Extrajudicial Execution Threatens Every Citizen
By Dave Nalle - October 6, 2011 at 12:15 PM
Filed under Civil Liberties , gallery , Gary Johnson , Issues , Ron Paul
Filed under Civil Liberties , gallery , Gary Johnson , Issues , Ron Paul
The extrajudicial execution of Anwar al Awlaki last week was a reminder of ongoing concerns with the powers granted to the president under the Authorization for the Use of Military Force which was passed at the beginning of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is also an example of the willingness of this president to act outside the limits placed on his office by the Constitution.
This administration, like its predecessor, has placed a very low value on the protections of the Bill of Rights and has treated due process and the rule of law as inconveniences which they can ignore whenever it is expedient. Under the banner of the War on Terror and the authority of the AUMF they have assumed powers which no government is entitled to and have committed acts against their own people which are utterly unacceptable.
The killing of al Awlaki with a drone-fired missile was done on no greater authority than the scratch of the presidential pen and with no respect for his rights as a human being and a United States citizen. There was no trial, no act of Congress, no revocaton of citizenship, not even an evidentiary hearing or a warrant issued by a judge. No element of the legal system was engaged to determine that al Alwalki should die. The president just decreed it and his robotic executioner did the job.
The evidence suggests that this was done purely for convenience and because the administration was incapable of providing strong enough evidence to bring a case against al Awlaki in a court. Because his role had been primarily to inspire and encourage others through his writing and internet videos, there was little or no evidence which connected him directly to any acts of terrorism. Unable to prove their case, the administration decided to go outside the law and kill him on little more than suspicion, primarily for speaking out against the United States, a fundamental right protected under the First Amendment. It was a cowardly act carried out for convenience by a government which has no respect for the principles on which this nation was founded.
The American public greeted the event with a mixture of complacency and jubilation. There was certainly no reason to waste any tears for the newly emerged spiritual leader of the most extreme elements of the Muslim world. Yet most Americans were dismayingly oblivious to the implications of the extrajudicial execution of an American citizen. If the president can sign the death warrant of one citizen based almost entirely on his writings and public statements, what is to stop him from signing away any of our lives when our criticisms of the government and its policies cross some subjective line?
Objections were raised in some quarters. The American Civil Liberties Union filed an unsuccessful lawsuit to block the president from taking this action without first going through the courts as required by centuries of common law and the Bill of Rights. Two presidential candidates also spoke up. Both Rep. Ron Paul and Gov. Gary Johnson issued statements objecting to the action. Johnson summed up the concerns well, writing:
“If we allow our fervor to eliminate terrorist threats to cause us to cut corners with the Constitution and the fundamental rights of American citizens, whether it be invasions of privacy or the killing of someone born on U.S. soil, I could argue that the terrorists will have ultimately won.
“The world is very likely a better place without al-Awlaki in it, but let us not neglect to ask the tough questions this attack raises and about the laws that allowed it to be carried out.”
Paul touched on the same issues after a speech in New Hampshire, telling reporters:
“We cannot allow the War on Terror to diminish our steadfast adherence to the notion of due process for American citizens…The protections under the Constitution for those accused of crimes do not just apply to people we like – they apply to everyone, including a terrorist like al-Awlaki. It is a question of due process for American citizens.”
Since al Awlaki’s death concerns have been raised that approval for the action came from a “secret panel” of top government officials, acting as a sort of Star Chamber operating outside of the Constitution and the judicial system with no public record of their actions and no accountability to anyone but the president. Speculation has been widespread about the existence of a “kill list” of other terrorists who for one reason or another the administration would like to eliminate without the mess and fuss of a trial or even arrest. This is not how things are supposed to work in America and is more reminiscent of the secret trials of Soviet Russia or even the famous death squads employed by South American dictators in the recent past.
In their statement on the subject the Republican Liberty Caucus summed up what ought to be the main concerns of American citizens in this situation when they asked “Do you want our government to condemn citizens to death in secret and then execute them without a trial or even an arrest warrant? If this is where the War on Terror has brought us, it is time to repeal the AUMF and demand accountability from the government and respect for the Bill of Rights and the rule of law.”
A free nation does not set aside its own laws and kill people for the sake of expediency. Once you start ignoring the law, where do you stop? What limits on government power remain? Last week it was al Awalki, but with no respect for the law or the rights of the people, why shouldn’t it be an outspoken talkshow host or blogger next week?
A nation is only as good as the laws under which it operates and the degree to which it respects the rights of its citizens. When a government sets aside those laws and ignores those rights it is no longer a legitimate government. In fighting the War on Terror, our government and our leaders have themselves become the terrorists.
A version of this article appeared previously on Blogcritics Magazine
On October 6th, 2011 at 7:39 pm
Actually, it’s Islamism that threatens the civil liberties of the citizens of the United States. We need to do whatever it takes to defeat these barbaric bastards. If we don’t wake up and stop all this PC garbage pretending that Islam is just another “peaceful religion,” we all shall perish.
And guess what? It’s we libertarians who will be the very first shoved into the ovens at the Islamists’ concentration camps. We support everything they despise – free enterprise, legalized prostitution, loose women, alcohol, fun times, ect…
On October 6th, 2011 at 7:40 pm
The only bad thing about the Awlaki deal is that we didn’t get the chance to torture the sh*t out of the mother-f-er before we could kill him.
