The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Killing Anwar

Text Size

Kevin Williamson of National Review comes out against the assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki on the grounds that because he is an American citizen, he should not be targeted. Williamson calls Awlaki "an al-Qaeda goon, Islamist propagandist, and general bum," and while he is all of those things, it is relevant to note that he is also a traitor and a commander in a war against the United States.

Williamson posits that "citizenship, even when applied to a Grade-A certified rat like Awlaki, presents an important demarcation, a bright-line distinction in our politics." Drawing this bright line might make sense in a world where treason and/or war did not exist, but in the world we live in, it's an unworkable idea. Targeting enemy commanders -- as when US intelligence learned of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's travel plans and killed him in Operation Vengeance -- is part of warfare. Awlaki has been involved in directing terror attacks against the US. Taking the most efficasious tactical response to the threat he presents off the table is not only a bad idea, it's inconceivable in practice -- in the unlikely event that the ACLU succeeds in its lawsuit to declare Awlaki off-limits for targeting, the inevitable executive response will be to violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the ruling. Hardly a victory for the rule of law.

All that said, I share Williamson's discomfort with a state of affairs where the good faith and competence of the executive is all that prevents an innocent American citizen from being targeted for assassination on a battlefield that spans the world, and there should probably be a statutory check on Presidential authority that requires authorization by an independent body, most likely composed of Article III judges with lifetime tenure. You might think of it as an assassination warrant, which, like an arrest warrant, would serve as a prophylactic against the abuse of executive power. But before we can impose such checks on executive power, we must first acknowledge that, given that American al-Qaeda recruits constitute a very real threat, the troubling power in question is, in fact, necessary.

View all comments (39) | Leave a comment

S.L. Toddard| 9.29.10 @ 6:26PM

there should probably be a statutory check on Presidential authority that requires authorization by an independent body, most likely composed of Article III judges with lifetime tenure

There is. It's called trial by court of law, something to which Americans are entitled by ancient right, and by the Constitution of the United States. And for a charge as serious as treason, for the love of God, it is doubly important that American citizens receive a fair trial.

This argument is demented and sad, and the editors of AmSpec should be ashamed to host such fascist agitprop. Absolutely repulsive.

Interested Conservative| 9.29.10 @ 7:57PM

As many pundits have pointed out, it's Alwaki who is avoiding trial by court of law. All he need do is surrender to the nearest authority.

Lullabys, Legends and Lies| 9.29.10 @ 9:04PM

Toddard: Buddy, pal, so close, and yet "so" far!! 6.5 games back, if only, if only the baseball season were 200 games long, maybe, just maybe, your guys could've pulled it off. But don't feel too bad, there's always next year, right?

Now on a different topic Toddard; have you reserved your seat on the bus for Saturday's big One Nation Union Thug I Hate Everything About America Rally in D.C. yet? I'd love to go too (not really), but I've got training to do. Our upcoming field exercise is based upon blowing up American Traitors/Terrorists in a foreign land, thus saving the American Taxpayer's money on a criminal trial, being that we're currently waging a War on Terrorism. Yeah, yeah, I know, you're not for that at all, but remember, it's only an exercise. I hope you have fun Saturday, and that it doesn't rain on your parade like the Red Sox did!! L.G.Y's!!

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.10 @ 6:04AM

You're supposed to put quotes around the word "War" when you write "War" On Terrorism. It's like the "War" On Drugs. Have fun though.

DRed| 9.29.10 @ 7:38PM

Unreviewable executive assassinations of American citizens make you uncomfortable? They should make you outraged.

Interested Conservative| 9.29.10 @ 7:58PM

What was "unreviewable"? Wasn't there a vote declaring war? Has he surrendered?

C Bowen| 9.29.10 @ 8:37PM

Umm, no.

C Bowen| 9.29.10 @ 8:40PM

To be clear:

re: Wasn't there a vote declaring war?

Umm, no.

DRed| 9.29.10 @ 8:34PM

Obama is asserting he has the right to kill any American citizen he wants to, and that decision is unreviewable by any other branch of the government. That's naked tyranny.

SoCon| 9.29.10 @ 10:20PM

Yeah, I know--and it's a Fascist Liberal like you who is the Tyrant-in-Chief.

Or are you going to try to blame this one on the evil George BOOOOSH, too?

