Federal Judge to Anwar al-Awlaki: If You Don’t Want Us To Kill You, Voluntarily Come to a U.S. Court
[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]
That’s the takeaway I am getting if this AP report is accurate (big “if” there):
A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit aimed at preventing the United States from targeting U.S.-born anti-American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki for death.
U.S. District Judge John Bates said in a written opinion that al-Awlaki’s father does not have the authority to sue to stop the United States from killing his son. But Bates also said the “unique and extraordinary case” raises serious issues about whether the United States can plan to kill one of its own citizens without judicial review.
And of course the ACLU revealed its usual hard-nosed and practical approach to the powers of war:
The cleric’s father, Nasser al-Awlaki of Yemen, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Center for Constitutional Rights, argued that international law and the Constitution prevented the administration from unilaterally targeting his son for death unless he presents a specific imminent threat to life or physical safety and there are no other means to stop him.
War is the arbitrary application of force. A battle is thousands of American agents going out and issuing the death penalty to anyone they think might be the enemy. The arbitrariness is demonstrated by the persistent tragedy of “friendly fire”—that is, killings so arbitrary that if we knew who we were about to kill, our agents (soldiers, etc.) would have refrained from killing.
And the ACLU and this terrorist’s father want to do away with that. They would have us storm the beaches at Normandy and then arrest the German soldiers. And read them their rights, I suppose.
I am sure our government will try to capture him. He is probably more valuable to us alive than dead. But if he wants to guarantee his live capture, he has a very simple solution: turn himself in.
[Posted and authored by Aaron Worthing.]
What will you do when Obama sends a drone after you, Aaron?
Depend on that you’re not worth the price of a Hellfire?
nk (db4a41) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:12 amThere is a well recognized distinction between assassination and a battlefield killings.
The mere declaration that the entire world is a battle field does not turn assassination into normal war.
Wanting to rein in arbitrary assassinations is not the same as wanting to forbid battles and wars with arrests by police as replacement.
Aaron (b4ec19) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:25 amI always wondered who AA’s parents were. Who could have produced such a monster?
Now we know. Funny he should surface in the loving arms of the ACLU.
Patricia (3aa1fd) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:27 amWhat is arbitrary about targeting poor widdle Anwar?
JD (5017e3) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:28 amHe’s an American educated senior official in the Yemen govt, fmr. Minister of agriculture?? president of the national university,
narciso (6075d0) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:32 amEven though it’s pretty clear in this case that Anwar al-Awlaki is very bad man trying hard to harm our national interests, I do want clear rules for the general case. Of what should be allowed. What are the rules under which someone may be targeted for assassination by the U.S. government. Is it mere say-so of the executive? That seems to have already slipped down a slippery slope. I don’t want to restrict the general war-making powers of the POTUS and military, but this seems significantly different than the general case of soldiers in a battlefield, and I find the comparison Aaron Worthing made to be disingenuous.
Aaron (b4ec19) — 12/8/2010 @ 7:59 amIf I were in charge of GWOT, I would target the 3,000 or princess of the Saud family that fund Al Qaeda and the rest of the Wahabis.
nk (db4a41) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:08 amThe idea that one can get a Federal court to intervene in the conduct of military operations is just a further sign that this Republic wants to commit suicide.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:26 amAs always, my contribution is not to inform what the law should or does say, but simply raise what seem to be interesting/important questions for you experts to answer, if it hasn’t already been done.
In my mind there are two questions:
1. What are the limits on what the president can do without the direct approval of Congress?
and
2. Where is the accountability?
I am assuming, logistically speaking, that there are times the president has legitimate reason to order lethal action that can not work its way through a committee and Congressional vote, so he must be given some leeway to make such decisions.
Yet at the same time, everyone should be held accountable for their actions. I’m thinking that the president does need to have some freedom of decision making, but at the same time if he makes such decisions based on considerations clearly not in the best interest of the country, impeachment should be a real possibility. Can a president make a mistake but not be liable for it, just as a police officer can make a mistake in the line of duty that is unfortunate but not capricious or “blameworthy”? I think so. But if a president wants to send a missile at AW, as mentioned, I would think he better have a good reason for it or he will be impeached.
