Home > Alex Massie

Tuesday 22 May 2012

Obama's Hit Squad: Still Reprehensible

Thursday, 30th September 2010

Andrew Sullivan suggests my concerns about the Obama administration's belief it need not justify the assassination of American citizens are overdone:

[A] single American al Qaeda terrorist in a foreign country actively waging war against us seems to me to be a pretty isolated example. And Obama always said he would fight a war against al Qaeda more ruthlessly than Bush. As he has. I agree that invoking state secrets so comprehensively as to prevent any scrutiny of this is a step way too far. But I do believe we are at war; and that killing those who wish to kill us before they can do so is not the equivalent of "assassination".

These things always begin with "a pretty isolated example". And if a government kills one of its fellow-citizens without seeking any legal mandate for doing so then what is that if it's not an "assassination"? This is not something that is dependent upon the status or salubrity of the victim. The corpse and the authority are what count. al-Awlaki is no kind of good guy but he is an American citizen and, consequently, has rights denied the average al-Qaeda horror-show.

Without wanting to get too far into hypothetical weeds does Andrew think it would be fine and dandy for President Obama to order that an American citizen in, say, Edinburgh, be "extraordinarily rendered" to some hellish middle-eastern regime in which he could be tortured to the point at which he divulges whatever he knows? And would it be ok for the state to tell that American's family that "state secrets" means that the government doesn't even have to say why their husband/father/brother/son has been abducted?

al-Awlaki is, given what we know about him, an enemy of the United States. But is that enough? Does that give the United States government the right to behave as though it were the Galtieri or Pinochet regime? Does the President have the right to "disappear" an American citizen? And if he does have that right does he have the right to refuse to say why that person was disappeared? He claims so.

Enemy of the state? Sure. But how is that so very different from dropping someone out of a helicopter over the atlantic ocean? al-Awlaki may be a rotten case study since he seems to be a vile individual but once you begin with him there is, at least theoretically, no end to this.

As Daniel Larison points out:

This administration is making a claim as broad, absurd and offensive as the Bush administration did when it claimed the authority to declare anyone, including U.S. citizens, enemy combatants. The objection that this power is only going to be used against “those who wish to kill us” trusts that the government is never going to abuse its power and that the government is never going to make a mistake. One of the main reasons why we have due process is the assumption that governments routinely abuse their power and frequently make mistakes. Has the last decade of American history already vanished from our memories?

Probably. Sure, things are made trickier when fellow-passports are involved but that's not enough of a reason to hand the state carte blanche...

UPDATE: Although he doesn't address the citizenship issue, Andy McCarthy's post on this is certainly worth reading. Also Glenn Greenwald.

Filed under: Obama (366 more articles) , War on terror (51 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (7)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Beefeater

September 30th, 2010 7:57am Report this comment

A dialog between theoretical weeds:

“Assassination of American enemies of America abroad? Awfully slippery slope.”
"Would you be less squeamish if a law were passed which automatically strips citizenship from an avowed enemy of the state when he is actively seeking to do harm to the state or its citizens?”
“But what does “avowed” mean?”
“Self -confessed. He makes a tape saying America is evil, I am going to kill Americans. And he takes responsibility for murders.”
“But what if he is being forced at gun point to make the tape? You cannot take the tape as a confession at face value. The presumption of innocence still holds.”
“Good point. And if you think about it, there is nothing un-American in saying America is evil.”
“Al-A has the constitutional right to make those tapes. First amendment free speech, free association and free religious practice. It is also art.”
“And under American law it is very hard to repudiate citizenship. People want to to avoid American taxes. I don’t suppose al-A pays taxes. Maybe the IRS could get him. Like Al-Capone.”
“I agree, once a citizen, always a citizen, whether in Edinburgh or Timbuktu.”
“And it would be wrong to kill any American citizen who chooses to live in places where there is no death penalty, like Edinburgh. That would disrespect another culture.”
“And even worse to render him to a place like Egypt or Libya which does have a death penalty. That would be disrespecting Scottish culture too.”
“Quite. They should prosecute him under Scottish law.”
“Put him in a Scottish jail. Give him a Scottish Life Sentence - of a good stretch and then humanitarian early release. ”
“That sounds fair. Americans can’t just go around making a mockery of life when there’s due process at stake.”
“Care for some burnt bannock and a dash of loo water? "
“Delightful.”

Rhoda Klapp

September 30th, 2010 9:00am Report this comment

I recall that in the midst of a world war, there was a serious debate as to the legality of targetting Admiral Yamamoto. He was of course a serving officer of a foreign power at war with the USA. No such qualms today, evidently.

Conservative Cabbie

September 30th, 2010 10:19am Report this comment

Alex

You don't seem to address the point that America is at war with Al-Qaeda. This guy is not a criminal who should rightfully be given a trial, he is an enemy combatent. It's a ridiculous idea to go round seeking trials for anyone aligned with Al-Qaeda and who put themselves in a war zone.

Just to take a comparison to its furthest limit, Abe Lincoln fought the civil war on the premise that the seceeded states were still part of the United States and therefore by extension every member of the rebel army was an American citizen. I suspect you wouldn't be writing the same post in 1862.

Thankyou for highlighting Andy McCarthy's piece on this, he's right when he says:

"but there’s no empirical cause for alarm regarding this country’s practices"

We are talking about one person serving alongside Al-Qaeda. We aren't talking about an American in Edinburgh, nor is there any suggestion that we will be.

ndm

September 30th, 2010 6:00pm Report this comment

Conservative Cabbie writes:

-- We aren't talking about an American in Edinburgh, nor is there any suggestion that we will be.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. We know that the CIA kidnapped someone off the streets of Milan to have him tortured in Egypt.

The Italians quite correctly prosecuted the CIA agents. If Conservative Cabbie's opinion is typical I doubt the British Government would defend its national sovereignty were the US to kidnap or even kill someone on the streets of Britain.

Rhoda Klapp

September 30th, 2010 6:35pm Report this comment

ndm, we have our own police to kill people on our streets, without trial and without repercussions, apparently. Sometimes someone you are damn sure is a british subject of middle eastern origin and a terrorist turns out to be a brazilian electrician.

Conservative Cabbie

September 30th, 2010 11:01pm Report this comment

ndm/Rhoda

And sometimes they turn out to be IRA terrorists in Gibraltar. A great many lives were probably saved that day, with no great loss to humanity

Rhoda Klapp

October 1st, 2010 9:42am Report this comment

Cabbie, don't tell me those guys in Gib (for whom I care little) could not have been taken alive. Or that they all had remote detonators in their hands. That was a policy execution. Just because it is sometimes a good result does not make it right. But I'm not siding with Alex on this either. I'd say you must do it legally, now go and find, or pass, a law that works. Something in the piracy conventions maybe?

Post comment