DRed| 9.29.10 @ 10:51PM

Absolutely not.

SoCon| 9.29.10 @ 11:56PM

Just checking.

Old Bull| 9.29.10 @ 8:34PM

S.L. Toddard, given your full-throated advocacy of bringing Awlaki to trial in a court of law, what is your detailed plan to apprehend him? Since you will the end, you must necessarily will the means. C'mon S.L., surely you have a plan, right? How many Rangers or SEALS are you willing to lose in order to apprehend this man so he can have his day in court? And which court, a federal court or a military commission? If he's engaging in acts of war against the U.S., and he's apprehended in a foreign land, why should he get a civil trial? Or are you merely bloviating like all good liberals do?

Chris M| 9.30.10 @ 7:22AM

Unless you view police as somehow less worthy of life than soldiers, then your argument can be applied to every arrest of every criminal.

Either way, every American being innocent of treason until they've had their day in court is clear in purpose and intent.

It ain't a buffet. You want to start selecting portions of the constitution that don't count, how about you offer to take this one and your good liberals get to void the 2nd amendment? Happy with that?

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.10 @ 7:29AM

S.L. Toddard, given your full-throated advocacy of bringing Awlaki to trial in a court of law, what is your detailed plan to apprehend him? Since you will the end, you must necessarily will the means.

I must have a detailed plan for capturing an accused terrorist or else I am barred from noting the fact that American citizens, by law, may not "be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"? Okaaaaay.

Also, I never get tired of the spectacle of pretend-constitutionalists arguing that Obama should be allowed to set aside the Constitution. And murder American citizens! Hahaha. Some anti-statists we have here! I'm sure the establishment is quaking in their boots at the thought of such freedom-loving anti-statists rising up as one and demanding, DEMANDING that Big Government be granted vast, unprecedented powers over the lives of American citizens.

How many Rangers or SEALS are you willing to lose in order to apprehend this man so he can have his day in court?

I'm sorry, but it is not simply this citizen that is the issue. At issue is the right of American citizens to a fair trial before they are killed by their government - a right to which you apparently object. What is it, exactly, about American ideals that you hate so much? Do you really think the systems of Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany were so much better? And please note: I am not arguing that American citizens may not be killed in battle or resisting arrest.

Just to remind everyone: our "conservative" friend "Old Bull" (how apt) loves Barack Obama so much, and trusts him to such a degree, that he believes Barack Obama should have the power to summarily kill American citizens by imperial decree. With no trial.

And which court, a federal court or a military commission?

That depends on what charges he is brought up on.

If he's engaging in acts of war against the U.S., and he's apprehended in a foreign land, why should he get a civil trial?

If he is engaged in acts of war against the US I assume he would be tried for treason.

Chris M| 9.30.10 @ 7:48AM

"If he's engaging in acts of war against the U.S., and he's apprehended in a foreign land, why should he get a civil trial?"

How about on the grounds that they've got a great track record of successful prosecutions, as opposed to the alternate system?

For all the b**ching about giving terrorists criminal trials the track record of each system suspiciously never seems to rate a mention. Unless your objection is on the grounds of seeing less handsome men in uniform, it seems a bit odd. Surely the result is the main concern, no?

Forgetting the fact that the vast majority of terrorist suspects detained and deliberately kept outside of the criminal system have been released without charges back to the middle eastern countries that spawned them, the actual wins on the board for military commissions are what exactly?
Did we get that chauffeur on just time served or was it an extra 6 months we tacked on?

Meanwhile you've got several hundred terrorists in supermax prisons for eternity courtesy of criminal courts. It's almost as though when you'll put a terrorist on trial in America, there's some kind of general theme among the population to not favor giving them a free pass for the hell of it.

Seriously, if you trust courts enough to convict your Bernie Madoffs, to put to death people with sub-80 IQs and convict every other terrorist you've ever heard of who got his day, WTF is your problem?

C Bowen| 9.29.10 @ 8:41PM

This magazine was brave enough to confront the topic of extra-judicial murder during the 90s as it related to three Presidents, including, and especially, Bush I and Clinton.

It's a flip flop to say the least.

Bruce Berger| 9.29.10 @ 8:52PM

As despicable as this guy is, the proper course is to figure out a way to capture him, try him for treason, and then if he is found guilty, put him to death.

