Topic of the Week: assassinating Americans without due process?

This week American-born Muslim cleric and Al Qaeda member Anwar al-Awlaqi was killed by a drone attack in Yemen with several other suspected militants. al-Awlaqi had been at the center of a court case filed last year which raised questions about constitutional rights while challenging the US government’s right to target its own citizens for assassination.

It’s worth noting al-Awlaqi was killed without ever having been charged with any crimes in any U.S. courts, much less convicted of any crimes.

The assassination of Anwar al-Awlaqi raises questions for me, namely how far should politicians in Washington, D.C. be able to go in order to hunt down and assassinate American citizens who are also alleged terror suspects? Should the president – or any other government official for that matter – have the ability to order an American killed without a shred of due process?

While I’m not defending Anwar al-Awlaqi and his message of hate and violence, it certainly seems to be a slippery slope when Americans can be put to death by their own government without the benefit of due process.

Share:

Related Articles

37 thoughts on “Topic of the Week: assassinating Americans without due process?

  1. I understand the idea behind a slipper slope, but I don’t think this guy was in any gray area. He was al-Qaeda and more importantly he was extremely dangerous. What is the line then? The line comes when you help orchestrate a massacre (Fort Hood) and at least two other attacks on U.S. soil.

    1. Matthew, so you’re saying that you support the assassination of American citizens any time the government says they’re dangerous?

      That in and of itself is a dangerous proposition.

  2. Thank you.

    Where are the so-called conservatives?

    Where are those who claim to believe in the Bill of Rights?

    7th Amendment:

    No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    8th Amendment:

    In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

    Without recourse to due process, President Obama killed another U.S. citizen and then took credit for it.

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out —
    Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.

  3. Where is the outrage? If Bush #2 had done this, there probably would have been a firestorm of protest from the liberal-progressive-democrat sector. Now that Obama (Bush #3) is the judge/jury/executioner, not a peep!

    1. Firedoglake pegged Obama and Hillary as corpratists before the 2012 election. Amending my own comment, a noteworthy conservative has been John Dean.

      Other voices on the left, Glenn Greenwald (Salon) , and emptywheel (who jut left Firedoglake) have always been tough . digby caved into Obama on Obamacare, but she’s really terrific on most issues.

      Not to exonerate Bush/Cheney, they doesn’t deserve it, I doubt they ever signed an executive assassination order. I assume they would have delegated that to Ashcroft. I assume this order came from Eric Holder, but for political reasons, the leaks are that it was POTUS.

  4. Leave it up to the liberal left to feel bad for a enemy of the United States…..just a shame that you are more worried about protecting those that wish to harm us than protecting your own family and friends. Thank you for once again showing America why we need to remove the plague that is currently in DC, and bring back common sense and people who are willing to put America first

    1. John, what, did you get bored once you misread the first and second amendments and give up?

  5. Beyond the Constitutional issues which are quite serious…are we now at war in Yemen? I haven’t seen the attribution…so was this a military drone or a CIA drone? If it was military are they claiming that al-Awlaqi was an enemy combatant…and we are now fighting an undeclared war in Yemen? And if it was the CIA who actually gave the authorization and who else are we allowing them the assassinate worldwide?

    1. The State providing health care options for poor people with cancer is bad; the State deciding who and who not to assassinate without trial is good. Got it, thanks.

    2. That is just the echo chamber statement from the right wing…so I am sure they appreciate patrick echoing it here. It was meant to distract from a president who actually has had success in against terrorists! They went 8 years without any!

      1. Jeff, it’s possible to support the President, as the lesser evil, while still being critical of him on certain topics.

        1. John that was not what I was saying. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of patricks statement and how the exact same line was echoed by every hard right republican in the country as often as they could state it.

          I support the president and have many problems with what he has done, although strangely I do not have too much of a problem with this one.

          I dont have time this morning to research it john but I would bet that you would be surprised to find out that Bush did thesame thing. I would also not be unsurprised to find out that clinton, bush, reagan, carter, etc… also did the same thing.

          1. Jeff, thanks for the response. I think there are areas of agreement between the right and the left. Legalizing pot, which I personally deplore, would be an immediate boost to local economies in terms of jobs and tax revenues. The drug cartels get about 60% of their revenues from pot. But the law enforcement unions and Big Pharma don’t want it. That destabilizes countries south of our boarder and increases illegal immigration.

