|
|
According to the Fifth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution, Americans are never to be deprived of life, liberty or
property without due process of law. The Constitution is not some
aspirational statement of values allowing exceptions when convenient, but
rather it is the law of the land. It is the basis of our Republic and our
principal bulwark against tyranny.
Last week, the assassination of two
American citizens, Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan,
is an outrage and a criminal act carried out by the President and his
administration. If the law protecting us against government-sanctioned
assassination can be aborted when there is a really bad American, is there
any meaning left to the rule of law in the United States? If, as we learned
last week, a secret government committee not subject to Congressional
oversight or judicial review, can now target certain
Americans for assassination, under what moral authority do we presume to
lecture the rest of the world about protecting human rights? Didn’t we
just bomb Libya into oblivion under the auspices of “protecting”
the civilians from being targeted by their government?
Timothy McVeigh was certainly a threat,
as were Nidal Hassan and Jared Lee Loughner. They killed people in front of many witnesses.
They took up arms against their government in a literal way, yet were still
afforded trials. These constitutional protections are in place because our
Founders realized it is a very serious matter to deprive any individual of
life or liberty. Our outrage against even the obviously guilty is not worth
the sacrifice of the rule of law.
Al-Awlaki has
been outspoken against the United States and we are told he encouraged
violence against Americans. We do not know that he actually committed any
acts of violence. Ironically, he was once invited to the Pentagon as part of
an outreach to moderate Muslims after 9/11. As the U.S. attacks against
Muslims in the Middle East and Central Asia expanded, it is said that he
became more fervent and radical in his opposition to U.S. foreign policy.
Many cheered his killing because they believe that in a time of war, due
process is not necessary, not even for citizens, and especially not for those
overseas. However, there has been no formal declaration of war, and certainly
not one against Yemen. The post-9/11 authorization for force would not have
covered these two Americans because no one is claiming that they had any
connection to that attack.
Al-Awlaki was
on a kill list compiled by a secret panel within President Obama’s
National Security Council and Justice Department. How many more American
citizens are on that list? They won’t tell us. What are the criteria?
They won’t tell us. Where is the evidence? They won’t tell us.
Al-Awlaki’s father tried desperately to get
the administration to at least allow his son to have legal representation to
challenge the kill order. He was denied. Rather than give him his day in
court, the administration, behind closed doors, served as prosecutor, judge,
jury and executioner.
The most
worrisome aspect of this is that any new powers this administration accrues
will serve as precedent for future administrations. Even those who completely
trust this administration must understand that if this usurpation of power
and denial of due process is allowed to stand, these powers will remain to be
expanded on by the next administration and then the next. Will you trust
them? History shows that once a population gives up its rights they are not
easily won back.
|
|
