Al-Walaqi killing

A nation of sheep breeds a government of wolves.

-Author Unknown-

As could be expected, the recent killing of Al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, and three of his associates has brought about a flood of protest on this side of the pond. The political left, libertarians, and of course the ACLU, are all weeping, wailing, and protesting that al-Awlaki, who just happened to be an American citizen born in New Mexico of Yemeni parents, was “executed” by the US government without benefit of legal “due process”. The Associated Press reported that in a serious blow to al-Qaida, U.S. forces killed two American citizens who played key roles in inspiring several attacks against U.S. targets, cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, and Samir Khan, who edited the Jihadi Internet magazine, were killed in the course of a U.S. airstrike on their convoy in Yemen. Al-Awlaki apparently was targeted in the killing, but Khan was a fortunate case of “collateral damage”. Presidential candidate Ron Paul joined the civil liberties parade in protest, saying; "No one likes these kind of people, but I also like the rule of law and I like our Constitution, that you don't just target people, assassinate them, someone who has not been charged and you have no proof of anything."

Well, Okay, I can understand the concern. We are after all, a nation under law, law that considers people to be innocent until proven guilty. With that, it often seems that nearly every week we see headlines about some person or other that was convicted of crimes involving murder and the death penalty, and incarcerated for often very long periods of time before they were suddenly proven innocent and finally released. So we can readily see that even the law does make mistakes. But Al-Awlaki is an entirely different situation. While he was born in the U.S., his family moved back to Yemen where his father was a government official when he was seven years old, which hardly makes him an American in any but name! Secondly, he received a radical Islamic education which imbued him with a deep hatred of everything non-Islamic. Finally, any American citizen who knowingly and willingly attacks the United States is guilty of high treason, which is punishable by death. In this case, Al-Awlaki most certainly did, repeatedly, urge Islamic jihad against American citizens (which included both the Ft. Hood shooting and the somewhat less than brilliant “Underwear bomber”). Ergo Sum, sentence carried out by means of a missile launched from a U.S. drone.

There is another aspect of this incident that does concern me greatly however, in that now our government can order the death of American citizens without benefit of a trial… or even proof that a crime has been committed! Remember not long back when the news came out that the government was spying on Americans? Apparently there is a secret panel with the authority to authorize internal spying by government agencies, in a witch hunt for supposed evildoers. This panel can authorize spying on anyone in the country from a bonafide terrorist, to a suspected drug dealer, to, I imagine, a political opponent! (Sort of a “Watergate done legally” I think.) Done by direction of the president, such spying is in direct violation of our constitutional rights. You might also remember that we were solemnly promised such spying would be limited to catching bad guys, and only used in very few cases at that. Shortly thereafter we found out that numerous federal agencies including the FBI, were spying on us wholesale! Now, Reuters News Agency reports that “American militants” like al-Awlaki are placed on a kill or capture list by a secretive panel of senior government officials, which then informs the president of its decisions. There is no public record of the operations or decisions, nor is there any law authorizing the panel, or anything laying out the ground rules by which it operates. The role of the president in the process is kept rather vague, probably in the interest of plausible deniability.

Two legal theories have been advanced concerning the legalities; that the actions were permitted by Congress when it authorized the use of military forces against militants in the wake of the 9-11 attack, and they are permitted under international law if a country is defending itself. But US District Judge John Bates wrote "Can (the president) order the assassination of a US citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization?" With the Patriot act, government has the power to declare just about any dissenter a potential terrorist. And “anyone” could cover a lot of territory from tax protests, to members of an opposing political party, to actual members of Al-Qaeda! Anyone who disagrees with the fed’s could be labeled a potential terrorist and placed on the hit list! I’m certainly no legal expert or Constitutional scholar, but I have yet to see anywhere in the Constitution where this is allowed, something that Congress can’t seem to understand!

A short lesson from history here… Martin Niemoller was a German pastor and avowed anti-Communist who supported Hitler's rise to power. Later, with Hitler’s insistence on the supremacy of state over religion he became the leader of a group of German clergymen opposed to Hitler. In 1937 he was confined in concentration camps until 1945. His crime was "not being enthusiastic enough about the Nazi movement." He issued a public statement shortly the war that's quite well-known and often quoted.

“First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Certainly, Anwar Al-Awlaki, or Achmed the dead terrorist for that matter, should have been blown away, a long time ago, so I’ll offer my congratulations to the shooter for a good hit. But I am also very much afraid that this incident is setting a really bad precedent, as we’re granting the executive branch of our government the power to kill any U.S. citizen deemed a threat by our politicians, and that includes you, me, or the guy down the street… and that with no judicial oversight, or any of the rights guaranteed us by our Constitution. If we allow such gross misuse of power to continue, we are driving yet another nail in the coffin of our constitutional republic.