          2. Perhaps the biggest area of tea party lib agreement is about Wall Street. I don’t agree with Ron Paul about going back to the gold standard, but his position on Wall Street echoes more intelligent critics such as Nomi Prins, a former managing partner at Goldman Sachs and author of “It takes a Pillage.”

            None of the real terrorists, the banksters who crashed the economy in 2008 has even been indicted.

            Another area that has tea party and lib support is making it more expensive to sell Chinese products in the US. Unfortunately Obama is opposing this, trading it for higher donations from the oligarchs.

            http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/09/28/reid-back-burners-american-jobs-act-for-china-trade-bill/

            The elites in both parties exploit the tribalism in the bases of their respective parties.

            1. John with all due respect, I would like to see anywhere that the “tea party” came out in support of punishing those on Wall st who created this mess OR making things more expensive to sell in China.

              I have never seen such positions from them.

              1. I was remiss in not mentioning the biggest area of agreement, ending the nation-building in the Middle East. The trust fund for Social Security is around $2.6 trillion. Joe Stiglitz, Ph.D. , a Nobel Prize winning economist, wrote this excellent work: “The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict”

                Raytheon, Lockheed Martin, Hewlett Packard, and the rest of the Military Industrial Complex are American-sounding shells. Most of the actual labor is off shored to China and other low-wage countries.

                Per your request:

                “Fair Trade Tea Party Stages Violent Protest in Washington”

                http://www.triplepundit.com/2010/04/fair-trade-tea-party-stages-violent-protest-in-washington/

                Ron Paul wants to end the Federal Reserve Bank and return to the gold standard. I don’t agree about the gold standard, but to call the Federal Reserve system completely corrupt is a vast understatement.

                http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/09/ron-paul-schedules-house-hearing-to-push-gold-standard/

                We live in a system of oligarchs, who have bought both parties and the main-stream- media. Their specialty is “privatizing” profits through no taxes on the top 1% and then “socializing” all their risk onto the taxpayers. See the criminal repeal of the 1933 Glass-Steagall in 1999 for how this works. They pay guys like Dick Armey to co-opt the tea party and shoehorn it into the GOP.

                  1. John,

                    This is an excellent article.

                    I particularly liked point # 2, which is something I’ve been saying to DPW officials since just after the 2010 mid-terms, to no avail.

                    We have the best opportunity we’ve had since the Great Depression, in Wisconsin and elsewhere, to reach out to low income white voters but we’re not doing it.

                    Most Democrats I know don’t even like saying
                    ” trailer park” much less walking into one with a leaflet.

    3. Patrick,

      How many women in your extended family have had an abortion? We’ll never know, will we. You’d never tell the truth because then you’d actually have to discuss the issue as opposed to having the ready use of what you view as your trump card in almost any argument. You’re an intellectual pussy, Patrick.

    4. Pat D, I will fight for your right to believe that BIG GOVERNMENT has the right to COMPEL a woman to bear a child that is the result of rape and incest. I think you’re wrong, but this is America: you still have the right to hold unreasonable and wrong opinions.

      The problem is that it’s “squishes” like you who will cost us the 2nd Amendment.

      “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

  6. The phrase “lose by winning” comes to mind.

    Any enemy of the US knows that destroying the Constitution is the only true measure of destroying the nation. Naturally, we would never permit any foreign enemy to do so.

    But one way in which al Qaeda *is* winning their war on the US, is by feeding into the mentality that the rights the Constitution guarantees (arising out of the Declaration’s assertion of our ‘certain unalienable rights’) can be put down, picked up, parked, called upon, or ignored based on expediency, convenience, or some contemporary issue.

    Even Americans who claim themselves to be and who act as enemies of the US *must* enjoy the rights guaranteed them by law. To kill this guy is a false satisfaction, because to kill him is to abandon the very foundation of the nation. Al Qaeda is winning because we are far too willing to attack ourselves out of fear rather than defend ourselves out of strength.

    We are the ones to “assure the survival and the success of liberty”–and we are precisely in opposition to that aim when we activated that predator drone against one of our own…however heinous this one was.