C Bowen| 9.29.10 @ 9:09PM

Or, Constitutionally speaking--and it's strange to have to qualify that on an alleged conservative web site but this particular blogger doesn't seem acquainted with our traditions, Congress can pass a bill and a bounty to kill/capture him.

albert constantine jr.| 9.29.10 @ 9:35PM

One can blog ad infinitum (if not doing it already) about the difference between law enforcement and war and the difficulties associated with their commingling. Traditional law enforcement does not allow for tactics such as ambush which are often permissible under the law of war. In warfare, after the initial declaration, one generally does not knock and announce before initiating a raid or attack. Under most circumstances, law enforcement is required to do so. ETC.ETC. I am far from expert on the law of war, but I recall a Congressional authorization for the use of force in the war on terror following the attacks on 091101. This is basically what a declaration of war is. It is my not so closely studied belief that this would allow for the targeting for the use of force (including deadly force, such as a direct hit from a Hellfire missile from a Predator drone) of those identified as enemy combatants, whether they are lawful (declared, in uniform, etc.) or unlawful (hiding out of uniform or in prohibited locations such as hospitals). As I believe this declaration remains in force, my understanding of the Constitutional process is that Congress would have to rescind or alter this in order to limit the powers it authorizes for the executive branch to engage in this.

A Balrog of Morgoth| 9.30.10 @ 1:52AM

Sorry, but an enemy field commander is an enemy field commander. One would think that openly joining a foreign terrorist organization is a de facto renunciation of one's citizenship.

Chris M| 9.30.10 @ 7:54AM

Who are you referring to? The subject of this article has made english translations of propaganda. Unless someone got a promotion that the intel community is unaware of, just try and keep it in the non-fictional ballpark here.

Yosemeti Sam| 9.30.10 @ 2:03AM

There's a saying - better safe than sorry.

Or if that maxim doesn't work for Leftoids:

A dying Spock avers - the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and as Kirk summates: the needs of the one.

Corollary: waste any sucker(s) who would waste American lives!

An understood precept even among the comatose!

SoCon| 9.30.10 @ 2:31AM

What would keep Obama from declaring us terrorists and ordering our assassinations? I wouldn't put anything past this Marxist crew.

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.10 @ 7:32AM

The problem, SoCon, is that unlike Yosemite Sam and his ilk, you do not sufficiently trust President Obama with dictatorial powers.

Perhaps YS would take time to persuade us what it is about President Obama that should lead us all to trust him to the extent that YS himself does? I'm dying to know.

Chris M| 9.30.10 @ 8:04AM

Except it's not really about Obama. It's why do you trust every Democrat President in future with this power.

What's the executive power grab that is tolerated under one President without issue or complaint and then voluntarily handed back by a successor?
The guy wins the office wants to be the most powerful man on the planet. If you think there's a scenario where he offers to tie his own hands once he gets there, you are simply insane.

Bush's hundreds of signing statements could have been about anything mundane or horrific abuses of power. It doesn't matter which or what you thought of Bush. It does matter that these were permitted and tolerated and became the norm.

No matter what you think of the President, the only guarantees are that he's not the worst you've seen yet and that the next one will be able to exploit every abuse you tolerated for his predecessor.

SoCon| 9.30.10 @ 1:52PM

Where are the checks and balances our Founders believed were crucial to good government?

It's too much power for one person, regardless of party affiliation. Obama is especially untrustworthy.

Yosemeti Sam| 10.1.10 @ 1:30AM

Elementary - Watson:

Trust BHO?

BHO?

Trust?

Moi?

Well, yeah - microscopically so!

It is understandable that Leftoids are in consternation over BHO apparently carrying to extreme, adaptationally, THE Alinsky rules:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."

By interpolating said rules, now, militarily, BHO makes one - aghast?

Give credit where credit is - under constraints - due.

BTW, Conan maxims 101 for handling terrorists - burn baby burn!

JimH| 9.30.10 @ 8:28AM

Are we saying anyone, American or not who flees the US to escape prosecution should be fair game for assassination? If so I’d put Roman Polanski on the list. This is not about whether we trust Obama’s judgment. It is whether we should entrust anyone with such power. If you care about America as more than just a place but what it represents you have to be appalled by such an idea. The state is most dangerous when it claims to mean well.

