Posted 12:33 am Monday, February 06, 2012
Killing Of Citizens Must Be Restrained
The ACLU is right.
Don’t panic; they’re not right about everything. But their recent campaign to force the Obama administration to come clean about targeting American citizens for assassination is justified.
Don’t panic; they’re not right about everything. But their recent campaign to force the Obama administration to come clean about targeting American citizens for assassination is justified.
“The American Civil Liberties Union sued the Obama administration Wednesday to force the release of details about U.S. drone strikes in Yemen that killed terrorist Anwar al-Awlaki and other Americans,” The Hill newspaper reported last week. “The ACLU’s lawsuit is directed at the Defense Department, CIA and Justice Department, asking for legal memos and evidence justifying the killing of three Americans in Yemen, as well as information about how the United States adds Americans to its ‘kill lists,’ which al-Awlaki was apparently on.”
Now, there’s no question al-Awlaki was a first-rate dirtbag. He was a “senior talent recruiter” for al-Qaida; he probably urged on the Fort Hood mass murderer Nidal Malik Hasan; he helped plan operations for the terrorist group, and with his Youtube broadcasts he became the “bin Laden of the Internet,” according to a Saudi news agency.
Now, there’s no question al-Awlaki was a first-rate dirtbag. He was a “senior talent recruiter” for al-Qaida; he probably urged on the Fort Hood mass murderer Nidal Malik Hasan; he helped plan operations for the terrorist group, and with his Youtube broadcasts he became the “bin Laden of the Internet,” according to a Saudi news agency.
Perhaps many of those crimes were deserving of the death penalty.
But there’s one fact that can’t be brushed aside, no matter how rotten the guy was — he was one of us. He was an American, born in New Mexico in 1971. As an American, he had certain rights.
But there’s one fact that can’t be brushed aside, no matter how rotten the guy was — he was one of us. He was an American, born in New Mexico in 1971. As an American, he had certain rights.
“The public has a right to know the evidence and legal basis for the deliberate targeted killing of U.S. citizens,” the ACLU said. “So chilling a power must be opened to public scrutiny and debate.”
Slate magazine, a left-leaning publication, would seem to agree.
Slate magazine, a left-leaning publication, would seem to agree.
“We didn’t arrest and try him,” Slate’s William Saletan wrote last year. “We didn’t even give him a military hearing. We simply gathered intelligence and decided to kill him. Civil libertarians say this violates a Constitutional rule: No citizen may be ‘deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.’”
But Slate goes on to concur with the Obama administration’s weak version of due process.
“If a U.S. citizen fighting alongside al-Qaida poses an imminent threat and can’t feasibly be arrested, we can send a drone to kill him,” Saletan explained.
But he acknowledged the ethical morass this leaves us in.
“I’m glad Awlaki is dead,” he wrote. “The evidence of his guilt was extensive. But the crimes of which we accused him, and the aircraft we sent to kill him, pretty much guaranteed that we could rationalize his assassination based on the imminence of the threat he posed and the difficulty of arresting him. The Obama administration’s rules might preclude drone strikes at home. But under the current program of drone strikes abroad, American citizenship means nothing. Let’s admit it.”
The key words there are “the Obama administration’s rules” — and the even more key word “might.”
Let’s sum this up. The only thing standing in between a U.S. citizen and an unmanned missile is a political figure’s ad hoc rules.
That’s not enough. The “slippery slope” argument is often overused (and used poorly — policies should be evaluated on their face, not on unknowable after-effects), but in this case, it applies.
The whole purpose of the Constitution is to rein in governmental powers. It does so by dividing those powers among three branches, and by guaranteeing specific rights to citizens.
No president should be allowed to decide, on his own, that a U.S. citizen no longer deserves those rights and should be killed.
The ACLU is performing a valuable service to the Constitution with its campaign.
But Slate goes on to concur with the Obama administration’s weak version of due process.
“If a U.S. citizen fighting alongside al-Qaida poses an imminent threat and can’t feasibly be arrested, we can send a drone to kill him,” Saletan explained.
But he acknowledged the ethical morass this leaves us in.
“I’m glad Awlaki is dead,” he wrote. “The evidence of his guilt was extensive. But the crimes of which we accused him, and the aircraft we sent to kill him, pretty much guaranteed that we could rationalize his assassination based on the imminence of the threat he posed and the difficulty of arresting him. The Obama administration’s rules might preclude drone strikes at home. But under the current program of drone strikes abroad, American citizenship means nothing. Let’s admit it.”
The key words there are “the Obama administration’s rules” — and the even more key word “might.”
Let’s sum this up. The only thing standing in between a U.S. citizen and an unmanned missile is a political figure’s ad hoc rules.
That’s not enough. The “slippery slope” argument is often overused (and used poorly — policies should be evaluated on their face, not on unknowable after-effects), but in this case, it applies.
The whole purpose of the Constitution is to rein in governmental powers. It does so by dividing those powers among three branches, and by guaranteeing specific rights to citizens.
No president should be allowed to decide, on his own, that a U.S. citizen no longer deserves those rights and should be killed.
The ACLU is performing a valuable service to the Constitution with its campaign.
