Anwar al-Awlaki. Muhammad ud-Deen photo
By GARY BAUMGARTEN
ReporterGary.com
The killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American turned al Qaeda spiritual and cheerleader, by the United States in Yemen is being heralded by people on both sides of the aisle.
President Obama called his killing a “major blow” to al Qaeda.
Republican Congressman Pete King of New York who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee echoed the president, praising the assassination as “a great success in our fight against al-Qaeda.”
Perhaps so. But was it legal?
Can the United States target U.S. citizens abroad?
It’s a question that members of the White House press corp wanted an answer to. But Talk Radio News Service White House correspondent Victoria Jones, reporting for News Talk Online on the Paltalk News Network, said, although the question was asked in various ways during Friday’s White House press briefing, Obama spokesman Jay Carney refused to answer.
Perhaps the killing was constitutionally supported. But if so, shouldn’t the administration be forthcoming with an explanation?
I raised this issue during tonight’s show. And was met with a barrage of criticism from those in my audience who felt my questioning the issue was, as one put it “politically correct.” Many believed that because Awlaki presented a clear and present danger to the United States, because he’d have never even blinked had the Times Square bomber or the underwear bomber been successful, he deserved to be taken out.
Maybe so. But was his killing extrajudicial? Or supported by law?
Ron Paul, the libertarian congressman from Texas running for the GOP presidential nomination, lamented that Awlaki was killed even though he “was never tried or charged for any crimes.”
The ACLU charged that the killing was a violation of both U.S, and international law.
I don’t know if it was. But I do know that it’s a question that needs to be answered. By Carney. Or better yet. By his boss.
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Julie Morse
Ande Bliss
Barbara Joanne
Marilyn Sands
Susie Lindau
RomanticPoetess
Salon.com
Comments
Don't know.
Necessary?
Don't know.
Understandable?
Of course, the Israelis aren't bothered by a constitution, an admission that all men are created equal, a requirement for a speedy trial, a right to face one's accusers, nor a proscription against the deprivation of life without due process of law.
The difficulty here is . . . . we are so bothered.
If the man is trying to kill you, then he dies. If he is merely presumed to be plotting against you, then he is tried.
In my view, there's not much that distinguishes Anwar al-Awlaki's death from that of Osama Bin Laden's.
I guess we are now entering a brave new world where even an American citizen can be executed without trial. This guy might have been up to no good, but that does not mean the Constitution can be promptly ignored.
Where do we draw the line in this new era of executive execution? What if this guy were on American soil? What level of involvement in criminal activities warrants an executive assassination?
Also, Pres. Bush had his own policy in place to commit warrantless arrests, searches, and seizures and make people just disappear. Where did they go? Are they still alive? Being tortured? The difference this time? We know about this guy.
We nee some very major changes on our foreign policies and much more scrutiny; this was clear even before this latest incident.
Sorry to be so longwinded. I've decided it's my Old Age Affliction!! ;-)