It seems that a large number of Americans can recognize an injustice when it's been done, and the public reaction to the recently executed Troy Davis is a point strongly in favor of this thesis.
But this sympathy, in fact even simple knowledge, seems to be confined to our borders, or our religions, or perhaps even our colors as we perceive them. Yesterday the Obama administration succeeded in their long-sought objective of killing Anwar al-Awlaki.
Obama tried to stop the execution of Troy Davis, but there was no legal course for him to take. But the fact that al-Awlaki is an American citizen tried by no court, charged with no crime, and thus protected by the law from any kind of punishment, let alone assassination, did not deter Obama for a second. Just the opposite, in fact. It seems that in matters of national security, American administrations regard the law as, at best, a suggestion.
There is no way to sugarcoat this. The US government, at Obama's direction has engaged in extra-judicial murder.
I have absolutely no knowledge of al-Awlaki's activities, treasonous, terroristic, or utterly peaceful. But I don't need to know. Assassination without trial is not how we're supposed to do things. If he committed crimes, then he has a right to be charged in a court.
Obama has an appallingly bad record on these matters, and the DOJ contention that such things are beyond the courts on the grounds that they are "state secrets" is a vicious tear in the fabric of our laws.
The fear of seeming soft on terror has made us weak about our values.
I dunno. I don't like what President Obama did. There's a callousness that just doesn't feel right. It's a level of ruthlessness that doesn't comport well, to say the least, with a belief in the rule of law. But we are at war with Al-Qaeda. Trying this guy in court -- how do does one apprehend or serve this guy? Also, didn't the courts reject al-Awalki's father petition about being on a capture/kill list?
As oo the other question, of al-Awlaki's activities, really, is there any questions about his acts of treason? In cases of treason, doesn't one loose the benefit of doubt on their rights?
Posted by: Rob Grocholski | October 03, 2011 at 02:05 PM
Yeah, I think there is a question. It's unclear that Awlaki has done anything besides make a lot of incendiary speeches. The administration says otherwise, but predictably refuses to release the evidence. Such a position is not tantamount to anything, it is exactly the power of the president to put to death people that he has decided to kill.
The constitution, as you know, exists precisely to deny this power. Secret courts, secret death lists, secret wiretaps, drone strikes in sovereign countries--it's not an encouraging time for the Republic.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-cia-killlist-idUSTRE79475C20111005
Posted by: Dan O | October 07, 2011 at 01:03 AM