Recent revelations regarding a “death list” of so-called high value al-Qaeda suspects (including U.S. citizens in some instances) targeted for assassination on the say-so of the Executive branch has raised several thorny ethical, legal and Constitutional questions with respect to the attempt to counter transnational terrorist organizations.
While a blanket grant of authority to the Executive branch to use military means against any and all individuals (both U.S. citizens and non-citizens) that it labels ”terrorists” regardless of their then-current location is an overly broad, and ultimately dangerous standard to establish, at the same time, there are certain legitimate uses of military force against known terrorists that pose a threat to the U.S. and that remain outside the reach of U.S. law enforcement.
In the case of al-Qaeda, the fact that Congress has authorized the Executive to use military force is significant. The fact that military force has been limited to those regions beyond the reasonable reach of U.S. law enforcement is also relevant. However, questions remain regarding the evidentiary standard applied, and the organ of government applying it. To appoint the Executive branch as judge, jury and executioner invites abuse. Yet shutting down the ability to use military strikes in any and all settings may also be overly restrictive.
Ideally, there should be a clear evidentiary standard codified, and an outside adjudicator appointed in order to apply checks on the awesome power being delegated (like a FISA court of sorts, but with a higher threshold considering the disparate impact of surveillance as opposed to death or serious bodily injury). This judicial oversight should apply to both U.S. citizens and non-U.S. citizens (with exceptions made for battlefield encounters, which is a different scenario than a calculated, methodical attempt at assassination). Further, use of force should should be limited to those settings beyond the reasonable reach of U.S. law enforcement.
One of the U.S. citizens cited as appearing on the “death list,” thus far the most visible face attached to the controversy, is Anwar al-Awlaqi, born in New Mexico to parents of Yemeni descent. He is accused of supporting al-Qaeda’s efforts at recruiting operatives, and heretofore, he and his family have denied these charges. However, he hasn’t done himself any favors in a recent Al-Jazeera interview (via the Majlis). Some excerpts:
The Western media says that you are ‘inspiring’ Muslims in the US and the West. Is this an exaggeration?
I have said in an earlier interview with Al Jazeera’s Yusri Fouda that the United States is a tyrant, and tyrants across history have all had terrible ends. I believe the West does not want to realise this universal fact. Muslims in Europe and America are watching what is happening to Muslims in Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, and they will take revenge for all Muslims across the globe.
Note the non-denial. Not exactly reminscent of an attempt to set the record straight given the stakes.
Have you met Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab and did you issue a fatwa [a religious edict] allowing him to carry out the operation?
My fellow mujahid [a Muslim engaged in jihad] Umar Farouk, may Allah free him, is one of my students, and yes there was some contact between me and him, but I did not issue a fatwa allowing him to carry out this operation.
You have supported Nidal Malik Hasan and justified his act by saying that his target was a military not a civilian one. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab’s plane was a civilian one, which means the target was the US public?
It would have been better if the plane was a military one or if it was a US military target. Al-Qaeda organisation has its options, and the American people live [in] a democratic system and that is why they are held responsible for their policies.
The American people are the ones who have voted twice for Bush the criminal and elected Obama who is not different from Bush as his first remarks stated that he would not abandon Israel, despite the fact that there were other anti-war candidates in the US elections, but they won very few votes. The American people take part in all its government’s crimes.
If they oppose that, let them change their government. They pay the taxes which are spent on the army and they send their sons to the military, and that is why they bear responsibility.
While he displays a slight preference for attacking military targets, he avers emphatically that U.S. civilians are legitimate targets by virtue of the fact that they live in a democracy and pay taxes, and can ultimately change their government if they wish to dissent (no word on dissenting voters). This is the same rationale employed by bin Laden and al-Qaeda proper.
Even if we are still relying, unwisely, on the good faith of the executive branch in assessing evidence before green-lighting military strikes, al-Awlaqi seems intent on providing the hangman with some rope for the noose.
Related posts:
recent comments