  7. During the Civil War, I don’t think any due process was used on the battlefield with other Americans. And what about Andersonville? Grant’s March to the Sea? Why would we think the global war on terror is any different?
    We should believe those who say they wish to kill us and then we should stop them. Permanently.
    It is silly to think that being American gives one a free ride to plan attacks and to incite others to kill Americans. Stop being silly on this.
    Kill those who openly incite others to kill us.
    It’s a good thing that Obama recognizes what so many other liberals fail to see. We have enemies and they should be stopped.
    I presume everyone here will still vote for Obama even though he sanctions kill squads, increases troop strength in Afghanistan, uses drones in Somalia and Yemen, and for the first time calls for joint operations with CIA and military personnel for CIA-run black operations. He and the CIA are running 5 conflicts in five countries and only has congressional approval for two of them. But he is still the sitting President that his party will vote for next year.

    1. I think picking and choosing when the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be followed and when they shouldn’t is dangerous and irresponsible, and I don’t care if Lincoln did it during the Civil War; that doesn’t make it right.

      When we allow our government to pick and choose when it’s going to follow our founding documents, we give that government tremendous power – power that can be misused and abused.

    2. ahem…Andersonville was a Confederate operated prison camp…they obviously weren’t working within the confines of the Union’s Constitution.

      ahem…It was SHERMAN’s March to the Sea.

      And we should learn from the mistakes of the past…not repeat them.

      1. Ed,
        Yes, I know where Andersonville was and those Southerners were Americans and they did not follow the Constitution…which appears to be acceptable to you even though Abraham Lincoln thought they still were Americans. And Sherman killed Americans without charging them with a crime and took private property without due process and it was his Constitution. My point was that during times of war the rights of Americans who wish to kill other Americans is not sacrosanct. This includes those who aid and abet the enemy of the United States of America.

        We all forget at times that we are at war and that people wish to kill you and me. Well, some of us have not forgotten anyway. Thank goodness. We should believe those who wish to kill us and then stop them.

        Must be difficult to internalize that President Obama made the decision to kill an American who wishes to kill us. Or do people prefer to think this was a rogue operation?

        1. My simply stating the facts has nothing to do with whether I accept it or not…

          And next time, Google your topic before you post it, not after someone calls you on it.

    3. BTW: since it’s been a few years since I studied Civil War history I went back and checked. I didn’t remember Sherman summarily assassinating anyone…so this is what I found: he was actually fighting a land war against a more or less identifiable enemy. His goal was to destroy the South’s ability to wage war by destroying infrastructure and financial assets…both public and private…he gave his troops the freedom to forage and confiscate materials they needed to continue their fight (food, horses, wagons, etc)…with the proviso that they discriminate in favor of taking provisions from the rich and to leave the poor and industrious alone…and to leave enough behind to support the local populace. And he limited destruction of private property to areas that resisted his advance. Doesn’t fit your argument.

  8. How’s this response to start: Lincoln was wrong to suspend habeas corpus.

    Here is the distinction you miss and/or misrepresent: The *law* is used to prosecute criminal behavior. The law permits the use of lethal force under certain, very limited situations. Shooting someone/anyone in the head with a missile from a Predator drone, operating illegally in a foreign county, when that person is a citizen of this nation is illegal, wrong, anti-American, and unconstitutional.

    The constitution protects every American, whether they like it or not.

    My overarching point is very simple: this terrorist cannot by force take on our Constitution–so no matter how awful a human/a citizen he is, he is by FAR a smaller threat than those Americans who ditch the Constitution and the rule of law to prosecute a vengeance killing. This is nothing more than assassination, we supposed to be the good guys, and we have no lawful business or ethical justification for assassinating Americans. Period.

    Bear in mind, that under your own lights, if Obama decided that YOU were a terrorist, again, by your own justification, he would be both legally and morally justified in putting a missile in YOUR ear. Now that, PartiallyBlue, is silly indeed.

    Meanwhile, we patriots will continue to protect our Constitution (as I have formally sworn to do) from all enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. And that is not at all silly.

  9. FWIW, Lincoln was faced with armed insurrection within the United States that was supported by the largest oligarchy of his time, King Cotton.

    The absence of effective use of anti-trust laws has destroyed competition, innovation, and a meritocracy. The engine of US meritocracy, the Patent Office, has been hobbled so monopolies/oligopolies can block or steal whatever patents they want. You’d think Sen. Sunspot, of all people, would figure this out, since it was his father-in-law, who used a patent on shrink-wrap, to become a Billionaire.

Comments are closed.