Ken| 9.30.10 @ 9:13AM

"Are we saying anyone, American or not who flees the US to escape prosecution should be fair game for assassination? "

No. We are saying that anyone who is engaged in acts of warfare against the US can be killed by US military force and munitions, whether by bullet, bomb, or Predator. Roman Polanski is not at war with us. Anwar Al-Awlaki is. Therin lies the difference.

JimH| 9.30.10 @ 9:20AM

I will agree that anyone engaged in acts of war against America should be fair game, from the local El Supremo on down. However I do think it should require more than the say so of one person.

Fred Beloit| 9.30.10 @ 9:32AM

So, Americans who are in command positions of Al Qaeda or Taliban operations can't be fired upon? The Army Col. who fired at fellow soldiers, killing many, could not be fired upon, and the security woman who fired at him and struck him should be tried? No American aiding, assisting, or commanding enemy units can be fired upon? Tokyo Rose could not have been fired upon? A committee of judges must immediately be formed and sent to infantry front lines? What kind of librul maddnes is this?

S.L. Toddard| 9.30.10 @ 11:12AM

So, Americans who are in command positions of Al Qaeda or Taliban operations can't be fired upon?

Of course they can.

The Army Col. who fired at fellow soldiers, killing many, could not be fired upon, and the security woman who fired at him and struck him should be tried?

Of course they could be.

No American aiding, assisting, or commanding enemy units can be fired upon?

No, they can be fired upon.

Tokyo Rose could not have been fired upon? A committee of judges must immediately be formed and sent to infantry front lines?

Again, no.

What kind of librul maddnes is this?

The kind that exists only in your fevered delusions, seemingly.

JimH| 9.30.10 @ 10:00AM

You are (deliberately?) misrepresenting what has been said. Do you truly feel comfortable having this or any other President or government official order extra-judicial killings without any kind of review?

JP| 9.30.10 @ 11:06AM

The President can issue a Letter of Marque to a group of mercenaries, and they can do with him as they wish. That is the way it was done in the days of the Caribbean pirates. In both the US and the UK, American and English pirates caused countless problems. The Constitution allows for this. Alwaki is a different case than most. And I myself am a bit leery of our federal government issuing kill orders against US citizens. We all know how our Beltway Masters enjoy the feel of power.

S.L Toddard| 9.30.10 @ 11:23AM

These Caribbean pirates were American citizens?

Paul| 9.30.10 @ 12:47PM

Bounty hunters were considered Constitutional and used in the 19th Century. The provision, "Dead or Alive" was not figurative. I am not aware of the Supreme Court ever declaring either bounty hunters, nor the"Dead" part un-Constitutional. I am not a lawyer, and if wrong please correct me, but it appears to be a very analogous situation. If Anwar will not willing turn him self in for trail, he may be brought in for trial, "Dead of Alive."

Quartermaster| 9.30.10 @ 6:27PM

While in some ways it is heartening that no one is comfortable with targeting Awlaki, we have to face the fact that he is levying war against the US. Since it is his intention to kill as many US citizens as possible, there is only one thing that can be done. Target him and end his life. If he goes to a US embassy and turns himself in, then bring back, give him a fair trial and fine hanging. If doesn't terminate him.

The idea that we have to either let him alone if he doesn't turn himself in, or send the Police after him is a sign of a suicidal mindset. It has been said that liberalism is a philosophy of comfort while the west commits suicide is certainly given a great deal of support when we have people such as those above, who will not face facts. Even domestically, we have dealt with wolves such as John Dillinger along with Bonnie and Clyde with lethal force. Awlaki is no different in that regard. The major difference is that the domestics simply killed as an incidental. Awlaki, OTH, has the stated intention of killing. That one thing places him outside any protection, and well within the obligation, one of the original intents for, of FedGov to defend the citizens of the US.

What will be most telling, however, is that Obama will not do it. The man is a moral coward. That's why he's still in campaign mode nearly two years after his election. He could not possibly care less about his true duties as POTUS. All he cares about is the is loony liberal agenda. Killing Awlaki, even though it is his duty, does not fall inside the limits of his agenda as it won't buy him any moonbat votes.

The constitution is not a suicide pact. Quit treating it as one. Awlaki is at war with us, and war is not a one way street.