Originally published on the CGS blog on October 4, 2011.
Should the U.S. government have the right to use unmanned drone attacks, called targeted killing by some and assassination by others, against our enemies abroad in the war on terror living? Does it make a difference if these targets are U.S. citizens or foreigners? Should an official from the Central Intelligence Agency sitting in Langley, VA, just ten miles from our nation’s capitol, have the ability to operate and pilot armed drones in Pakistan and Yemen, launching attacks before the evidence against their targets has been presented to the American public?
Last Friday, a Central Intelligence Agency-operated drone attacked and killed jihadist Anwar al-Awlaki and several of his associates in a northern province of Yemen. Awlaki, named the “leader of external operations for Al-Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP)” by the Obama administration, is widely believed to have played an instrumental role in several terrorist plots against the United States, including the “Christmas Day bomber” and the Ft. Hood shooting. Awlaki’s death comes in a long line of recent drone attacks that the U.S. has executed against its enemies in Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan and other nations where al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and their affiliates operate, successfully killing many key leaders of these terrorist organizations. There is one characteristic, however, that distinguishes Anwar al-Awlaki from previous objects of the U.S.’s targeted killing operations: he was an American citizen.
Born in New Mexico and a graduate of Colorado State University, Awlaki is the first U.S. citizen to be approved for placement on the U.S. intelligence’s capture or kill list, raising several legal and ethical questions on the legitimacy of such action. Targeted killing of foreign nationals is a controversial issue in its own right, with many activists arguing against its ethicality and legality according to both domestic and international laws. But the fact that Awlaki was an American citizen adds another dimension to questions of constitutionality, as American citizens have a constitutional right to due process and judicial review.
The Obama administration has defended its right to target Awlaki for his role in the terrorism operations of AQAP, stating that Awlaki posed an imminent threat to the security of Americans and was intentionally hiding in Yemen, whose government lacked the ability to arrest or suppress the threat posed by Awlaki. These are two conditions used by the administration in approving an alleged enemy for a drone attack, which they feel permits them to circumvent traditional due process of law.
However, several prominent politicians, such as Republican Presidential nominee Ron Paul and U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), as well as numerous human rights organizations have spoken out against the administration’s violation of a U.S. citizen’s constitutional rights. Representative Kucinich released a statement, claiming that the “extrajudicial killing of Anwar al-Awlaki [is] wrong legally, constitutionally and morally” and sets a “dangerous precedent for U.S. terrorism operations.” He adds criticism, arguing that “intelligence operations that have virtually no transparency, accountability or oversight raise serious legal questions.” In its blog, the ACLU also spoke out against the killing, stating, “It is a mistake to invest the President – any President – with the unreviewable power to kill any American whom he deems to present a threat to the country.”
Anwar al-Awlaki likely inspired and aided terrorism plots intended to kill thousands of Americans and was thus deserving of prosecution by the American government. Still, he was an American citizen, a status that should guarantee certain constitutional rights, namely to have that prosecution carried out according to standard judicial procedures rather than decided secretly by CIA directors. Representative Kucinich and the statement made by the ACLU hit on a key critique against the government’s use of targeted killing: there is little oversight or publication of the information condemning men such as Awlaki, as the administration invokes the “state secrets” doctrine to keep its evidence private. While the targeted killing of U.S. enemies outside the judicial process is problematic by itself, this “unreviewable power” of the American president to essentially assassinate an American citizen abroad without presenting the evidence against such individuals is especially alarming. As Americans, we should hold our government to a higher standard, with a commitment to judicial rights and government transparency as values fundamental to our society. A failure to do so undermines the legitimacy of the American government, both at home and abroad.
Click here for more on CGS’s views on Law and Justice.
