2013