At this critical time in our history, we are very lucky that both our president and his killer drones are infallible.
I am surprised at how most of the mainstream media is reacting to the U.S. government’s killing of two American citizens – Muslim cleric Anwar al-Awlaki and magazine editor Samir Khan. (I wrote about the assassination order in a piece for the Christian Science Monitor back in May).
Some of the media reports paint these guys as kingpins, and others merely say they were “linked to” Al Qaeda.
And how much alleged “link” is necessary to justify assassination?
[State Secret redacted here]
I will write more on this shortly – but for the moment – I recommend the following excellent analyses:
Kelley Vlahos: A Dark Day for the Constitution
Ron Paul’s condemnation of the killings
Citizenship is not a factor. The 5th Amendment says “No person … shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process.” that means the U.S. could not kill the Japanese pilots who were bombing Pearl Harbor. The founder sensibly made an exception in cases arising in the “land or naval forces .. in time of war or public danger.” That’s now. There is no constitutional problem with killing al-Awlaki or Khan
Bob, if there’s no constitutional problem with killing Anwar al-Awlaki, then isn’t the Fifth Amendment a dead letter? Who would the Constitution not allow the president to kill?
You know, Jim, mentioning al-Qaeda in a blog post suggests a link.*
No problem. We’ll just wait while you go answer that rather insistent knocking at the door.
*setting aside that whole 6 Degrees Of Separation thing….
Hobbit, the thing that will surely get me on the Hit List is having comments from you on my blog.
Jim, you’re not being seduced by the Dark Side and starting to blame your own self-generated problems on others, are you? Seems to me that being a Central Hub for people like Brian, Claire, and others is enough to get you a 2AM Surprise Party all by itself. Heck, just the “chewing cigars in restaurants but not actually lighting up” thing is probably a capital offense all by itself in your part of the world.
Hobbit, I assume that as long as I have a “Come Back with a Warrant” doormat in front of my entrance, nobody will bother me.
You are SO 19th Century…… 😀
Come Back with a Warrant? Huh? By the time the Special Ops Team shows up at your door, the Secret Panel has already reviewed the secret evidence and found you in violation of secret laws. Any warrant was issued long before then and is classified. Rest assured that the warrant is safe in your secret file.
All of this is conducted with strict adherence to secret guidelines issued by legal experts employed by an undisclosed government agency. Obviously, the government wouldn’t be wasting time on going after innocent people, so you have nothing to worry about – unless you’ve violated one of the secret laws.
Question for The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit: isn’t Bob’s interpretation of the “land or naval forces” exception off kilter? I interpret that clause as referring to people in U.S. land or naval forces.
The “Pearl Harbor” is an analogy fail in any case.
As long as the U.S. government is blowing things up, any bullshit rationale will suffice.
As soon as Bob can trot a “US” into my office so I can shake hands with it, I’ll accept that there’s a “US” that can kill people. Otherwise it’s just, you know, people. And people have the inherent right of self defense against aggression initiated by others, whether it’s Japanese pilots aggressing against Pearl Harbor residents or American troops aggressing in Afghanistan. Somebody tries to kill you, you have every natural right to kill him back.
Killing someone who hasn’t attacked you is called “murder,” unless it’s done by due process (I have qualms about wars and capital punishment, but there’s arguably “due process” involved, so it remains a quibbling grey area for me….) But a preemptive strike? Nuh-uh.
But that’s okay. I’m sure Bob doesn’t care, though I’m sure he’d bitch if it was his wife or boyfriend or favorite sheep killed by a ‘terrorist’ group, screaming about how the murderers were “criminals,” despite the fact that they’d done nothing more (or less) than he gets all warm and fuzzy thinking about being done to them. “American exceptionalist” is just another phrase for “ignorant cowardly sadistic bully.”