The Onion usually has pretty accurate reporting. Unfortunately, they dropped the ball on this one. This article suggested 28% of Americans are okay with being torn apart by drones; the actual poll numbers suggest it’s closer to 80%.
Tag Archives: Assassination
The Right is Wrong on al-Awlaki: The Martin/Zimmerman Case Proves It
In the past two weeks the death of Trayvon Martin has been unavoidable for anyone consuming U.S. news media. The incident has of course become widely politicized. The left has generally declared, or at least implied, that George Zimmerman is a cold-blooded murderer and racist, while the right has been less quick to issue judgment, admonishing everyone to wait for a trial before issuing a conviction.
It is of course instructive to see how the death of Trayvon Martin has been covered by the media and pundit class, vis. a vis. the deaths of Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. With but a few exceptions, the left ignored their assassinations, as if they would go away. There were exceptions, of course.
The right however praised those murders. Speaking on the senior al-Awlaki, Bill O’Reilly said he was a “vicious terrorist who got exactly what he deserved.” The editors of National Review had no problem with such an arrangement either.
So here we have the progressive left demanding justice for what they see as a clear-cut case, despite little concrete evidence and at the very least, no criminal charges (yet). When virtually the same situation existed last year, such a murder as described above was all but ignored. No protests, no marches, no endless analysis or extended coverage by 24 hour news networks.
On the right, conservatives have been equally inconsistent. Now they’re telling everyone to wait for a trial before jumping to conclusions on Zimmerman’s guilt. But last year all it took was for the president to assure everyone that who he’d chosen to have killed was a really bad guy, and there was no need for a trial. The right seemed to be saying “due process is outmoded; trust the administration, they’ve got this one. But only on this issue, mind you. Everything else they say is a lie, a half-truth, demagoguery, or a political ruse.”
Just don’t call out the right on this one.
But that’s exactly what I did this morning. Greg Knapp was covering both issues, speaking on the Martin/Zimmerman case and reading listener e-mails on the air. One listener declared that al-Awlaki was guilty of treason (despite no actual evidence, charges, trial, conviction, or appeals process). I called in and got through, noting the seeming dissonance from many on the right.
I was told I had it all wrong, that because al-Awlaki was a known terrorist and al-Qaeda member, it wasn’t an assassination, and al-Awlaki didn’t need a trial to be found guilty. The evidence is on the internet. He admitted to being a terrorist.
The logic of such an argument is so flawed it might be humorous were we not discussing death and murder. Of course the constitution is quite clear on the subject of treason: “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”
The 5th Amendment also makes it abundantly clear: “due process of law” is required before any person is “deprived of life, liberty, or property.” In either case a trial must occur.
The government must present two credible witnesses to testify to the act of treason, or the defendant must confess in open court. The fact that the constitution is explicit in this regard seemed to frustrate Knapp. He again told me I was wrong, as if merely saying so makes it factual. I countered by saying I didn’t write the law, someone else did and the states ratified it. Like it or not, that’s the law.
As is standard, I was cut off before I could elaborate. Given the opportunity, I would have argued that if the evidence were so overwhelming in favor of guilt, why didn’t the government just bring charges against Mr. al-Awlaki before having him killed and make a slam dunk case of it? I suspect I would have been told again that I was “wrong.”
…and I said nothing, because I wasn’t a ‘terrorist’…
This morning it was reported that Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both citizens of the U.S., were killed in Yemen by U.S. drones. For nearly two years al-Awlaki was targeted by the Obama administration, which had authorized his assassination, despite not having charged him with any crime, let alone convicted him in a court of law. His father, Nasser al-Awlaki, had filled suit with the DOJ in order to prevent his son’s killing, but a judge dismissed the case on procedural grounds.
Anderson Cooper interviewed Jeffrey Toobin on his show, asking under what legal justification the U.S. could have summarily killed one of its citizens, given a legal ban on assassinations. Toobin’s response was essentially that under the authorization of force, the U.S. is fighting al-Qaeda, and al-Awlaki was a member of al-Qaeda, therefore “this guy was fair game under our laws.” As for the prohibition on assassinations, Toobin says “it’s pretty much irrelevant at this point,” because he argues, “so many presidents have figured out ways around it.”
There is so much here to refute. The authorization of force is not a declaration of war, and therefore military action is not pursuant to the constitution’s delegation of war-making powers. Assuming it was, simply for the sake of argument, where in that bill did it repeal the 5th Amendment? It’s not even clear that he was in fact a member of al-Qaeda, as reported in Der Spiegel. And because no one really follows the rules anyway, so they don’t matter, is hardly a sound argument.
The executive branch and members of the media are assuring us all that he was a bad guy. After all he was a terrorist, you know. He spoke out in support of Nadal Hassan, the military officer accused of killing thirteen soldiers at Fort Bliss. He was said to have supported the efforts of those trying to ship bombs packed inside toner cartridges. The latest reports are that his next plans included the use of chemical weapons.
So what? As cruel and inhuman as it is, praising the deaths of other humans is not the same as committing the crimes against them. Furthermore, there is no evidence that al-Awlaki had anything to do with any other attacks. From watching the news, listening to the radio, and reading reports online, one might gather that reason free from emotion is lost in this country. Just as with Osama bin Laden, no one seems to consider the precedence being set, or the example being shown around the world.
How might Americans react if a Russian aircraft stationed in Mexico routinely launched missiles into a Dallas suburb, in an effort to kill a Russian citizen accused of no crime? What sort of reaction might we expect the families of the murdered to have? Will they praise Americans as just and good, or will they resent their presence, and forever seek vengeance? The questions seem to answer themselves. For more on this topic, see Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com and Michael Ratner of The Guardian.
Update:
I wrote the following comment on an article from the daily beast:
First, they starved the Iraqi people, and I said nothing because I was not Iraqi;
Then, they tortured the Afghans, and I said nothing because I was not an Afghan;
Then, they bombed Pakistan, and I said nothing because I was not from Pakistan;
Then, they killed a “terrorist,” and I said nothing because I was not a “terrorist;”
Then, they came for me….
But that’s not the half of it; it’s far worse. It’s one thing for people to be indifferent to the bloodshed and wanton disregard for justice, but instead they cheer it.
