From NYT:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has taken the extraordinary step of authorizing the targeted killing of an American citizen, the radical Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki, who is believed to have shifted from encouraging attacks on the United States to directly participating in them, intelligence and counterterrorism officials said Tuesday.

Mr. Awlaki, who was born in New Mexico and spent years in the United States as an imam, is in hiding in Yemen. He has been the focus of intense scrutiny since he was linked to Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Army psychiatrist accused of killing 13 people at Fort Hood, Tex., in November, and then to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man charged with trying to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner on Dec. 25.

Grant Brissey covered everything from hard news and technology, to music, film, and visual arts during his time working for The Stranger. Grant's work has also appeared at Geekwire, and in Billboard,...

28 replies on “U.S. Authorizes Targeted Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki”

  2. If he steps out onto a street corner with a cell phone he will apparently be fair game under existing rules of engagement, so why the need for some special authorization? Hmm. Maybe you need to have a cameraman near you for that to apply.

  4. Some interesting points:

    1. The CIA can apparently kill anyone so long as they ask for permission first.

    2. The ban on political assassinations, signed into law by President Gerald Ford, can be circumvented so long as you place your enemies on a special list that you create.

    Seriously, what is the point of having a criminal justice system if the government can simply give itself permission to kill its own citizens?

  5. @4 Technically, if he’s an enemy officer (which he essentially is, in a time of war) that’s not a political assassination. At all. That would be like calling the military taking out a high-ranking Nazi officer in WW2 and us calling it a “hit”.

    And there goes Godwin.

  6. I understand this doesn’t quite qualify as a political assassination @5, but it was mentioned in the full article and I found it interesting enough to repeat here. What really terrifies me is that our own government can order our execution without due process; no trial, no jury, just a bullet to the head in broad daylight, and it’s all legal. I didn’t know that before today.

  7. Honestly, my only problem with this is the NYT’s deplorable policy of using — or repeating — the phrase “targeted killing.” And the standard for “targeting” isn’t even all that specific. They use the same phrase when an Israeli attack helicopter fires a rocket into a house full of kids in an attempt to kill one militant.

    At best, it’s an assassination. Call it that.

  10. America…
    America…..

    America, FUCK YEAH!
    Comin’ again to save the motherfuckin’ day, yeah,
    America, FUCK YEAH!
    Freedom is the only way, yeah,

    Terrorist, your game is through,
    ’cause now you have to answer to,
    America, FUCK YEAH!
    So lick my butt and suck on my balls,
    America, FUCK YEAH!
    Whatcha’ gonna do when we come for you now?

    It’s the dream that we all share,
    It’s the hope for tomorrow
    America, FUCK YEAH!

  12. “Targeted killing?” “Assassination?” How about “murder.” I’ve got enough of a problem with the government killing its own citizens when there’s a judge and jury involved. That sure as hell isn’t happening here.

  13. the “loony left” — people can shoot at us, but we can’t shoot back. “Dear Taliban regime in Afghanistan, could you please go prosecute Al queda? They killed 3000 of us. Thank you. LEt us knw when the trial is we would like to go to the courtroom and observe your system of justice.”
    “Dear Yemen: this guy in your nation is shooting at us. Can we please ask you to kindly pick him up and place him in your system of justice? We would like to bring over soem American victims to testify in front of your judge and jury to make sure he gets a long sentence, or at least, his fine is at leat 3 donkeys and two chickens.”
    “Dear Hamas: Seems like your folks are shooting rockets into Israel. Would you please prosecute them for killing Israeli children? Oh, you say that’ you the government shooting the rockets and you think Israeli children al deserve to die? Oh well I guess we’re going to file a civil suit against you here in Tel Aviv for defamation of all Jewish children, because thhey’re not actually vermin. We trust you will respond to our subpoena and pay any damages of course.”
    “Dear police officers: If you see Maurice Clemons going for his gun, please do not shoot him! We’re sposed to be civilized and that means giving him a judge and jury trial — even if he’s shooting at us. No, your job is just to die, too bad for you!”

  14. Honestly, I’m glad it’s in the Times. I’m reasonably certain the CIA has been killing pretty much whoever it wants for a while now; making it public is a step in the right direction.

  15. So now it’s OK not only to kidnap American citizens and hold them for years without charges or trial, but also to just go ahead and murder them ’cause some incompetent fuckwit at the CIA says they’re a terrahist?

    Heckuva Change, Hopey!

  16. “No person shall be…deprived of life…without due process of law.” Excerpted from the 5th Amendment to the US Constitution.
    Waiting for Rob McKenna and the tea-baggers to freak about this.

  17. I suppose it’s not surprising that the NYT doesn’t bother to ask anyone whether it’s a good idea to give anonymous government functionaries the authority to order murders on command.

  18. If he’s in Yemen fighting against an allied government, then he’s pretty much at war with the state. He’s probably gonna get killed by the Yemenite forces anyway.

  20. @5 “Technically, if he’s an enemy officer”

    No, technically, he’s not. That’s what innocent until proven guilty means. That’s what the 5th Amendment (due process) MEANS.

    If you’re okay with having him killed, then you must think it’s fair if the government decides that you’re a terrorist and goes after you. So you’re okay with that. Keeping in mind that the government would not have to produce any evidence, present it in court to an impartial judge or jury, or back up their claims in any way at all. Also keeping in mind that it’s not clear who would make the decision, nor if there is any accountability at all for that decision.

    I will propose that your problem – you amoral fucktard – is an empathy gap. You don’t see this as a big deal because you can’t imagine it happening to you or anyone you know. But the only thing that prevents it from happening to you is due process and the Constitution – which applies to all of us, or to none of us.

  21. Well-said, @21. I’m really getting tired of having Presidents who think the Constitution applies to everyone but them.

  23. @22 I’m getting tired of people talking about the Constitution as if it only means one thing. This kill order may be illegal — I don’t have time to study all the history around these things — but there are dozens of situations where state officials are allowed to use deadly force against American citizens without a trial. Even in the Washington State law,

    1) Homicide or the use of deadly force is justifiable in the following cases. . . . [w]hen necessarily used by a peace officer or person acting under the officer’s command and in the officer’s aid. . . . [t]o arrest or apprehend a person who the officer reasonably believes has committed, has attempted to commit, is committing, or is attempting to commit a felony. . . . [T]he peace officer must have probable cause to believe that the suspect, if not apprehended, poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officer or a threat of serious physical harm to others. Among the circumstances which may be considered by peace officers as a “threat of serious physical harm” are the following:
    …
    (b) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has committed any crime involving the infliction or threatened infliction of serious physical harm.
    …
    Under these circumstances deadly force may also be used if necessary to prevent escape from the officer, where, if feasible, some warning is given.

    The Fifth Amendment preserves the right to life contingent on due process considerations; until a federal court says otherwise, this kind of procedurally rigorous assassination order falls within the bounds of due process. I, for one, think we need a court ruling on this — and I’m not sure the Court should allow it — but for the time being it’s basically legal under domestic law.

    As to international law — the Israelis did this during Operation Wrath of God. The British did it in their Gibraltar colony against the IRA.

    Politically, I think arresting them and bringing them home for trial is a more powerful move. The whole world remembers remembers Eichman. Pretty much nobody (except the Palestinians and the Israelis) remembers Hussein Al Bashir. So as far as that goes, these kinds of assassinations are a wasted opportunity. At a minimum.

Comments are closed.