Where Does It End?
Saturday, May 7th, 2011
Okay, now it’s official. Pandora’s box has been opened; the cat’s out of the bag; pick your cliché.
The United States is now officially at war with its own citizens. The following headline in today’s New York Times says it all:
Drone Strike in Yemen Was Aimed at Awlaki
By Mark Mazzetti
Published: May 6, 2011
WASHINGTON — A missile strike from an American military drone in a remote region of Yemen on Thursday was aimed at killing Anwar al-Awlaki, the radical American-born cleric believed to be hiding in the country, American officials said Friday.
The recent military action against Osama bin Laden which resulted in his death at least could plausibly be interpreted as an attempt to “capture or kill” the al Qaeda leader. At least that’s the official story, though it is appearing more and more like the capture part of the equation was little more than an after-thought.
“Specific orders were issued to the SEALs… Bin Laden was to be captured, one official said, if he “conspicuously surrendered.”" 1
Opinions may differ about the definition of what constitutes conspicuous surrender. But there can be no doubt about the attack in Yemen. The United States didn’t give Awlaki even the illusion of a chance to surrender. The US flew a military mission over a sovereign nation – a nation with which we are not at war – to attempt to seek out and destroy an American citizen.
The ramifications of this are truly disturbing. It’s one thing to send in commandos to kill/capture a foreign national who has openly declared war on America and who himself claimed responsibility for the most heinous terrorist attack on our soil. It is another thing entirely to fire missiles at one of your own citizens.
I don’t know whether the US actually meant to kill Mr. al Awlaki or merely to send a message. The success rate of drone attacks in targeting individuals is, to date, rather poor. But the fact that they fired missiles at Awlai, a man whose “crimes” appear mainly to center on the fact that he gives fiery and influential sermons, only highlights the increasing willingness of the United States to use extra judicial killing as a means of dealing with its problems.
The attack on Thursday was part of a clandestine Pentagon program to hunt members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, the group believed responsible for a number of failed attempts to strike the United States, including the thwarted plot to blow up a transatlantic jet on Dec. 25, 2009, as it was preparing to land in Detroit.
The blatant speciousness of this paragraph – how can a program be “clandestine” if it appears on the front page of the New York Times – is only overshadowed by what it fails to say. Having identified Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as a recognizable group, one that is “believed responsible” for various and sundry thwarted plots against this nation, the Pentagon now asserts its right to launch seek and destroy missions to, in essence, kill anyone who is even “believed to be an operative of Al Qaeda” – even Americans.
As I have said before on this blog, if a president has cause to believe this nation is under attack he is duty bound to remove the threat. But there is a huge unspoken elephant in the room with regard to the actions against Mr. Awlaki: If the President feels he has the power to assassinate anyone he believes to be a threat to the United States, where does it end?
If the President feels comfortable enough with the idea of extra judicial killing that he will authorize its use to go after an American citizen in Yemen, could not future presidents use this precedent to go outside the law in dealing with other “threats” to the U.S.A.?
At the dawn of our nation, the federalists instituted the Alien and Sedition Act which imprisoned citizens for even criticizing the government. With the killing of bin Laden and the targeting of Awlaki, the Obama Administration seems to be upping the ante. If you give fiery anti-American sermons and incite others to fight violent acts, we will not even bother to capture you, try you, and incarcerate you; we will simply incinerate you.
Obama is a thoughtful man. I have no doubt that he exercised due caution before making this decision to send in a team of Seals to “capture” bin Laden. I wonder, however, if an equal amount of thought went into the drone attack on Awlaki – an act that could conceivably have more far reaching impact on foreign policy than the attack on bin Laden.
The killing of bin Laden was not a surprise to anyone. Even bin Laden himself acknowledged the reality of his situation – as witnessed by the measures he took to remain un-discovered. But the actions against Awlaki represent a huge leap towards the complete abandonment of anything remotely resembling a peaceful, lawful American foreign policy. It says to the rest of the world: if there is anyone in your country – including our own citizens – who we even think may be dangerous, we will kill them by any means at our disposal.
Gone is the illusion of the rule of law. Good bye is due process, Habeas corpus. Forget about Innocent until proven guilty? Fuggedaboutit! If we say you’re dangerous, we will kill you.
Under this policy, there is no limit to the killings that could occur. So I ask again,
Where Does it End?