Now I will watch to be educated as you folk continue to discuss the matter as you see fit.
MD in Philly (cac12c) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:33 amnk, I very much doubt that any princess of the Saudi royal family funds al Qaeda. Maybe some of the princes, though.
Kevin M (298030) — 12/8/2010 @ 8:35 amnk, it isn’t that the President is sending a drone to kill Mr Awlaki. No, he’s sending a Predator to arrest him. If Mr Awlaki happens to resist arrest, well . . . .
The snarky Dana (3e4784) — 12/8/2010 @ 9:25 am… and request that all Japanese planes land for inspection at Ford Island Naval Air Landing Field (near Pearl Harbor).
Neo (7830e6) — 12/8/2010 @ 9:29 amYes, I think he’s a slimeball. Yes, I think he should be killed.
BUT – killing people without holding a trial is something I don’t think the United States of America should be doing.
Aside from the fact that it’s a slippery slope (it’s all well and good until they come for you, etc.), we’ve never done this, not even in wartime. We did not summarily execute even the Nazis.
Nor do I believe we should stoop to the same level as dictatorships do.
JEA (50ec23) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:11 am“They would have us storm the beaches at Normandy and then arrest the German soldiers.”
Bad analogy since the Germans weren’t American citizens and we aren’t in a declared war with Yemen. In fact the whole “we are at war” analogy is a bad one. Unless we can reinstate the draft and then get China to underwrite our invasion of a lot of other countries I think we are stuck with treating terrorists as criminals. So going after this guy, a criminal who is an American citizen (and thus also a traitor in the real sense of the word), would be more like pursuing Al Capone or John Dillinger into Sicily or Argentina.
If we go get the guy in Yemen without their permission does that mean that other countries like, say, China or Cuba can come to the US covertly and kidnap/kill their former citizens that they claim are “terrorists”? Because that is what people here seem to be saying is OK or is at least necessary. I don’t think we would like that.
Now if the Yemeni government said “yeah get rid of this guy” that would be completely different. Would the Yemenis like us to rid them of this troublesome priest?
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:15 amThe only solution is to enjoin the government from killing al-Awlki, with the condition that the injunction will be lifted in Al-Awlki is charged with a crime and does not surrender within ninety days of the charge being filed.
Michael Ejercito (249c90) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:20 amEdWood, the US has fought “undeclared” wars for centuries and never had this kind of “lawfare” undermining its efforts.
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:38 amWhen did the peaceful goat herder become a priest?
JD (6e25b4) — 12/8/2010 @ 10:55 amSPQR- If “they” could find some proxy group in Yemen who would grab this guy or blow up this guy’s house with him in it they would probably jump right to it….
EdWood (c2268a) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:33 pmAaron Worthing:
While targeting is never certain, our targeting is certainly not arbitrary! At least not as most folks use that word; we don’t, for example, deliberately target schoolchildren, pet tortoises, or palm trees.
Perhaps you should say, “War is the decisive application of force on a national level.”
Dafydd
Dafydd the Language Mavin (632d00) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:35 pmEdWood, what the heck does that mean?
SPQR (26be8b) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:35 pmEdWood,
Although it refused to directly target al-Awlaki, in October 2020 the Yemeni government announced a government-tribal operation against all al Qaeda operatives and included al-Awlaki as one of those operatives.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:41 pmMake that 2010, although it may well be 2020 before he’s captured.
DRJ (d43dcd) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:42 pmThis explains the problem in part a href=
narciso (6075d0) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:49 pmhttp://asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=3&id=23100
narciso (6075d0) — 12/8/2010 @ 12:50 pmSPQR- They are the people who fight our undeclared wars whoever they are.
But from what DRJ says maybe the Yemenis will solve the problem for us.
EdWood (0e954a) — 12/8/2010 @ 6:14 pm