In the constant tug-of-war between balancing civil liberties and keep America safe, the United States government has taken a lot of flak over the apparent sanctioned assassination of American-born Islamist militant Anwar Al-Awlaki. Who knew it would be such a hassle for President Barack Obama to kill one terrorist? And more importantly, who else is sick and tired of the American Civil Liberties Union protecting the rights of every terrorist they deem “innocent”?
On Sept.30, two drones shot Hellfire missiles at Al-Awlaki, who was riding in a vehicle in Yemen with other suspected terrorists in an attack sanctioned by the Obama administration. Al-Awlaki — originally born in New Mexico — was a mouthpiece and contact for Islamic fundamentalists for the last 20 years, and had dealings with an assortment of various miscreants ranging from several 9/11 hijackers to Fort Hood shooter Nidal Malik Hasan. From various websites and through other means of communication, Al-Awlaki became known as the “bin Laden of the Internet,” according to U.S.A. Today, and President Obama dubbed him one of the leaders of al-Qaeda.
Al-Awlaki, who, through an Internet posting last year had called on Muslims to kill Americans “without hesitation,” had been described by the New York Police Department’s Counterterrorism Division as “the most dangerous man in the world.” In light of all of this, why was there any question at all to whether this man deserved to continue breathing?
As soon as Al-Awlaki was placed on a targeted killing list, his father, Nasser Al-Aulaqi, contacted the A.C.L.U. and decided to sue the United States government. Yes, you read that right: the American Civil Liberties Union agreed to represent the father of a known terrorist operative and figurehead in a lawsuit against the country of which the man considered himself to be his enemy. If that’s not irony for you, I don’t know what is.
In the end, Judge John D. Bates dismissed the suit, but it makes me sick that the judicial system has to even waste its time on cases like this. What should have been a black-and-white operation by the U.S. government to rid the world of another terrorist has turned into a major debate.
According to the New York Times, a memorandum was written up a year before Al-Awlaki’s death, which debated the legality of killing an American citizen who had since taken up arms with the enemy. Continually pressed by the public and lobby groups to release a document detailing “why officials deemed it lawful to kill an American citizen,” the government remains steadfast in that it did the right thing, which clearly it did.
This shouldn’t even be an issue. The man had dealings with terrorists and was a figurehead in the jihadist movement and he won’t be mourned. But according to many scholars and pundits, the entire ordeal has raised questions over law, civil liberties, and rights of citizens who commit treason.
In one of the most ironic twists in the case, it was even questioned whether the operator of the drone who fired the missile from a command center was committing a war crime because he wasn’t wearing a soldier’s uniform.
This case reminds us of the endless bureaucracy that takes place in even the most mundane killing of an enemy combatant. One of the government’s main jobs is to protect its citizens from threats at home and abroad and Obama was doing just that. The covert operation should have been met with rounds of applause, not lawsuits and debate from scummy lawyers and loudmouths. That’s one hell of a way to thank the president for doing his job.
Gerry Wachovsky is a graduate student and columnist for the Daily 49er.
Disclaimer: The Daily 49er is not responsible for Postings made on www.daily49er.wpengine.com. Persons commenting are solely responsible for Postings made on this website. Persons commenting agree to the Terms of Use of the website. If Postings do not abide by the Rules of Conduct or Posting Regulations as listed in the Postings Policy, the Daily 49er has all rights to delete Postings as it deems necessary. The Daily 49er strongly advises individuals to not abuse their First Amendment rights, and to avoid language suggestive of hate speech. This site also encourages users to make Postings relevant to the article or other Postings.
