The recent death of U.S.-born, anti-American Islamic cleric Anwar al-Awlaki at first blush seemed standard operating procedure in the war on terror waged by the U.S.
But it did not take long for it to turn into a debate over the constitutional rights afforded U.S. citizens who leave the country to pursue the agenda of terrorism couched in religious fervor.
Al-Awlaki died at the hands — rather wings — of a robotic assassin with a nod from President Barak Obama.
Interestingly, but understandably, the catcalls for the president have come from his liberal constituents, not from Republicans.
Indeed, even former Vice President Dick Cheney defended Obama’s decision to mark al-Awlaki for death.
Terrorists do not enjoy protection from the Constitution, many believe. But al-Awlaki was a U.S. citizen, and death by drone raises questions about due process and the right to a fair trial.
Obama supporters say that Congress gave the president the authority to do it — in fact that happened during the President George W. Bush administration after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The counter-argument of course is that Congress cannot sidestep the Constitution when it comes to the Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”
Drone attacks have enjoyed a fair amount of success in eliminating “the bad guys,” the record shows.
But the dynamic changes when they kill Americans, who by law, deserve to hear charges and face accusers in a courtroom.
Again, the terror game creates a legal gray area, and one that many believe poses more harm than good to America and its standing as a world leader for human rights.
Resources:
- http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2011/…
- http://www.alan.com/2011/09/30/…
- http://blogs.scientificamerican.com cross-check/…
- http://www.truthistreason.net/due-process-drones/…
- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/laura-colarusso/…
- http://www.historynet.com/drones/…
- http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/…
- http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/…
As far as enemy combatants go, I'm pretty sure someone shooting at you on the battlefield would be classified as one, and, as such, should not be mirandized and given the rights of a US citizen, which is what Obama, the Commander in Chief, has odered.
Thanks for the reply. I can agree on that definition of an enemy combatant. But in the case of the drone attack, that's not what we are talking about. There is a fine line between where constitutional rights begin and end. It seems to me that if the Supreme Court ruled non-citizens and alleged terrorists have the right to face their charges in a court of law, certainly a U.S. citizen would. I am not defending terrorism. I am wondering if we ought to consider the door opened when we sanction killing citizens — alleged terrorists or not. Best- Mac
When you've been treating non-citizen enemy combatants like citizens, as Eric Holder and Barack Obama have done, it's not a huge leap from there to treating citizens like non-citizens. That's exactly what's happened here.
Thanks for the post. I am curious about the term "enemy combatants." When was this term created and by whom? And who determines if someone is an "enemy combatant," a judge? Just wondering. Mac
terrorists should never be afforded the comfort of our constitution. they kill innocents and are not deserving of our precious protections and freedoms.
It seems that if we selectively choose what citizens are afforded constitutional rights, then the rights become meaningless to all of us. It seems that a serial murdered might be called a domestic terrorist, but if arrested, the murderer would face charges and stand trial. If the police simply killed the serial murderer, many folks would be happy, but many others would say, "We live in a police state." The rule of law is the rule of law, and the Constitution is the Constitution. I have written before about how convenient it is for us to choose to embrace the Constitution when its precepts suit our needs and ignore the Constitution when it does not. Thanks for taking the time to post. Best- Mac
Post new comment