Later On

A blog written for those whose interests more or less match mine.

The President’s Power to Order the Extra-Judicial Execution of an American Citizen

with 3 comments

Scott Horton at Harper’s:

When stories originally surfaced to the effect that President Obama had authorized the killing of an American citizen, Anwar al-Awlaki, my first reaction was to say that the criticism of some civil libertarians was overblown. A warrior fighting on the battlefield against U.S. forces in a conflict has no privilege against being killed because he is a U.S. citizen—that’s a well-settled norm of the laws of war, upheld by the Supreme Court in Ex parte Quirin (1942). Surely the Obama Administration would justify its action under these principles: there must be evidence linking al-Awlaki to an imminent, military threat involving al Qaeda and its associated forces, and evidence putting him in a command and control position. I waited to hear confirmation of that, and perhaps even to get a taste of the evidence.

But studying the Obama Administration’s statements over the last two months and reviewing the Justice Department’s response to a lawsuit filed by civil-liberties organizations acting on behalf of al-Awlaki’s father, I come away with a different impression: we’re looking at another power grab for the imperial president.

This whole affair did not have to figure on the public policy stage. The Obama Administration could, of course, have kept the whole matter secret. Moreover, if it really had the national security and state secrecy concerns that DOJ lawyers now claim in their briefs, that’s just what it would have done. Instead, on April 7, “high-level U.S. officials” advised a series of national publications, including the Washington Post and New York Times that the National Security Council, headed by President Obama, had issued paperwork to authorize a lethal attack on al-Awlaki. These reports were confirmed (obliquely) by former National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair. Then Counterterrorism Advisor John Brennan spilled the beans in an interview with the Washington Times. It decided to shove the case of al-Awlaki into the political spotlight—perhaps as the latest chapter in the Obama team’s ¿quién es más macho? struggle with their Bush-era predecessors. Having done so, they had an obligation to the American public to step out of the shadows and fully explain their rationale for authorizing the execution of a U.S. citizen. They have the same obligation to a federal court. They don’t have to tell us how they plan to kill him. They have to tell us why they feel they have legal authority to do it and what facts they have that justify this extreme claim of presidential power. The self-serving claims of the Justice Department’s briefwriters notwithstanding, the basis for the president’s claim of legal authority cannot itself be a secret.

The Justice Department’s brief is filled with slithering evasions and half-truths about what the administration previously said and did. It invokes state secrecy defenses, claiming that this is something “rarely done,” and that the government is entitled to stop the case from proceeding. And it argues that al-Awlaki can avoid the threat of extrajudicial execution simply by walking into the U.S. embassy in Yemen and turning himself in—a legitimate call if there were criminal charges pending against him, but where are they? This is the typical niggling of lawyers out to defend their client in a lawsuit without revealing much of their hand. But it is fundamentally unworthy of the American government, and it reveals an attitude to the public and the courts that borders on contempt. I picked up this brief expecting to nod in agreement with Obama on this issue, and I came away concerned about an unseemly game plan.

I have no doubt that the Obama Administration will prevail in this litigation. The court handling the case is likely to employ one of several judicial escape pods. It will find that al-Awlaki senior cannot represent the interests of his son, for instance, or it will determine that the issue presented is essentially a political question in which federal courts shouldn’t meddle. Indeed, any federal court would feel awkward reviewing the executive’s decision to designate targets in a war. But these findings would be acts of judicial cowardice. The executive should be forced to explain itself.

No doubt the government has concluded that al-Awlaki is a heinous figure who has committed serious crimes and should be made to pay for it. But for all of the massive operations recently undertaken in Yemen, I see no evidence yet that the government is trying to apprehend him and charge him for any criminal acts–even though it has spelled out facts suggesting that it could easily do just that. Is the rationale that a bullet to the head or a bomb dropped on his house would be far more expedient than an indictment and a trial? That sends a chill down my spine. It seems increasingly that the Obama White House is using the al-Awlaki case to establish a new principle: the president’s power to order extrajudicial executions of American citizens. I don’t for a second question the principle established in Quirin, and I believe that the president can in some circumstances target and remove figures in a command-and-control position over hostile forces even if they are removed from a conventional battlefield. But I am deeply suspicious of the need to add to the president’s theoretical powers by killing a U.S. citizen in Yemen who could certainly be captured, brought back to the United States and put on trial.

A number of commentators have questioned the president’s claim of authority to assassinate, some calling it “tyrannical.” As a wise observer wrote of the suspension of the habeas corpus right of Americans in 1777, tyranny comes “when liberty is nibbled away, for expedients, and by parts…. Now a line is drawn, which may be advanced further and further at pleasure, on the same arguments of mere expedience on which it was first described.” This process of steady erosion has long been under way in our country. When the executive claims the power to take the life of a citizen without recourse to law and legal process, and seeks to sustain that under vague claims of commander-in-chief authority, that claim is in its essence tyrannical.

Written by LeisureGuy

3 October 2010 at 9:14 am

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. I wonder why they just don’t take his American citizenship away, just revoke it with one quick State department pen stroke. This all smacks of something more sinister.

    After all he went to Yemen at a very young age then applied for a US college scholarship with his Yemeni citizenship even falsifying his name so it would appear different from what the US had on him, apparently he would not have gotten the scholarship as an American.

    Later, after going back to Yemen and establishing contacts he was ready to go back into the US as an adult, he apparently lied on a document for USA reentry. He actually applied for a Visa with his Yemeni passport rather than use his American citizenship type documents (birth certificate, etc)

    I know all of you are all going to think I am loony tunes but I am almost convinced he is secretly working for the US Govt as a mole and that all this execution talk is an elaborate strategy to give him far more credence in the Terrorist network than he actually deserves (within the networks).

    After all, the ‘Dead Man’ walking notoriety would certainly elevate his status among his current peers to sort of a living Martyr.

    I am surprised that no one had actually looked into this possibility, if you look at the circumstances of his entry into the US it certainly seems rather odd that he would be detained at the NY Airport (within days of 9/11) on an outstanding arrest warrant and then released in no time as several agencies worked to get a judge’s order rescinding the warrant.

    Perhaps I have read to much of Le Carre, Forsyth and Uris etc. but still, it begs the question of why the Media is making such a fuss over this one without investigating how easy the “Dead or Alive” label has been put on him.

    I can’t help wondering if yet again, this is a sophisticated disinformation technique using the media to play it out. It certainly would not be the first time as Hunt and Helms and Angleton were masters at using the media to dish out elaborate deception plans.

    For now, I certainly am not suggesting that this is the case but I am suggesting that it is a remote and not far fetched possibility. The more we all cry wolf, the higher Al Walaki’s status rises and the easier it is for him to report and not arouse suspicions. The airport scenario’s were just to odd to discount as a FUBAR on the part of the DOJ,


    3 October 2010 at 11:05 am

  2. Interesting idea. Wheels within wheels, aptly described as a wilderness of mirrors.


    3 October 2010 at 11:28 am

  3. a great book and sadly denotes the last years of a master spy that became intertwined in the web of that very wilderness. He was convinced that the Mole was there and of course that proved to be the case, in Ames I imagine.

    Getting back to Al-Awlaki, just another quick point.

    I am sure that you realize that the USA would never actually consider assassinating him nor capturing him or Bin Laden for that matter.

    They are worth far more alive and on the loose then they are dead or at Guantanamo. Out and about, Congress and the American public will tolerate the Administrations wanton fear instilling, out of bounds abuses and inflated military budgets.

    If captured or dead… then where would the money and permissions for the ‘Hot Pursuits by drone air craft’ come from ?


    3 October 2010 at 6:19 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s