REMEMBER THE 14 DEAD AT FT. HOOD! AVENGE THEIR DEATHS AT THE HANDS OF THE AWLAKI FOLLOWER MAJOR NIDAL HASAN.
On October 6th, 2011 at 7:46 pm
Why doesn’t the RLC focus on civil liberties issues that matter, like repealing seat belt laws, legalizing prostitution, decriminalizing marijuana possession, lowering the drinking age, stopping political correctness on college campuses, ending affirmative action, and stopping nanny-state nonsense like banning sugary sodas and transfats, instead of non-sense issues, like “torture” of foreign combants?
Awlaki was a traitor to this country. He renounced his citizenship. He deseved no rights, except the right to be hammered and beaten to a pulp by our big bad-ass United States Military.
Stop this ridiculous focus on arcane issues that nobody except for leftwing nutjobs care about. You think the guy coming home from a hard day’s work in Bastrop, or Dripping Springs, or San Marcos, who gets pulled over by a State Trooper for not wearing his seat belt, gives a rat’s ass about some Muslim puke in Yemen getting pulvorized by a U.S. drone?
Repeal the Nanny-State; Stop Political Correctness; and kick the living sh*t out of Radical Islam, should be the driving force of the RLC.
On October 6th, 2011 at 7:50 pm
There is no mention anywhere about whether the Top Secret “National Security Court” was used to determine guilt or innocence, if it were indeed consulted the act would have the patina of legitimacy.
On October 6th, 2011 at 11:18 pm
Eric. Nidal Hassan had free will. He alone is responsible for his actions. Al Awlaki provided him with no material aid and did not conspire with him or assist or organize his actions. Obviously Hassan will be punished. But the government could not prove it’s case for taking action against al Awlaki so they resorted to extrajudicial means. That’s a far more important threat to our civil liberties than almost anything else the government has done.
On October 6th, 2011 at 11:53 pm
The Constitution either protects us all or it really doesn’t protect anyone.
On October 7th, 2011 at 3:53 am
No Dave, the threat to our civil liberties comes from ISLAMISM! Why don’t you ever talk about how Muslims want to outlaw booze, gambling, stone loose women in town squares, throw marijuana smokers in jail for life, throw stones at lesbian couples holding hands in the streets of Amsterdam, and cursing at gay males walking together in Paris? Doesn’t fit the template does it? If you acknowledge the threat of Radical Islam, than the next logical question is what to do about it. And alas, the left-libertarian and the non-intevensionists is then forced to do what he does not want to do under any circumstances, actually pick up a gun, knife or pitchfork and fight back. Cause at the heart of ever single non-interventionist, is a pacifist. That’s why 99.9% of all non-interventionists never served in the military.
On October 7th, 2011 at 3:54 am
Dave, here’s a question for ya. Would you be happier if Awlaki was still alive? Would we Americans be better off if he was still alive and kickin’? You have to confront that question Dave, even though it will pain you enormously to do so.
On October 7th, 2011 at 3:55 am
Hey Stephanie, who is “us all”? Awlaki denounced his citizenship repeatedly, and declared Jihad against the United States of America. How is it that he gets to be included in the definition of “us all”?
Does the concept of treason no longer exist in the USA? You can do whatever you want to the U.S. with no consequences at all.
On October 7th, 2011 at 3:58 am
Nasmu, you represent the problem. You’re obsessed with legal bullsh*t. This is simply about revenge. The mother f*cker declared war on the United States of America. He urged others like Major Nidal Hasan to wage war on the U.S. from inside the country.
Okay fine Mr. Muslim dude. We will vaporize the living f*ck out of you in return. And thus we did.
Celebrate it! Glorious victory for America over the Islamic barbarians at the gates. Precious few of those victories under the Islamic-sympathizer Barack HUSSEIN Obama.
On October 8th, 2011 at 5:15 pm
It represents a threat to every American who has sworn allegiance to an enemy army and is fighting abroad with same. If this “represents a threat”, then why the hell aren’t you already dead?
On October 8th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
Al Awlaki did not actually renounce his citizenship. But regardless, terorrism should be dealt with as the crime that it is, not outside of all legal control through murder and assassination. We’re the US not some banana republic. We have laws and should follow them. That’s what makes us better than they are.
On October 9th, 2011 at 12:12 am
Our great government was simply protecting not only Al Awlaki’s but each and every American’s right to death.
On October 10th, 2011 at 7:42 pm
“The Constitution either protects us all or it really doesn’t protect anyone.”
In other words, if the constitution doesn’t “protect” members of enemy armies, then it protects no one. The stupidity required to think that let alone write it is beyond words.
On October 10th, 2011 at 7:44 pm
“Al Awlaki did not actually renounce his citizenship.”
Completely irrelevant. Joining and fighting with an enemy army trumps the paperwork. This is settled law and has been for around a hundred years. You people are being dishonest…and dumb.
On October 10th, 2011 at 11:19 pm
Chuck. You’re not getting it. There is no “War on Terror” – there are countries where we are at war (which do not include Yemen) and there are terrorists who are criminals or part of criminal orgnizations. Al Awlaki was not part of some enemy army or enemy power. He was a guy with a YouTube channel.
On October 11th, 2011 at 6:12 pm
He was a member of alQaeda. No one disputes this. AlQaeda is not a street gang and they are most definitely at war with us, thus we are at war with them. We aren’t enforcing laws by killing alQaeda’s membership. We are eliminating enemy personnel. It is you who don’t “get it” as you say. Making shit up doesn’t change the truth.