Opinion
A Pyrrhic victory
The United States’ extra-judicial killing of United States citizen Anwar al-Awlaki off the battlefield and unengaged in active hostilities
Anwar al-Awlaki was a U.S.-born Islamic militant cleric who became a prominent figure in al-Qaida's most active branch, using his fluent English and Internet savvy to draw recruits to carry out attacks in the United States
against the United States was as lawless as was Russian President Vladimir Putin’s extra-judicial killing by poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London, which was condemned by the United States. The al-Awlaki precedent will lie around like a loaded weapon ready for use against any American anywhere in the world, including in the United States itself. Its frightening legal premise is that all the world’s a constructive battlefield where military force and military law can be employed against any suspected enemy of the United States—citizen and alien alike–on the President’s say so alone. The United States itself is now a candidate for military law and military force by presidential decree.
Even Adolph Eichmann complicit in the Holocaust received a due process trial before a civilian court in Jerusalem before execution by Israel.
In a nation that treasured both the rule of law and a common defense, al-Awlawki would have been indicted by a federal grand jury for material assistance to a foreign terrorist organization, and an Eichmann-like kidnapping and trial held in a civilian court with all the trappings of due process. If al-Awlaki had sought to elude capture and his escape would have created a significant risk of physical harm to third parties, then deadly force could have been used by the FBI or the United States military against him under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Tennessee v. Garner. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Its genius has been to accommodate due process, liberty, and safety in an equilibrium which is the hallmark of civilization. The al-Awlawki precedent, in contrast, crucifies the Constitution on a bogus national security cross.
This website is committed to giving space to all shades of opinion and points of view. The opinions expressed by our commentators do not necessarily reflect the opinions or ideology of this website and/or its editor/owner.